> This would not change even if an entire country used it (putting aside that it is not technically capable of doing so).

This is the point you need to expand on. When I asked what the difference between bitcoin and the dollar is, you said the defining difference is that the dollar is used by a country. So if that's not the difference what is?

If bitcoin was adopted, would it not also represent a unit of the economy?

Does your argument boil down to "it's not officially backed by country therefor it cannot serve as a medium of exchange"? If so I ask you WHY that prevents it from being a medium of exchange?

I really don't follow the "negative sum" argument. It seems like that applies to every currency, so it's kind of an irrelevant point

It is not that it is USED by a country. It is that it is an INTEGRAL PART of the country's economic policy. The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency.

Bitcoin is not managed this way. It has rules set in stone it follows entirely on its own, without external input. This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it. This is entirely unlike a national currency.

> The country can, as part of managing its economy, also manage the currency.

You think a requirement for currency is that the country using it can manage it? What about all the non-US countries that use the dollar? They absolutely cannot manage their currency. What about in the past when the US and others were on the gold standard? There are a million counterexamples.

And again, let me reiterate (because it seems we're drifting away from the point here) that we were originally discussing whether bitcoin was "negative sum". I'm telling you that if it has utility (like any other currency) there is value being created.

> This means it exists in isolation, unaffected by whatever economic activity takes place around it.

I don't really know what that means, everything is subject to outside economic forces.

They moved away from the gold standard for some pretty good reasons. And countries don't use other currencies unless they are in a very bad position and have no other choice. Bitcoin is gleefully copying all the bad features of these kinds of systems, and not really any of the benefits.

And I have explained why it is negative sum. It is an exceedingly simple system and easy to analyse. There is no value creation involved at any point. Any value creation happens outside of the bitcoin economy.

There are only three factors:

1. People putting real money into markets. 2. People taking real money out of markets. 3. Exchanges taking a cut of that real money.

Nothing else involves actual value.

The combination of 3 and the fact that miners are allowed to do 2 without transferring any value in means that for the reason of the users, the sum is negative.