That’s the previous commenter’s point, isn’t it? The crypto advocates claim that crypto has intrinsic value simply because of its scarcity (supply-side only). The commenter’s rebuttal is that if this were true, their kid’s doodles would be extremely valuable, yet they are not because only the parent treasures them (demand-side).

With gold, one can come up with a plausible story for the demand side of the argument that it has intrinsic value: gold’s combination of beauty and scarcity has made it a potent status symbol across many eras and cultures (not to mention its industrial uses).

With crypto, it’s much harder to imagine what the demand side of the story is. There’s a finite supply of Bitcoin, and people demand it because… well, it’s not because they can pay for anything with it. They mostly seem to demand it because they believe someone else will pay them more for it in the future. And what do we call it when an asset has nothing going for it besides that hope?

I’m still waiting for a compelling story about why demand for Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will persist beyond the current vogue, which is driven by the notion that “it’s gonna be huge in the future”. How long can people keep the faith, and what happens to demand if and when they stop?

Bitcoin is the first (and most stable) theoretically unseizable currency. You can store bitcoin in your brain, get persecuted by your national government for criticizing their actions, travel across a border, get kidnapped, offer up a decoy wallet, get released 3 years later, wander into a town with an internet cafe, and theoretically, you could have access to your funds within hours, without the consent of or dependence on any other centralized entity.

Is this a fantasy that few if any people will ever utilize? Sure.

Is it also super cool? I think so.

I think the main demand of bitcoin is "money that isn't subject to federal reserve policy". No fiat currency in the world is effectively accomplishing that today.

(Note: I had to stop using brainwallets three bubbles ago because I had recurring nightmares of getting a brain injury and losing access to my funds. Don't recommend it.)

>Bitcoin is the first (and most stable) theoretically unseizable currency

This is an absolute farce. Maybe talk to us when there are no longer reports of being able to easily scam someone out of all of their money with a non-reversable transaction just by sending them an image with a script in it.

Name a currency that scammers don't get fools to part with.

At least with fiat currency you have a chance of getting the transaction reversed! Most people will not trust a currency where this is not possible, or at least they will hold it with a centralized trusted custodian who can offer transaction reversal—which defeats the purpose!

That isn't a property of fiat currency, that's a property of the bank/credit card you use.

Someone could make a service with delayed settlement that is denominated with Bitcoin, and it would work just the same.

If you pay someone with a $100 bill, your only recourse is to ask for them to return it: the same as Bitcoin.

Sure, but there’s no way for the delayed settlement mechanism to handle fuzzy real-world judgment calls (such as a dispute about whether a service was rendered or not) without resorting to a centralized oracle of some sort—and then you’ve broken trustlessness and may as well have avoided blockchain altogether and saved yourself the transaction fees.

Emphasis on the "theoretically", I think.

A number in your head is portable. So with the exception of the 'border crossing' use case, I agree they are functionally the same thing.

I suspect a lot of more of the 0.1% have gold hidden than many would expect. I've met two eccentric 100 millionaires that advocated for hiding gold as a wealth preservation mechanism. I think this is becoming the primary non-trading use case for Bitcoin - met both of those individuals through conversations about crypto.

I have contended that the only use for cryptocurrency which provides value for people is for anonymous transactions for which cash is not an option or a poor option. The only cryptocurrency that can do this that I know of is Monero. Therefore Monero will have lasting value. Whether you can make money speculating on it is dubious, which is probably why not many people do.

* Note: I am speaking regarding the markets I know; I cannot say anything regarding economies suffering rapid inflation or which lack access to banking

Except that holding Monero is of rather less clear value. Sure, the ability to take $100, turn it into Monero, and turn it back into almost $100 that cannot be trivially traced to the original $100 is of some value. But this value is there for people who have no particular interest in Monero-the—asset. They want Monero-the-mixer.

If I put $100 into Monero and hold it, I’m betting that Monero is still worth something in the future. That’s a risky bet. For example, the Treasury department could sanction Monero. Or the next great mixer could come along and supplant Monero, making my old Monero mostly useless.

The whole point of currency is to use it. If you are buying a currency to hold on to it, then it is a terrible currency and there is a disincentive to use it as one, thus making it useful only for speculation. I know that there was a pivot when people realized Bitcoin and Ether are not practical for their purported use as currencies, where they are now claimed to 'hold value', but that is ridiculous. They were designed to be currencies and they suck at it. You can make up any reason you want, but if you want a cryptocurrency that has value as a currency then in my view Monero is an example of one, because it has a valued use case.

ON the international currency market, one traditional role of the US dollar is exactly "store value". You trade your currencies on the FX market during your day, and comes close to "close of your trading", you exchange all your positions for US dollars, to keep in store for your quiet period. Comes the following day, you trade out your dollars for other currencies. Then the cycle continues.

Does this mean that the US dollar is a terrible currency? No. If another currency meets the same stability criterion, it can (and probably is) used as a short-to-medium term value store.

I don't really see any crypto-currency work well, they're thinly traded, so there's a lot of inherent volatility in the pricing. It is also getting increasingly harder to exchange crypto-currencies for more traditional currencies.

> ON the international currency market, one traditional role of the US dollar is exactly "store value". You trade your currencies on the FX market during your day, and comes close to "close of your trading", you exchange all your positions for US dollars, to keep in store for your quiet period.

Come again? The international currency market doesn’t really close overnight, and the people who store value in USD are generally Americans or other people or entities who generally store value as USD.

And that latter part is the whole point. When you save up for retirement, or plan your business, or prepare a balance sheet, or plan for a college education, everything is denominated in dollars (or your local currency).

If you want to store money for any future use, you want an asset that has a somewhat predictable return relative to the dollar. If you are a drug dealer who collected $1M (in USD or its equivalent in Bitcoin, Monero, casino chips, whatever), you may well launder or mix it through something else, but your goal is to end up with approximately $1M for when you want to buy more wholesale drugs, pay employees, buy a fancy yacht, etc. Storing $1M as Monero is making a huge bet that it will still be worth $1M when it’s needed.

> ON the international currency market, one traditional role of the US dollar is exactly "store value".

I do know that 'store of value' is the term I used, but it is in reference to the people who hold Bitcoins in expectation of rising price, and the fact that they would claim it 'stores value' while being extremely volitile is indicative of their lack of understanding or their lack of honesty in representing their motives.

People who shelter their dollars overnight are most likely not expecting a return on it.

> The whole point of currency is to use it. If you are buying a currency to hold on to it, then it is a terrible currency and there is a disincentive to use it as one, thus making it useful only for speculation.

Tell that to anyone who saves money for any purpose. They may not literally hold USD in their private Fed account or as cash under a pillow, but they are nonetheless storing dollars (as bonds, money markets, savings accounts, etc).

I think you misunderstood my point. Holding on to currency and expecting it to increase in value is terrible for the economy because it stops economic activity. People don't buy dollars because they will be worth more later -- they buy them because if they need to they can use them. Also, bonds are not dollars, they are bonds.