pull down to refresh

17 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 30 Sep \ parent \ on: What about Bitcoin are you too embarrassed to admit you still don't understand? bitcoin
Perhaps inherent value is the wrong term. With your clarification, I'd just say value.
write
preview
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 Sep
That makes it easier then to compare I think...
Stones/shells didn't start out as money, but people collected them for ornamental purposes, then money emerged from that bootstrapping by mineral spergs
Bitcoin started out as a toy collectible much in the same way, even though it was designed as money, value still had to emerge from an otherwise valueless ornament for spergs
reply
17 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 30 Sep
The toy collectible thing is my favorite answer to this question. All the other moneys that started that way didn't do too well in the long run though, but perhaps this initial value thing is independent of a money's trajectory.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 Sep
Yes I look at it as it was designed to make the jump from toy to money, it couldn't be money day 0 because money is emergent
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 30 Sep
Perhaps spergs can see the inherent value in things normies take longer to see. Like the first predetermined and strictly limited total issuance of any commodity in the known universe.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 30 Sep
Guaranteed, no normie would find a chunk of gold and flatten it into a disc for barter.
reply