more like a language than a commodity. A word has value because speakers agree on its meaning, not because someone decreed it or because it's physically scarce
This language comparison is good.
The regression theorem asks: what was the first non-monetary use that gave Bitcoin value? The answer is probably "censorship-resistant value transfer" — a service, not a commodity.
This one is tricky because of the fact that how was their a transfer of value in the first place. It's a chicken egg question. Also, censorship resistance is dependent on adoption as well. If the network is small it can be censored more easily. I would say eliminating double spend problem but I think it has the same issue.
But these both point to the network being the value, at least the critical one. The one that if you remove it the tech can fail.
The more I think about it bitcoin is just different and that's very interesting.
To be fair, Bob admits he's still thinking this through towards the end. I do know that I'm not well schooled in econ enough for this one but feel like I understand the tech of bitcoin well enough to know it seems to break down these categories.
This language comparison is good.
This one is tricky because of the fact that how was their a transfer of value in the first place. It's a chicken egg question. Also, censorship resistance is dependent on adoption as well. If the network is small it can be censored more easily. I would say eliminating double spend problem but I think it has the same issue.
But these both point to the network being the value, at least the critical one. The one that if you remove it the tech can fail.
The more I think about it bitcoin is just different and that's very interesting.
To be fair, Bob admits he's still thinking this through towards the end. I do know that I'm not well schooled in econ enough for this one but feel like I understand the tech of bitcoin well enough to know it seems to break down these categories.