pull down to refresh

tldr; A common bitcoin criticism is, "It's not backed by anything." Well, the thing is, bitcoin is the thing.
One of the most common criticisms of bitcoin is the line, "Bitcoin isn't backed by anything." Years ago I was at a semi-social thing hosted by a financial advisor. Although I didn't care how he would answer, I was curious and asked, "What do you think about bitcoin?" He answered, "Well, it doesn't have any intrinsic value, it isn't backed by anything." Then he added something about "tulips."
Regarding the tulips, that argument was actually okay in my view. A few reasons: (1) This was years ago, and the idea of bitcoin either going to zero or a million was real. Back then, zero was actually the better bet. Bitcoin at a million was crazy talk, a surefire way to be laughed at as a quack. (2) Tulips actually do have a degree of scarcity. Each year there are only so many bulbs to go around. Of course, more can be grown, almost infinitely I would guess. But, there is a natural time element of progation and maturation involved, not to mention decay. So, in the least, tulip bulbs have a physical, natural limit built in as a throttle to the total supply and to the emission rate. Compare tulips to fiat money...no throttle there. (3) Today, every single memecoin is tulip mania. A few people fumble in early, play the timeline well, make a ton of some such cryptocurrency. The vast majority get rekt, the tulip mania ends, and everyone moves on to the next tulip memecoin. Early on, thinking of bitcoin in this way wasn't ridiculous thinking at all. At this point though, I feel we're past "tulips."
Regarding intrinsic value, I guess those critics are correct. You can't make jewelry out of bitcoin or plant them and later admire the pretty colors. But, let's face it, gold and tulips really don't have a ton of intrinsic value either. There are some uses to these things, not a ton, but bitcoin has none intrinsically. Yet, the intrinsic value of gold, or 17th century tulips, or fiat money, or bitcoin really isn't the point. The point is just the value, intrinsic, extrinsic, existential, whatever value. No one buys gold coins to melt them down and gild their kitchen stool. No one buys tulip bulbs to plant them and grow them because they're pretty...well, you got me on this one...people actually do do this! No one obtains fiat paper money to wallpaper their home. The point is, people obtain these things because they have value, which can be transferred to get other things, which in turn make their life better.
It was a gold bug who recently brought this to my mind. He repeated the old, "bitcoin isn't backed by anything" line. Two things on this:
First, I've always thought bitcoin actually is backed by something. It's not backed by something physical, as in "backed by gold" or "backed by crude oil." It's backed by something better. Bitcoin is backed by the trust that the immutable Bitcoin system is. This is hard for the simpleton to follow, me included...it took years. It's easy to understand, "You give me $1000 I'll give you a pebble of gold." Rather, bitcoin is backed by the code which sets the emission and limits the supply to 21 million and the fact that no one or no group can alter this. Talk about being backed by trust. We can fully trust that 2 + 2 = 4, every single time, and no one can alter that fact. The immutability of Bitcoin is what hard codes the scarcity that gives bitcoin its value.
Secondly, and this is what came to my mind the other day, being "backed" by something has an implication underneath. The idea of being "backed by something" implies that, one day, you will or could trade that item in. Gold-backed dollars imply that I could swap pieces of paper for physical gold. I guess the ultimate game plan with tulips was to ride them to the market high, then to swap them out for the Dutch currency of the day. Gold, frankly, isn't backed by anything (similar to bitcoin). What do you swap gold for? Dollar bills? That's bass ackward. The fact that it has a few uses physically is not why it's value is where it is. It is the scarcity of gold that gives it value.
Bitcoiners are usually aware of the Matrix meme about not having to trade in your bitcoin for fiat dollars. That's it. Bitcoin is not backed by dollars, or anything else. The thing is, bitcoin is the thing.
Bitcoin is backed by PoW, which is non-ethereal (sic) real world effort to secure the network. As long as people want to hash for reward, Bitcoin is secured by their combined effort.
reply
Not to over simplfy, but in a loose sense I think of it being backed by energy.
reply
Yes, this too. You can't change math and you can't change physics.
reply
Bitcoin isn't backed by anything
Who says that bullshit should read this old article from 2014, by Jefferey Tucker: https://fee.org/articles/what-gave-bitcoin-its-value/
reply
From the FEE article:
The payment system is the source of value...
As I understand, that's exactly what I'm saying with "the thing is, it (Bitcoin) is the thing." The system itself (Bitcoin) is what gives the value to bitcoin the money.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 29 Nov
I forgot what intrinsic means exactly: belonging naturally; essential:
Does anti-matter have intrinsic value? I suspect that it does and essentially, everything has, even some financial advisors.
reply
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @xz 29 Nov
Amazing cinema, but it has no intrinsic value ;)
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Roll 29 Nov
i know , is just the title of your post, make me think of this brillant movie ;)
reply
That movie scared me to death the first time I saw it. Free movie...I had no idea what the thing was...and yikes.
reply
The idea of being "backed by something" implies that, one day, you will or could trade that item in.
Unless it's dollars, which you can't redeem for "full faith and credit", something they're allegedly backed by.
reply
I think with more merchants adopting Bitcoin, people will start realising that it is the exit strategy. In fact, I just came from buying a gift card on Bitrefill lol
reply
and yet bitcoin is over $97K
reply
It is monetized time!
reply