Quote:
good questions. you seem stuck on the idea that money is something that has to be issued by a government and that's not the case.
Appreciate your understanding of me, ac04, based on our long history on this site.
You're correct that I am a bit hung up here, because it is somewhat reality. Per your examples, whether gold, oil, real estate, or pork bellies, all of those eventually tie back to a currency denominated exchange with that currency issued by a gov't. From my standpoint, BTC is only a different commodity of exchange.
I'll give an example of an argument I've had a couple of times with a friend. He's in the energy trading business, and as part of this, carbon credits are swapped between companies so that they can all hit their green targets. He's happy that everyone gets to say they went green and are saving the planet. I asked him if it actually reduces one molecule of CO2 going into the atmosphere. He gets flustered, and falls back to the line of, it made money, people hit their green targets. I ask again. He continues stammering. I finally interrupt him and flat say no. At the end of the day, none of these carbon swaps do anything to reduce CO2. They only serve to make companies money in the arbitrage and allow them to put out a feel good press release.
I see BTC in much the same light. In the ultimate end, you're still exchanging a gov't denominated currency.
I'll reiterate for the others, the decentralized ability for transacting and the reduction of fees is truly a benefit, and one that can certainly gain intrinsic value as gov'ts clamp down on social engineering.
But until wide adoption where people and companies are pricing/exchanging fully removed from currencies, then it always falls back to a gov't currency.
And, based on that, combined with the fact that there is no hard asset, this is why my opinion on BTC remains skeptical.