The only problem is that Bitcoin has built-in inflation and therefore does not fulfill [1].
••
@DonkeyInvestor Damn, what are we going to do now until 2140?
••
@stefan_21 sterben?
•
11
•
4Mon
@DonkeyInvestor That is not correct. BTC is deflationary. The maximum amount is limited to 21 million, unless 51% of miners worldwide agree to change the protocol and expand the total amount. Or have I misunderstood you?
•
11
•@Yeez The donkey or the class clown also likes to troll sometimes🙃
The 51% of miners is not quite right. The miners are welcome to try, but the nodes would reject the blocks :)
The users would have to agree on this, but would trigger a hard fork and then it would depend on which network of users and miners would continue.
But that would never, of course, ever happen. In the Blocksize Wars, even 80% of miners wanted to increase the blocksize limit and failed or created Bitcoin Cash, which is economically completely irrelevant. I can recommend the book "Blocksize War" by Jonathan Bier :) soon to be published in German by Aprycot Media.
The 51% of miners is not quite right. The miners are welcome to try, but the nodes would reject the blocks :)
The users would have to agree on this, but would trigger a hard fork and then it would depend on which network of users and miners would continue.
But that would never, of course, ever happen. In the Blocksize Wars, even 80% of miners wanted to increase the blocksize limit and failed or created Bitcoin Cash, which is economically completely irrelevant. I can recommend the book "Blocksize War" by Jonathan Bier :) soon to be published in German by Aprycot Media.
•
11
•4Mon
@stefan_21 I haven't actually dealt with the block size wars, blind spot... but I have on the subject of 'what risks exist for the value store'. My conclusion was that this is only possible via a fork, which is then adopted by the majority of miners (and nodes, you're right). The risks I see are a) an increase in the number of coins and an increase in the size of the blocks, because this would reduce the miners' remuneration per unit of energy used. Then some would disappear from the market, the hashrate would fall and the system would be more susceptible to a 51% attack. In any case, the intrinsic value would fall. Highly unlikely, because all those who agree would have to be paid in Bitcoi, devaluing their business and their assets...
•
11
•@Yeez Bitcoin has a social contract, so to speak. People use Bitcoin because it is absolutely limited. People use Bitcoin because we have a block size limit and everyone can run a node at home.
That's why such forks will never be successful. My node would never get such an update. Every node operator determines what their Bitcoin looks like individually, so to speak.
The fall in the hashrate:
If the hashrate falls, mining becomes easier and more profitable again for all other miners, who can then in turn increase their capacities, causing the hashrate to rise again.
Intrinsic value:
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. According to the Austrian school, however, this does not exist either, as value is always subjective. If I subjectively estimate the value of a good to be higher than its market price, I am prepared to buy the good. The seller, on the other hand, only sells a good if he subjectively estimates its value to be lower than the market price.
Bitcoin does not generate any cash flow, which is why it has an intrinsic value of exactly 0 from an economist's perspective. However, it does have inherent properties, such as those I have described in the article, which make it (or can make it) a store of value.
The positive thing is that if a share moves away from its "intrinsic value" and the P/E ratio or KUV or whatever is considered far too high, investors will sell - and the share will fall. The same applies to a property where the price bears no relation to the rental income. As Bitcoin cannot be "valued" in this respect, it can also rise indefinitely😉
That's why such forks will never be successful. My node would never get such an update. Every node operator determines what their Bitcoin looks like individually, so to speak.
The fall in the hashrate:
If the hashrate falls, mining becomes easier and more profitable again for all other miners, who can then in turn increase their capacities, causing the hashrate to rise again.
Intrinsic value:
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. According to the Austrian school, however, this does not exist either, as value is always subjective. If I subjectively estimate the value of a good to be higher than its market price, I am prepared to buy the good. The seller, on the other hand, only sells a good if he subjectively estimates its value to be lower than the market price.
Bitcoin does not generate any cash flow, which is why it has an intrinsic value of exactly 0 from an economist's perspective. However, it does have inherent properties, such as those I have described in the article, which make it (or can make it) a store of value.
The positive thing is that if a share moves away from its "intrinsic value" and the P/E ratio or KUV or whatever is considered far too high, investors will sell - and the share will fall. The same applies to a property where the price bears no relation to the rental income. As Bitcoin cannot be "valued" in this respect, it can also rise indefinitely😉
•
11
•4Mon
@stefan_21 I agree with one exception: the intrinsic value is defined by energy. Oil - is in all products and the price in FIAT money rises with the expansion of the money supply. Gold: the price measured in FIAT currency rises because the energy input remains at least the same. Real estate: the price measured in FIAT currency rises because the energy required to build it remains at least the same... Bitcoin: the price measured in FIAT currency increases because the energy used for mining and proof of work remains at least the same. Industrially manufactured goods that can be produced ever faster and more efficiently thanks to technological innovation (such as paper banknotes, frozen pizza or TV sets) require comparatively less energy (whether for mining the raw materials or the manufacturing process) are the counterexample.
In my view, the energy - in whatever form - contained in an asset defines its intrinsic value.
In my view, the energy - in whatever form - contained in an asset defines its intrinsic value.
••
@Yeez I understand the idea, but I don't see it that way.
The energy required to extract gold or produce real estate does not remain the same - technological progress means we can produce more and more of it more easily and with less energy.
Let's take Bitcoin as an example again: the energy is not stored in Bitcoin. The energy is converted into heat and the Bitcoin comes out as a kind of "waste product". In economic terms, the energy is lost, so to speak, because you can no longer get the energy out of the Bitcoin network.
The assumption that a good has more value the more work or energy was put into it is the labor theory of value, which is simply wrong. If I produce a product by hand with enormous effort and energy expenditure, the good is not worth more than if a machine produces it in a short time with little effort :)
The energy required to extract gold or produce real estate does not remain the same - technological progress means we can produce more and more of it more easily and with less energy.
Let's take Bitcoin as an example again: the energy is not stored in Bitcoin. The energy is converted into heat and the Bitcoin comes out as a kind of "waste product". In economic terms, the energy is lost, so to speak, because you can no longer get the energy out of the Bitcoin network.
The assumption that a good has more value the more work or energy was put into it is the labor theory of value, which is simply wrong. If I produce a product by hand with enormous effort and energy expenditure, the good is not worth more than if a machine produces it in a short time with little effort :)
•
11
•@Yeez Can you actually see everything in my message? My message is simply cut off after "Energy yes".
If necessary, I have to split the message into several🤨
If necessary, I have to split the message into several🤨
••
@Yeez Yes, that is correct. New Bitcoin is created every day. This makes Bitcoin inflationary. At least until the last Bitcoin is mined in 100 years. So for the rest of our lives, Bitcoin is inflationary.
I haven't read the other comments. @stefan_21 is right about everything he says though
I haven't read the other comments. @stefan_21 is right about everything he says though
•
11
•