the only reason why gold and silver have been regarded as a money is because you can't replicate it.
They were used as currency because of their scarcity and their intrinsic beauty (lustre). They were used as adornment before they were used as currency. That is an intrinsic value.
You have to understand, the only reason why ANYTHING has value, is because humans say it has value.
True, but that is not my argument. My argument is there are other values that we humans give to gold and silver besides their use as an intermediate for barter. Long before they were currencies they were sought after for their beauty. Bitcoin, like the paper dollar or the wooden dollar has no equivalent human given value external to its value as an intermediate to barter.
To put it another way, if Bitcoin did not have the valued property of being an intermediary for barter they would be utterly useless and no one would spend a single resource to create them. Gold and silver however would still be mined (resource expenditure).
I am not saying the idea of Bitcoin is bad. I am saying the implementation, without it being backed (secured) by something with ANOTHER human given value (like silver or gold have), as well as its intrinsic human tracking flaws, not to mention it being primarily owned by the CCP, all make it a very poor choice as a barter intermediate.
"Intrinsic" value is a faulty concept. It's always the case that humans value something based on its usefulness for a specific purpose.
The value is not an inherent property of something but a reflection of people's demand for it. Similarly, something only needs to be "backed" by something else if it is missing the properties that people value.
Bitcoin has many attributes that are fundamentally similar to gold (which humanity values at over $10 trillion), and are often superior precisely because of bitcoin's digital nature.
They were used as currency because of their scarcity and their intrinsic beauty (lustre). They were used as adornment before they were used as currency. That is an intrinsic value.
True, but that is not my argument. My argument is there are other values that we humans give to gold and silver besides their use as an intermediate for barter. Long before they were currencies they were sought after for their beauty. Bitcoin, like the paper dollar or the wooden dollar has no equivalent human given value external to its value as an intermediate to barter.
To put it another way, if Bitcoin did not have the valued property of being an intermediary for barter they would be utterly useless and no one would spend a single resource to create them. Gold and silver however would still be mined (resource expenditure).
I am not saying the idea of Bitcoin is bad. I am saying the implementation, without it being backed (secured) by something with ANOTHER human given value (like silver or gold have), as well as its intrinsic human tracking flaws, not to mention it being primarily owned by the CCP, all make it a very poor choice as a barter intermediate.
"Intrinsic" value is a faulty concept. It's always the case that humans value something based on its usefulness for a specific purpose.
The value is not an inherent property of something but a reflection of people's demand for it. Similarly, something only needs to be "backed" by something else if it is missing the properties that people value.
Bitcoin has many attributes that are fundamentally similar to gold (which humanity values at over $10 trillion), and are often superior precisely because of bitcoin's digital nature.