I wholeheartedly agree with your comment except for one tiny little point.
Bitcoin has exactly and precisely zero value outside of that usage. It can't survive in any world where any currency with actual value exists.
I can think of exactly 1 good, mayhaps excellent use for Bitcoin or some other similar project, that being international trade and settlement, in place of something like SWIFT. Given that the nature of settling in gold requires that all parties involved in transporting have to be some degree of trustworthy, the nature of BTC's technology requiring very little trust to operate for both parties might be very attractive.
The technology behind digital currency, or NFTs, etc. can be used for all sorts of cool stuff, but that doesn't give it value because it takes nothing to make it do that work. Besides, other similar techs are better suited than bitcoin for all those projects, and again, they take very nearly zero resources to make it happen.
My point is would be that some BTC-like currency might be a good middleman for settle things in. You would only be using it as a stop between 2 differing currencies, and likely wouldn't have much exposure beyond the time it would take to swap back out.
Think like how companies might end up swapping from CAD to USD, and then from USD to Euros to pay their European supplier from their Canandian business' profits. It matters less that the USD has real value, and more that everyone involved is ok with USD, it's quick to liquidate once done, and is relatively quick to settle.
Bitcoin might not be the best for the job, but it certainly checks off a lot of the boxes.
I completely agree with you and I understand your point. My point was that this "use" doesn't give it value, because the resources don't actually get used up on the transaction. It is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool.
I say that because the use you suggest, and other uses for the technology are often suggested as "intrinsic value," justifying investment. Such uses DO give it value, but the value is so small it is effectively zero and will never increase.
I didn't think that you were suggesting that it would give them value as an investment. I was merely commenting on the fact that these uses don't do so, because so many people (who are invested in it) are confused about that.
The Bitcoin network is a permissionless digital bank. When you exchange your fiat for sats everyone on the network acknowledges that those are your sats. Banks cannot create more sats to dilute yours. Through mining there will be about 10% inflation over the next 100 years, compared to the fed inflation target of 2%/year.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment except for one tiny little point.
I can think of exactly 1 good, mayhaps excellent use for Bitcoin or some other similar project, that being international trade and settlement, in place of something like SWIFT. Given that the nature of settling in gold requires that all parties involved in transporting have to be some degree of trustworthy, the nature of BTC's technology requiring very little trust to operate for both parties might be very attractive.
The technology behind digital currency, or NFTs, etc. can be used for all sorts of cool stuff, but that doesn't give it value because it takes nothing to make it do that work. Besides, other similar techs are better suited than bitcoin for all those projects, and again, they take very nearly zero resources to make it happen.
My point is would be that some BTC-like currency might be a good middleman for settle things in. You would only be using it as a stop between 2 differing currencies, and likely wouldn't have much exposure beyond the time it would take to swap back out.
Think like how companies might end up swapping from CAD to USD, and then from USD to Euros to pay their European supplier from their Canandian business' profits. It matters less that the USD has real value, and more that everyone involved is ok with USD, it's quick to liquidate once done, and is relatively quick to settle.
Bitcoin might not be the best for the job, but it certainly checks off a lot of the boxes.
I completely agree with you and I understand your point. My point was that this "use" doesn't give it value, because the resources don't actually get used up on the transaction. It is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool.
I say that because the use you suggest, and other uses for the technology are often suggested as "intrinsic value," justifying investment. Such uses DO give it value, but the value is so small it is effectively zero and will never increase.
I didn't think that you were suggesting that it would give them value as an investment. I was merely commenting on the fact that these uses don't do so, because so many people (who are invested in it) are confused about that.
"it is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool"
The Bitcoin network is a permissionless digital bank. When you exchange your fiat for sats everyone on the network acknowledges that those are your sats. Banks cannot create more sats to dilute yours. Through mining there will be about 10% inflation over the next 100 years, compared to the fed inflation target of 2%/year.