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.
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.
Agreed. It has useful security features. That's what has been said in the exchange that you are commenting on. While I didn't give details, those features are implicit in the specific quote you cited.
None of that gives it effective intrinsic value however. "Intrinsic value" means that it can be used to produce something. The "bookkeeping value" of Bitcoin does not give it value in any meaningful way because it can exert it's value through any amount of exchange, and it is effectively infinitely divisible. If you exchange a whole Bitcoin or one trillionth of one, its security effects are identical, thus, while to say its value is zero would be wrong, it is effectively zero, and will never increase, because its "scarcity" will never change with respect to its use (it is an "infinite resource" with respect to its ability to be productive).
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.
Agreed. It has useful security features. That's what has been said in the exchange that you are commenting on. While I didn't give details, those features are implicit in the specific quote you cited.
None of that gives it effective intrinsic value however. "Intrinsic value" means that it can be used to produce something. The "bookkeeping value" of Bitcoin does not give it value in any meaningful way because it can exert it's value through any amount of exchange, and it is effectively infinitely divisible. If you exchange a whole Bitcoin or one trillionth of one, its security effects are identical, thus, while to say its value is zero would be wrong, it is effectively zero, and will never increase, because its "scarcity" will never change with respect to its use (it is an "infinite resource" with respect to its ability to be productive).