How about Chewy. 30 billion market cap for a random ecommerce site running a multibillion dollar loss for 5 years? Sure why not. Or Quantumscape. 20 billion for a battery company with zero revenue that doesn't even have a factory? Of course. Money is a complete fiction now. In this environment, if the investing class agrees that Bitcoin is worth $35k, then it is.
It always has been:
But today all the advance financial tools are making money into a clay, and people wielding those tools can shape it however they like.
Reading about relation of USD to european currencies back in post war (pre- and post- Bretton Woods system) was eye opening to me.
But without those 'tools' money, while still fairly virtual were more concrete. Coins were made of valuable metal, you could take it and melted it down.
EDIT: I even forgot about the climate.
Buy BTC convert to renBTC (skip this by just buying renBTC on an exchange if you can) Put in keeperdao and earn ~19-30% APY. Claim profits as ROOK convert to renBTC put them back into keeperdao and compound keep your exposure to BTC.
On a personal note I was a doubter for a long time. Now not so much given the money printing of the past year. The past year every time I read about NFTs I think they are stupid. This is why I’m forcing myself to research and experiment with them as I don’t want to let my doubts about things get in my way again.
It happens that maximizing financial value also does a good job of improving people's lives, so we treat as truth. Right now, we're starting to see this fall apart as certain valuations stop making sense and certain negative externalities start coming to light. That said, I still think in general, valuations tend to be more right than they are wrong.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that investors are increasingly bearish on the dollar.
It would be just as easy to say that Bitcoin had properties similar to Copper and try to back a valuation out of that. Either comparison borders on silly.
And unlike copper, the United State's dollar was backed by gold for a majority of the 20th century while most other currencies were pegged to the dollar.
And finally, unlike copper, there’s $8-$10 trillion dollars worth of gold being used as a store of value globally.
Bitcoin has all of the core attributes of gold with the addition of being digital and having a fixed supply.
It only makes sense to compare bitcoin to gold.
Bitcoin has a much more plausible value proposition than most of these bullshit companies. Conflating the anomalously high value of BTC with the anomalously high value of companies is a category error. http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2018/10/bitcoin-and-bubble-theo... https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/04/bitcoin-is-...
Isn’t it how trade works since the early days of humanity? We value things, whether it’s sea shells, sheep or a legal entity in 2021 with 10,000 staff and exchange it for what we think it’s worth?
Back in the days where all our electricity came from fossil fuels, I completely agree that marginal electricity usage was bad for the environment. However I think that thought has persisted with us even though it is no longer true 100% of the time.
With renewables sometimes the marginal cost of electricity to our environment is near 0 or even negative (eg, during periods of higher winds and lower demand.)
I predict that in the future as bitcoin mining becomes more and more of an efficiency game that you will see bitcoin mining be kind of a load balancer the grid, effectively turning off during peak demand (or low supply) times and contributing to the base load during regular times.
For example, it may even help the economics of building new wind plants. Eg, currently it may not be profitable to build a new wind plant because base load is too low that the excess power generated would need to be sold off at 0 or even negative prices. However if bitcoin mining could be turned on during these times and off during periods of high demand, there will need to be fewer peaker plants in operation and it would positively affect the economics of opening a new wind plant.
Bitcoin mining only cares about the cost of electricity at a given time, it is not like most other electricity demands that are very time based. With the large variance of electricity generation by renewables, I think bitcoin can in the future help smooth demand according to the real supply/demand curve.
It's kind of like a different implementation of the Tesla utility grid batteries. Instead of deploying power, you force the grid to build more renewable capacity (that the miners are paying for) that you use except in peak periods, where you turn off and effectively provide the grid with more power.
I cannot easily target your computer running proof of stake in your closet.
I can easy to cut the electrical wires into your proof of work data center.
I haven't seen a good response to this paper: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~smattw/CKWN-CCS16.pdf
> Because when you have mined a full block and there is a backlog, the difference in income between mining the next block (all full of pending transactions) and going backwards and remining the prior block to take its fees is small (and comes at a cost of decreased chance of eventually being in the longest chain). This is particularly true because new transactions that are arriving cannot be included in the prior block if it is remined.
> A supply cap requires a block reward dwindling to insignificance (long before it reaches 0).
So the significant mining reward must come from large fees. Mining stability requires a steady backlog of fee paying transactions, which in turn requires a highly constrained block size.
> Bitcoin provides two incentives for miners: block rewards and transaction fees. The former accounts for the vast majority of miner revenues at the beginning of the system, but it is expected to transition to the latter as the block rewards dwindle. There has been an implicit belief that whether miners are paid by block rewards or transaction fees does not affect the security of the block chain.
> We show that this is not the case. Our key insight is that with only transaction fees, the variance of the block reward is very high due to the exponentially distributed block arrival time, and it becomes attractive to fork a “wealthy” block to “steal” the rewards therein. We show that this results in an equilibrium with undesirable properties for Bitcoin’s security and performance, and even non-equilibria in some circumstances.
Gold has many applications beyond its monetary association. Its electrical and chemical properties make it a key element in building circuit boards, ironically, for the machines that make Bitcoin possible.
A few years ago I tried to answer that question and I remember getting a pretty low value, something like 10% or 20%.
i've never understood the value of bitcoin because while bitcoins themselves are scarce, cryptocurrencies aren't.
Gist is Bitcoin was the first to market, has the biggest decentralized network, has been around the longest, hasn’t been hacked, has no known owner with any vested interests.
All other cryptos are pretty much piggy backing off of Bitcoin’s discoveries for fun or profit ... or trying to make it better.
Money, in any form, is only valuable because we expect others to continue to value it into the future. The reason that gold is used as a monetary asset, whereas rhodium is not despite being as rare, is because gold arrived earlier in history.
One could also that the Bitcoin community's conservative nature also lends it credence as a long term store of value. Ethereum as a protocol much more amenable to technical innovation. But if you're in the "stay rich" business, instead of the "get rich" business, than that can be a bug not a feature.
The same applies to each other proof-of-work algorithm individually like Ethash (Ethereum), Equihash (ZCash), etc.
Meanwhile there is a good summary on the influence Tether issuance has on BTC on the front page, which has some sources. Not that it is the definite truth, but having some sources instead of just "Well, there was another peak so i guess Bitcoin is alright after all" is more valuable to me.
Labour theory of value contends that the value of an object depends on the "congealed human labour" in that object (e.g. a chair is worth more than its constituent timber because the chair requires you exert additional labour on that timber).
Intrinsic theory of value says that some objects have some objective value, inherent in the object (or as a property of that object, like mass).
Subjective theory of value basically says "value is in the eye of the beholder".
There is also exchange theory of value, which is similar to subjective value. An object has a value decided by what it can be exchanged with (e.g. 2 square metres of linen might be worth the same as 1 coat, even though the coat only has 1 square metre of linen in it)
The bitcoin ponzi and the austrian economics bullshit (e.g. value fluctuates based on demand - it's all subjective!) to the max lies get ever bigger. For a good summary published just a couple of days ago of the "state-of-the-fraud", see Why Bitcoin is a Ponzi (Learn how the Investment Fraud Works) 
PS: The damage to our planet is not subjective but objective and very very real . Of course, you find nothing in this "Bitcoin Changed My Mind" about the CO2 footprint or the electronic waste etc.