Does a Bitcoin (for the $ value it represents) cost more to manufacture than an equivalent US $1? After all, a $1 of US currency represents some creation of work too, doesn't it?
Capital/currency represents someone doing work, something being dug out of the ground, something being created -- because these things cannot be created out of thin air. When the Fed creates money, it is doing so in tandem with some physical output of the economy (unless they are purely inflating unbacked by actual goods/services activity).
A US $ is not without cost as well, isn't that right? Currency is based on scarcity of something. Is it possible to have scarcity limited currency without some kind of work involved?
This is a fascinating topic to me and something I've been casually studying for over a decade so bear with me if I come across as blunt or whatever... I just mean to answer your questions directly and expound a little.
>Does a Bitcoin (for the $ value it represents) cost more to manufacture than an equivalent US $1?
Yes, because it costs quote a lot of electricity. And...
>After all, a $1 of US currency represents some creation of work too, doesn't it?
Nope. Costs effectively nothing. Not at all tied to anything tangible - even electricity - whatsoever. Via fractional reserve banking - for some reason we just...let banks do this - they create it with a keystroke and it costs nothing whatsoever.
It's why we have inflation every year. Banks are constantly creating USD and then charging interest for the privilege they were given to do so.
>A US $ is not without cost as well, isn't that right?
Nope. Gets made up out of thin air every day. A bank creates a loan. How do you think we got to $14 trillion USD? The treasury has never printed that much money. Only ~10% of USD physically exists (according to the Fed itself), and that's counting $100 bills minted decades ago. And banks only have to have 10% of the money to cover their loans. The number being the same right now is just a coincidence.
>Currency is based on scarcity of something.
Currency is based on whether or not people will accept it in trade. There are countless examples that prove that that is the sole criterion. Even stupid, shitty, hard to use currencies get used if they're what's accepted. Getting initial buy in for USD was based on gold. Then silver, and then in 1971, literal faith in the US government and nothing else whatsoever:
Capital/currency represents someone doing work, something being dug out of the ground, something being created -- because these things cannot be created out of thin air. When the Fed creates money, it is doing so in tandem with some physical output of the economy (unless they are purely inflating unbacked by actual goods/services activity).
A US $ is not without cost as well, isn't that right? Currency is based on scarcity of something. Is it possible to have scarcity limited currency without some kind of work involved?