You are reading a single comment by @frankenbike and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I don't think those are sufficiently intrinsic for me to make a distinction.
Put it this way; I don't think any economists would say that the currency of say Laos has no intrinsic value, but I would guess that Bitcoin is probably bigger and more economically secure than the currency of Laos.
- If the Laotian Kip has no intrinsic value but the US Dollar does, then that's completely arbitrary and the threshold for "intrinsic value" is just a matter of personal opinion
- If the Laotian Kip has intrinsic value then I don't see why Bitcoin can't have intrinsic value. There are a group of people who want it and you can exchange it for other things and that seems good enough.
- If the Laotian Kip has no intrinsic value but the US Dollar does, then that's completely arbitrary and the threshold for "intrinsic value" is just a matter of personal opinion
frankenbike-
The difference is that fiat currency (not backed by gold) is issued by a government, essentially as a means of "keeping score" of everything that's under its control. That's why you have to pay tax to that government in their currency. Bitcoin is not keeping track of anything tangible, just (as described) the value of the work done to discover/mine it.
ffm
Fiat currency has intrinsic value in that the issuing country will let you pay your taxes with it. Since they can enforce payment with violence (ie, imprisonment & confiscation), that's worth something.
Stocks have at least the intrinsic value of the company assets after senior creditors are paid off.