Francesco,
Check out a guy by the name of Lyn Alden. He has a pretty balanced approach to Bitcoin. Bitcoin in theory has many advantages and has very useful applications especially in extremely unstable and hyperinflated economies to give autonomy to citizenry that just don't feel safe storing their money in local banks, like some south American countries and Lebanon etc.... But the main problems with Bitcoin at the current time is that, a) it does not have a big enough market as of yet to be a useful reserve. b) Adoption is still not as big as is needed, c) it is currently too slow and volatile, d) and it just has too much of a learning curve at the current time for it to be adapted by the masses at scale. Yes, I am aware that applications like lightning will be implemented soonish, but at it's current form it just is not ready for global adoption yet.
I am also aware that big banks and countries such as Russia are figuring out ways how to integrate Bitcoin into their economies. But my issue is that when government gets involved, they will figure ways how to disrupt the key element and beauty of Bitcoin and defeat the reason of it's creation.
I think there is value in it, I just don't know if it is ready yet. Would I invest in it? Probably, but I think we haven't seen it's true bottom, let's see what happens with Saylor etc....
You might also want to hear Jeff Snider's thoughts on Bitcoin and crypto in general. He has a pretty interesting take on the matter.
Not an endorsement, but the parameters of Bitcoin, specifically, make it hard because it is capped at so many million. All other cryptocurrencies are permutations, and from my limited understanding less secure or hard due to it.
The ledger system allows you to tie a Bitcoin to the wealth it represents -- whatever good or service. This makes it less nebulous than the petroleum backed dollar. We still, obviously, haven't solved all the issues that Bitcoin, working as intended, must overcome to be fully viable.
Frankly, I'm beginning to read more from Peter Zeihan, and I think crypto and fiat currencies are not long for this world as they are largely tied to global trade that won't be around much longer in human history if Zeihan is right, and I think he might be largely correct.
There is no intrinsic value in a bitcoin itself. Even if the math problems being solved by mining were extremely useful, that wouldn't matter. The value of those problems being solved would still only be a by-product, not something held within the bitcoin itself. You could run software simply to solve them, without mining coin. So yes, it is fiat, which I'm fine with since it directly competes with a government monopoly. But the properties of the block chain do have value. Namely the fact that the ledger is permanent, can't be manipulated, and can be anonymous (only if you do it right, which the vast majority of people don't). If your account made a payment, there is absolute public proof you made that payment and it cannot be altered.
It's basically just software that can do some cool things. Is there any intrinsic value in the software this forum is run on? Not really. The value only comes from how it is used.
The argument is not if all the power goes out, it's if your power goes out and you are cut off from civilization by a government action. But it doesn't even have to go that far--you might only be cut off from having access to digital communications. All of this is very plausible. If you see no scenarios in which it could happen, you really lack imagination.
You gents should really read The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous. It's the most intelligent libertarian argument I've encountered in years, and answers all these questions in a thoroughly logical way.
But to summarize:
Bitcoin miners are paid a transaction fee (currently $1.02) for publicly and voluntarily validating a transaction.
The fee is the same for all transactions, whether you're sending $10 or $10 billion. The transaction occurs instantaneously. $10 billion sent across the planet, instantly, for $1.02, and no one can prevent it as long as some miner somewhere is willing to validate it.
As long as the Internet remains functional, Bitcoin (and, reductively, other cryptocurrencies), represent a method of to converting electricity into an instantaneous exchange of value, virtually free, across any distance, with no intermediary who can prevent the transaction (see: Canadian truckers who still accepted BTC donations after their GoFundMe was shut down).
Compare that to a bank transfer, which requires 2-3 business days to process, and potentially large fees. The transaction is validated by a sequence of intermediaries, and can be prevented by bank employees or government officials for whatever reason they deem fit.
Or, credit cards, which process instantly for the buyer, but take up to 6 days for the seller. The credit card company alone validates this transaction, for which they charge 3.5%, and they can deny any transaction while providing data to the IRS and anyone else interested in how you spend your money.
But, if you understand this alone ($10 billion, across the world, instantaneously, essentially for free), then you can see the similarities to the Internet in general, email, telephones, electricity, or any other network technology the mechanics of which few of us can explain, but nonetheless manage to use successfully in our daily lives. The technology is inevitable. How it actually plays out is yet to be determined.
Regarding inflation: Bitcoin has a supply cap hardwired in. Read the book (or the original whitepaper) if you'd like to understand how and why, but there will never be more than 21 million "coins," and no one can change this. Thus, Bitcoin's original motivation: a digital hard currency whose supply no government or central authority can increase to finance war (or suspicious public health vaccination agendas), and which, unlike gold, doesn't need to be transported physically.
Thus, we should be able to see why both banks and the US government are existentially opposed to the success of Bitcoin, preferring (like China) to develop their own controllable and more "convenient" digital currencies, because such governments could not exist in a world where individuals can send money anywhere, for free, with no one capable of preventing the transaction, and no one capable of inflating supply...as long as the Internet still works.
Bitcoin, thus, is the libertarian answer to central banking, and its continued existence is worth celebrating.
For one, the concept of intrinsic value is meaningless. Value is solely subjective. If gold were merely priced based on it's industrial uses, great though they may be, it would most likely sell at less than $100/oz. It's value, like Bitcoin's, comes from it's fungibility, immutability, and scarcity. Bitcoin's "industrial/practical" application is as money, allowing us to abstract away from barter systems and increase trade efficiencies. Just as mining and securing gold require continual resource expenditures, so it is with Bitcoin. The miners, by way of solving these cryptographic problems, are verifying and securing the blockchain network. Neither are fiat, as their values arise from adoption and use, not by decree. Satoshi's whitepaper is accessible to the layman and a brief read. Highly recommended. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
I am talking about a storage of value and blockchain as a means of tracking. I still say that if nobody gives a fuck about them in 10 years they are worth nothing.
Have you seen the electric bills in the EU lately? All the power going out isn't stoopid. Don't underestimate the intentions of WEF and their minions.
Bitcoin miners are paid in Dollars? US Dollars?
Governments are existentially opposed to the private possession of guns, for different but related reasons. I'm not saying Bitcoin is not a good idea, but it is clearly a fiat currency that is dependent on everybody agreeing on its value -- it is not like gold, at all. The very second everybody got worried about it, it cratered. We all watched that happen, and the fact that there's a supposed cap on its supply didn't prevent that from happening.Thus, we should be able to see why both banks and the US government are existentially opposed to the success of Bitcoin, preferring (like China) to develop their own controllable and more "convenient" digital currencies, because such governments could not exist in a world where individuals can send money anywhere, for free, with no one capable of preventing the transaction, and no one capable of inflating supply...as long as the Internet still works.