• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bitcoin - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tippit said:
That's ridiculous, as clearly there are things which either all, or virtually all people believe are valuable in and of themselves, not necessarily for what they represent or are symbolic of. Even if one of these things is not particularly valuable to you, as long as it has value to most others, you will find it valuable as well. The subset of these things which are not symbolic tokens can be said to have "intrinsic" value.
Click to expand...

No, because that's not what the word means.
 
Tippit said:
That's ridiculous, as clearly there are things which either all, or virtually all people believe are valuable in and of themselves, not necessarily for what they represent or are symbolic of. Even if one of these things is not particularly valuable to you, as long as it has value to most others, you will find it valuable as well. The subset of these things which are not symbolic tokens can be said to have "intrinsic" value.

To discount this concept in favor of some absolute nihilistic concept of everything having subjective value isn't very useful when describing the real world.
Click to expand...
Did you read what you just wrote?

You just said that things have value because people assign value to them. The idea that something could have value in the absence of people makes no sense.
 
Tippit said:
That's ridiculous, as clearly there are things which either all, or virtually all people believe are valuable in and of themselves, not necessarily for what they represent or are symbolic of. Even if one of these things is not particularly valuable to you, as long as it has value to most others, you will find it valuable as well. The subset of these things which are not symbolic tokens can be said to have "intrinsic" value.

To discount this concept in favor of some absolute nihilistic concept of everything having subjective value isn't very useful when describing the real world.
Click to expand...

The only things that i would consider to have intrinsic value are those necessary to sustain life such as water.

Everything else has only as much value as the average person gives it. An abacus was once very useful and now not at all. Similarly things that are valuable today like a combustion engine car may be worthless in 100 years. Further just because someone is crazy and pays $1million for some actors used tissue doesn't make it worth $1million. I'd claim that most things value is what the average of a large group would pay for it.
 
psionl0 said:
Did you read what you just wrote?

You just said that things have value because people assign value to them. The idea that something could have value in the absence of people makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the value of anything in the absence of people to value it is nothing, but neither is that a particularly useful concept. The concept of intrinsic value depends upon people. The fact that you, someone who values things, needs food to stay alive, means that at the very least, food has intrinsic value. So do the things required to make or prepare food, and to make the job of making food or the things that make food easier. Of course, there are a lot of other things that have intrinsic value, like water, shelter, tools, commodities, etc... The fact that the value of these things may vary from person to person, or from time to time, doesn't mean they don't have intrinsic value.
 
The_Animus said:
The only things that i would consider to have intrinsic value are those necessary to sustain life such as water.
Click to expand...

Anything tangible which has some property of being useful or appreciable by a large number of people has intrinsic value.

This does not include things with token or symbolic value. This doesn't mean that tokens can't have value, or that they can't even have some limited intrinsic value, but their value is "extrinsic", or more subjective and dependent on other things.

Everything else has only as much value as the average person gives it. An abacus was once very useful and now not at all. Similarly things that are valuable today like a combustion engine car may be worthless in 100 years. Further just because someone is crazy and pays $1million for some actors used tissue doesn't make it worth $1million. I'd claim that most things value is what the average of a large group would pay for it.
Click to expand...

The temporality of value doesn't exclude something from having intrinsic value. The abacus had quite a bit of intrinsic value when it was cutting edge technology, now it's mostly collectible. Remember, the argument was whether or not intrinsic value exists, and it does.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
The only things that i would consider to have intrinsic value are those necessary to sustain life such as water.
Click to expand...
Be careful not to conflate "economic value" with "non-economic value". The economic value of something is what people are willing to give in exchange for it.

Water is indeed necessary to sustain life and is priceless when your life is on the line. However if you live in an area where water is plentiful and freely available to everybody then you are not going to be able to sell that water so its economic value is not very high. Similarly, you might live in a desert and have access to the only source of water there but if there is nobody around to buy that water off you then you can't say it has economic value.

There mere fact that the value of something can vary between large limits depending on location and circumstances gives lie to the concept of "intrinsic value".
 
Belz... said:
Well if you think about it, gold has no intrinsic value, either. Nothing does unless you give it one.
Click to expand...

It has utility value as a corrosion-resistant coating and for fillings in dentistry. Plus a gold bar might make a pretty good paperweight or doorstop.
 
Aaaaaaaand... the big boys are in the ring now.

There are not one, but two competing digital wallets out: Apple Pay (backed by you-know-who) and CurrentC (backed by Walmart). Whichever system wins in this latest tech clash, Bitcoin loses. Once one or the other (or both) of these gain wide acceptance for e-commerce, BTC will be relegated to a niche product for people who want anonymity (a small but nonzero segment of the market).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/spen...urrentc-what-shoppers-need-to-know/ar-BBcf6xs
 
jhunter1163 said:
Whichever system wins in this latest tech clash, Bitcoin loses.
Click to expand...
So a mobile phone ap that is less convenient than a credit card, has security flaws, allows Walmart to scrutinize your purchasing history and saves Walmart credit card transaction fees is going to sound the death knell for bitcoin?

Nice find. :sdl:
 
psionl0 said:
So a mobile phone ap that is less convenient than a credit card, has security flaws, allows Walmart to scrutinize your purchasing history and saves Walmart credit card transaction fees is going to sound the death knell for bitcoin?

Nice find. :sdl:
Click to expand...

How is bitcoin more convenient than a credit card ? And doesn't it have security flaws ?
 
jhunter1163 said:
I notice you didn't comment on Apple Pay
Click to expand...
Apple Pay seems to be a little better than CurrentC - as long as you don't wish to go shopping at Walmart or any of the other retailers that have signed onto MCX.

But when I can simply wave my Mastercard Debit Card at a Paypass terminal and not press a single button, neither system seems particularly tempting to me. Either way, these are just alternative methods of having national currency deducted from your bank account.

Maybe mobile phone apps will eventually phase out debit/credit cards but not as long as we have competing systems like these. These retailers would have been better off getting on to the Ripple network which is more universal and can deal with multiple currencies (including the crypto currencies). You could pay with bitcoins (or even gold) and the retailer receive USD in a matter of seconds.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
How is bitcoin more convenient than a credit card ? And doesn't it have security flaws ?
Click to expand...
Bitcoin can be as secure as you want to make it but it doesn't reward the careless.

I think I have made it pretty clear in the past that I don't see a major role for bitcoin in retail spending (not unless something like Ripple takes off). Its primary role is as a buy and hold commodity.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
I notice you didn't comment on Apple Pay, which is;

1. already rolled out (CurrentC doesn't roll out till January)
2. considered to be more secure than CurrentC anyway and
3. receiving positive reviews from retailers and users

Anything to add?
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why Apply mysteriously decided to ban all bitcoin apps. Not so mysterious anymore.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Aaaaaaaand... the big boys are in the ring now.

There are not one, but two competing digital wallets out: Apple Pay (backed by you-know-who) and CurrentC (backed by Walmart). Whichever system wins in this latest tech clash, Bitcoin loses. Once one or the other (or both) of these gain wide acceptance for e-commerce, BTC will be relegated to a niche product for people who want anonymity (a small but nonzero segment of the market).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/spen...urrentc-what-shoppers-need-to-know/ar-BBcf6xs
Click to expand...

Apple's throwing their hat in the ring???

I thought I might buy a few bitcoins, just like buying a few lottery tickets, but it looks like that ship has sailed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom