Hmmm… I guess this is a good illustration of why “deserve” isn’t a good way to put what I meant.
Bitcoin isn’t actually any good at what it’s meant to do- it’s really a failure as a currency. It has been a rewarding store of value for a while, but I expect it will be displaced as a store of value by currencies that are more easily moved from account to account. Transaction fees are often too high, and will likely increase, and it is slow to process transactions (the slow speed isn’t a hindrance to its quality as a store of value, but it does reduce its economic desirability; transaction fees are very much a problem for a store of value)
I expect in the long run, economic forces will drive BTC to nearly $0 without any regard to what it morally “deserves”.
While I don’t disagree, it’s interesting to consider what it means for a currency to deserve something. I’d phrase it as “people who don’t hold very much bitcoin deserve to spend less of our worldwide energy and GPU output on crypto mining”.
That does not accurately summarize my own personal feelings on this. I do suspect it’s correct that BTC miners are using too much of the world’s resources (a problem that can be fixed, but I’d be surprised if Bitcoin developers chose to fix), but more generally I feel that people who do hold on to BTC deserve to lose their investment if they don’t sell soon (to be clear, I am against the government having anything to do with that. But I will be happy with the market if / when the market decides BTC is worthless)
Actually, I should have used a word different from “deserve”. There’s no such thing—I should have said something along the lines of “I’d prefer that...”.
This is something that has been in the back of my mind for a while, I sold almost all of my BTC half a year ago and invested that money in other assets.
Cryptocurrencies in general are good and the future of money, but Bitcoin in particular deserves to crash all the way down to $0
In a universe that cares about “deserve”, diamonds would crash to $0 first. Bitcoin at least doesn’t run on slave labor.
Hmmm… I guess this is a good illustration of why “deserve” isn’t a good way to put what I meant.
Bitcoin isn’t actually any good at what it’s meant to do- it’s really a failure as a currency. It has been a rewarding store of value for a while, but I expect it will be displaced as a store of value by currencies that are more easily moved from account to account. Transaction fees are often too high, and will likely increase, and it is slow to process transactions (the slow speed isn’t a hindrance to its quality as a store of value, but it does reduce its economic desirability; transaction fees are very much a problem for a store of value)
I expect in the long run, economic forces will drive BTC to nearly $0 without any regard to what it morally “deserves”.
While I don’t disagree, it’s interesting to consider what it means for a currency to deserve something. I’d phrase it as “people who don’t hold very much bitcoin deserve to spend less of our worldwide energy and GPU output on crypto mining”.
That does not accurately summarize my own personal feelings on this. I do suspect it’s correct that BTC miners are using too much of the world’s resources (a problem that can be fixed, but I’d be surprised if Bitcoin developers chose to fix), but more generally I feel that people who do hold on to BTC deserve to lose their investment if they don’t sell soon (to be clear, I am against the government having anything to do with that. But I will be happy with the market if / when the market decides BTC is worthless)
Language clarification: is “deserve to spend less of…” used in the sense of “deserve that less of … is spent [not necessarily by them]” here?
Actually, I should have used a word different from “deserve”. There’s no such thing—I should have said something along the lines of “I’d prefer that...”.
This is something that has been in the back of my mind for a while, I sold almost all of my BTC half a year ago and invested that money in other assets.