Quote from: FrueGreads on April 12, 2018, 10:53:38 PM

Quote from: fxsurfer on April 11, 2018, 10:47:21 AM

Did you read the article?

Yes I've read it, and I already know that argument but I still don't believe in it. Also, don't forget that money is an abstraction as well, and now it's not backed up by anything, except by banks and governments word. At least bitcoin is backed by math, and that's the reason why I think it has more value than fiat. Also, I say it one more time, people decide what has value and what it does not.

Even gold, that you can say it has value because it's used for many things. But if you think about it, only a very small % of gold is actually used in industry, so gold is not valuable for it's applications. It's because people give it value based on their perception. I know bitcoin is knew, and maybe that's why people get a hard time understand why it's becoming so valuable, but once people understand that it's applications, there will no doubts on how valuable bitcoin is.

Finally, what you are saying has no sense if you think about software. Once it's compiled it's nothing more than "language understood by machines". They have value because of the utility they provide. That will be the same with bitcoin...

The whole article talks about the distinction between "alphanumerical characters" (abstractions) and things(stock, bonds, gold certificates, fiat money, patents) that are represented and quantified with this abstractions. The article also explains how fiat money is backed by banks assets and by land, cars, homes and other property of borrowers. All you did in your post was show a complete ignorance of the arguments the article is making and just repeated flawed phrases "fiat money is an abstraction" and "it's not backed up by anything", which are phrases repeated like a mantra in crypto community. So, in your post there is nothing of substance worth rebutting.