Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: If not a "store of value" or "medium of exchange" ...
by
Wind_FURY
on 27/09/2019, 08:48:29 UTC
Quote from: hv_ on September 27, 2019, 08:41:20 AM
Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 27, 2019, 07:46:12 AM
Quote from: hv_ on September 26, 2019, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 26, 2019, 05:15:38 AM
Quote from: franky1 on September 25, 2019, 11:46:52 AM
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.


I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Wink

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition.  so it should be free to transfer


But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. Cool



We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW  e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not  Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake  Wink


I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.