Quote from: legiteum on March 06, 2024, 10:38:32 PM

Satoshi et. al. created Bitcoin as a boutique means of value transfer for those who could not safely use a means of value transfer accessible to the government (and it's worth noting that Bitcoin mostly failed in this goal because of the public ledger can be triangulated by the authorities).

It remains inaccessible in terms of monetary policy, though, and I think that's the game changer. The fact that everyone can view the ledger was a feature from the very first day. Privacy techniques were developed later on.

Satoshi created a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for those in need, and it remains with these characteristics. The fact that a few people (or the majority, if you wish) see it as an investment instrument doesn't change the fact that it is censorship-resistant, borderless cash. Therefore, the Coca Cola and Viagra analogies are flawed, because the concept of Bitcoin hasn't changed since it was set in stone. Only the interpretation of its intrinsic value might have changed (i.e., better store of value than cash), which if you read more about it, you will notice it was part of the concept as well:

Quote from: satoshi on August 27, 2010, 05:32:07 PM

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)