Login
You're viewing the post.lurk.org public feed.
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:01 PM

    (1/N) This isn't advocacy for crypto, it's advocacy for understanding things. Okay so:

    1. A "currency" is a system of tokens that have in themselves no intrinsic value but are accepted as having value by communal agreement.

    2. The backbone of this agreement is trust in the scarcity of these tokens. If someone handed you a slip of paper as payment and you had no proof that they didn't just print it five minutes ago, you wouldn't trust it.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0

Replies

  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:04 PM

    3. There are many ways to enforce this scarcity, modern dollar bills are printed in controlled amounts and made to be difficult to counterfeit. This is what's called a "fiat" currency.

    4. All the current currencies in the world are fiat currencies. We trust in our dollars/euros/yens/dalasis because we trust our governments to remain responsible in how they print them.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:08 PM

    5. But there are other ways to prove the scarcity of currency units, like minting coins out of precious metals which are intrinsically as scarce as the materials they're made from. Silver and gold coins were a widespread standard before technological advancements made governments wide-reaching enough to make fiat currencies feasible.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:12 PM

    6. Bitcoins are a currency that uses a different means of proving their scarcity called a "proof of work". The existence of a bitcoin is proof that a certain amount of mathematical calculations have been performed, an amount so large that a non-trivial amount of time and energy has been expended to power computers to make those calculations.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:45 PM

    @renardboy It seems this is backward. You argue convincingly that scarcity is a *necessary* condition to give a currency value. However, it isn't *sufficient*. That is, just *because* a bitcoin is scarce does not mean it is valuable. What gives the Bitcoin *value*? If anything does, you don't seem to explain it in this thread.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:47 PM

    @renardboy Meanwhile, I don't think I agree with the phrasing a bitcoin "is proof" a certain number of calculations were performed. The proof a bitcoin is held is the entry in the open ledger; the fact the open ledger consensus mechanism is based on performing a large number of calculations is essentially coincidental to the currency itself. They could have chosen some other consensus mechanism, and the system would have worked about as well..

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:50 PM

    @renardboy Or put a different way, it's literally accurate each new Bitcoin is proof of many calculations being performed— as I understand Bitcoins are granted on adding a certain number of items to the chain, and adding to the chain does require calculations— so sure, literally it happens, but there's no *reason* for it except it's a social convention the Bitcoin operators settled on. I think it's dangerous to imply the calculations add value.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 6, 2026, 11:53 PM

    @mcc You raise excellent points and I will be glad to answer them to the best of my knowledge once you have written them all out.

    Please let me know when you are done so that I can respond to them sequentially in order to avoid a spaghetti thread 😁

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 7, 2026, 12:30 AM

    @renardboy Oh, I'm done typing I think.

    One thing to note is that most likely I *understand* the theory of what gives Bitcoin value, I simply *disagree* with it. So feel free to reply for the benefit of third parties reading the thread but it's unlikely I will be convinced of anything :)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 7, 2026, 12:36 AM

    @mcc I sense that, like I said I'm not advocating for crypto, I personally think the way it works is fascinating but the environmental impact by itself is a show-stopper for me. I still think it's useful to understand how it (and money in general) works, hence all this.

    Alright, I'll now be going through your points one-by-one as responses to this response.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 7, 2026, 3:40 AM
    @renardboy
    So like, from a chartalist perspective, currency has value because people are required to pay taxes in that currency — or else, straight to jail.

    Ultimately, money gets its value from the barrel of a gun.

    The evidence for this: central banks and commercial banks can create money simply by typing numbers into a computer — so there's clearly no relationship between amount of work performed and amount of money created.

    Nor is there any direct relationship between scarcity and value, seeing as how no one wants to let me buy things with these jars of farts.

    I can't pay my taxes with gold, or bitcoins, or jars of farts. Dollars, on the other hand? Yep, I need those to pay taxes.

    And/or the shopkeeper needs dollars to pay taxes. So even if the shopkeeper accepts payment for things in bitcoins, they'll still need to sell those bitcoins to get dollars to pay their taxes.

    This is why bitcoiners always doth protest too much, by saying stuff like "1BTC=1BTC" as if the dollar value doesn't matter to them, and pleading for things to be denominated in bitcoins.

    But the actual fact is, nobody buys bitcoins to have bitcoins, and nobody wants to buy or sell goods denominated in bitcoins. They buy bitcoins hoping to sell the bitcoins at a later date for more dollars than they paid for them. Bitcoin, therefore, is a bubble and a scam. It's the dollars that have value as currency.

    @mcc
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 7, 2026, 12:21 AM

    @mcc @renardboy If you could perform an unlimited amount of calculations instantly, you still couldn't mint unlimited Bitcoins. The scarcity of Bitcoins isn't ensured by proof-of-work, it's ensured by the hard-cap of 21 million Bitcoins existing.

    Proof-of-work actually is just used to determine the distribution of newly-minted Bitcoins. As well as to provide a reward for verifying transactions. Which is why proof-of-stake is a viable alternative

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Feb 7, 2026, 12:26 AM

    @Misofist @renardboy If we're just thinking about it for fun, there's also the oddity that due to the random-search element of the work, there's no *minimum* on the number of calculations— we can only talk about the number of *expected* calculations it should take to generate a block. Technically without violating the protocol you could generate all currently existing bitcoins with 1 miner getting very, very, very lucky 935,224 times in a row…

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0