(no title)
AnneOminous | 12 years ago
It IS "value", because the resources used for mining have measurable value, and can be traded for things other than Bitcoins.
It may be an indirect measure of value, but it's still a measure of value.
AnneOminous | 12 years ago
It IS "value", because the resources used for mining have measurable value, and can be traded for things other than Bitcoins.
It may be an indirect measure of value, but it's still a measure of value.
dragonwriter|12 years ago
It is value, but its not value of bitcoins. It is the value that would need to be sacrificied to replace the bitcoins by mining, but its not value that can be recovered from the bitcoins, so its not intrinsic value that supports the market value of bitcoin.
Intrinsic value, as the term is used for currency, is value that you can recover from a currency without trading it -- e.g., the use-value of gold for ornamentation or industrial uses is intrinsic value.
AnneOminous|12 years ago
You can trade Bitcoins directly for more hardware to mine Bitcoins. So it IS a reversible transaction, and Bitcoins are DIRECTLY (not indirectly) valued at approximately the cost of mining and distribution.
Don't confuse "indirect value" with "indirect measurement of value". They are different things.
TylerE|12 years ago
AnneOminous|12 years ago
The "value" here isn't "indirect". Only the method of measurement.
This is economics, not quantum physics. The method of measurement (as long as it is rational and consistent) does not change the value being measured.
21echoes|12 years ago
AnneOminous|12 years ago
So what? That is about the farthest thing from a valid analogy I've seen in a long time.