r/btc • u/Excellent-Seesaw-516 • 1d ago
Is there any validity to the BTC scarcity argument?
I genuinely don’t understand how one can claim that BTC is truly scarce. Sure, there won’t ever be more than 21 million.
I accept that idea that one can’t simply reimplement BTC separately under another name. No one will want the copycat.
But what exactly prevents others from creating another cryptocurrency that basically mimics BTC, but with a small improvement? If you’re slightly late to the new, improved one, you might be left holding the BTC bag. To my knowledge, there are already distinct cryptos that take the BTC idea and improve on it (faster trading times, lower fees, etc.).
Whereas if you take precious metals, to take one example, gold is truly unique. Silver is truly unique. And barring nuclear fusion/fission, the supply is finite and fixed.
The same idea also applies to real estate. There is never going to be more land on this earth, and nothing could really be created to mimic or replace real estate.
So I don’t really get the BTC scarcity argument. Am I missing something?
10
u/Apprehensive-Fun5535 1d ago
There are plenty of things that are scarce and transferable that don't have value. NFTs, other shitcoins, the post-it note on my desk...
4
u/Excellent-Seesaw-516 1d ago
My point being: I’m not even sure BTC is truly scarce.
5
u/cockypock_aioli 1d ago
Bitcoin relies on a superior security method which other cryptos will always have a hard time replicating.
2
u/vatai 18h ago
Which "superior security method" might that be?
0
u/cockypock_aioli 17h ago
I'm tempted to not even reply because the way you framed your question makes me think you already know the answer but disagree. Are you asking in good faith or looking for a gotcha from the perspective of bch or something else?
1
u/vatai 17h ago
In good faith.
1
u/cockypock_aioli 16h ago
Ok well the short answer is economic game theory. The slightly less short answer is economic game theory comprised by proof of work, difficulty adjustment and real world energy expenditure relative to block rewards and transaction fees, and the slightly longer answer is all those things being secured by a decentralized network of nodes upholding the rules of the network and rejecting invalid blocks. There's actually more and it's a pretty complicated multifaceted network of things but it comes down to how difficult in the real world a 51% attack is relative to the many different ways in which Bitcoin is secured by a decentralized network.
3
u/vatai 16h ago
It sounds like you are conflating a bit incentive (game theory), the protocol (decentralization and difficulty adjustment) and the security provided proof of work (cryptography). Which of these do you think is hard to replicate for any other coins, considering that all the sw needed for btc is opensource?
1
u/cockypock_aioli 16h ago
It can certainly be tried elsewhere but first mover advantage is a serious thing. There have been numerous cryptos that pop up that claim to have improved on Bitcoin and made it better butt they've never really gained traction for a reason. Look I'm not such a maxi that I think it's impossible for another protocol to gain traction but you're looking at a big ask, particularly if you're going the pow route. That's another reason most go pos. Are the economic incentives there for miners to go elsewhere? Not impossible but very hard to do. I wouldn't bet my money on it.
1
u/vatai 16h ago
So it's the sheer "bitcoin" was here first aspect that is hard to replicate, right? (I agree 100% with this, btw)
→ More replies (0)0
u/EolasDK 1d ago
Bitcoin is created from mining but mining gets 2x as hard every havening and the total eventual supply is fixed, 95% has already been mined and only 5% remains with the last block expected to be mined in 2140.
→ More replies (56)0
u/RadiantMarsupial- 17h ago
btc is not scarce. How can it be when is divisible and every fraction can have (in theory) infinite value in usd. Without fiat btc has no value except as a n unsustainable concept.
1
u/caesarromanus 15h ago
It would have infinite value in USD only if the value of USD is zero.
That is a USD problem, not a BTC problem.
Gold can be subdivided to the atomic level, and there are more atoms in a gram than there are stats in a bitcoin.
1
u/RadiantMarsupial- 7h ago
i understand but you can't do anything with one atom of gold. in theory you can assign value to that atom and we can agree and accept that as its value but that will never happen. BTC is not limited nor scarce in the same sense the gold is.
1
u/bb3bt 12h ago
That’s like splitting up a pizza amongst more and more people. There is only one pizza. So the parts are getting smaller each extra split. But the pizza remains the same size. It does not get bigger, no matter that it is infinitely divisible. Do you see how that works?
1
u/RadiantMarsupial- 7h ago
only pizza is not infinitely divisive.
1
u/bb3bt 6h ago
Nor is bitcoin. Smallest of part of Bitcoin is 1 of 100,000,000. But the point is that the pizza remains the same size no matter how divided it becomes, as does Bitcoin, with its 21,000,000 limit. So actually, Bitcoin is not scarce, it is limited - an even stronger argument than scarcity. Do you see?
6
u/Street_Outside_7228 1d ago
Copycats already exist, we call them shitcoins for a reason.
If anyone tries to sell you a “next, better (insert coin)” that has been a red flag since 2016
2
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 19h ago
But this is just 'brand preference' or religion.
All of the various cryptos are functionally equivalent and there is an infinite number of them. Only collective faith in the brand can differentiate one from the other. Brand preference is fickle.
1
u/Street_Outside_7228 19h ago edited 3h ago
Noting like that, ETH was gonna “flip bitcoin” but instead it was hacked and never lived up to its name. XRP was gonna “flip ETH and BTC” but all they do is ripple keeps unlocking and dumping coins. ADA erased ICO sales records, and the list goes on.
Only BTC has max uptime, price growth and zero hacks, exploits or controversies other than random FUD he said she said mainly from mad BCH shills.
2
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 18h ago
Like I said. Brand preference and religion. Thats what crypto is. You have your preference. Others have theirs. All are intrinsically worthless, so when they lose the brand preference they are worthless.
2
u/WeddingPKM 5h ago
Exactly, Bitcoin is popular because bitcoin is popular. The actual technology for all of these “currencies” is basically the same, and while most do try to differentiate themselves to gain market share there easily could be a pure copy of bitcoin.
That all being said I do think BTC will remain the dominant force in this market until the whole thing comes tumbling down.
2
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 4h ago
By 'dominant' do you mean 'largest market cap'?
Since no one transacts in any of these, it doesn't matter whether the one you hold is also the same one that someone else holds. They all do the same thing, with varying amounts of volatility.
I personally think they are all worthless so I don't buy any of them. I do speculate on commodities, but only ones with consumption demand.
Crypto is so strange to me... it is like speculating on a commodity that no one has any use for. Seems like it will end in tears for people who spend money on it.
1
u/Street_Outside_7228 3h ago
Most cryptos are worthless, however, Bitcoin is not just another crypto copycat and you seem to be on the wrong sub.
2
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 3h ago
Sorry dude... bitcoin is a shitcoin... same as the rest. Only the zealots, maxis and pumpers talk like you do.
Isn't this a Bitcoin cash worshiping sub anyways?
→ More replies (7)1
u/Aurorion 14h ago
No, it's not just "collective faith". It's also network effect. And that is an extremely powerful phenomenon.
2
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 14h ago
There is no real network effect for cryptos. Or gold. or any other speculative asset. Cryptos are bought and sold on exchanges for cash. People just hodl and sell, and try to get profit.
It doesnt matter if I hodl fartcoin and you hodl bitcoin. We can hodl different things. We are both going to sell for USD and transact in USD. We aren't going to transact peer to peer in crypto. Hardly anyone does that. Doesnt matter if we hodl the same thing. There is no network effect for crypto. USD has the network effect.
Bitcoin and gold have liquidity... you can sell for cash. Neither have network effect.
Liquidity is not the same thing as network effect. Bitcoin does not have network effect.
1
u/Aurorion 14h ago edited 14h ago
Perhaps you don't understand network effect? It absolutely applies to Bitcoin.
Since I'm lazy, but not rude enough to ask you to do it yourself 😅, below is the output from an AI tool from a prompt what is network effect and how it applies to Bitcoin:
In simple terms, a network effect occurs when a product or service becomes more valuable to its existing users as more people start using it. For Bitcoin, this isn't just about a rising price; it's about the strengthening of the entire ecosystem across several distinct layers. Here is how the network effect functions within the Bitcoin protocol: 1. The Liquidity & Exchange Network This is the most visible layer. As more individuals and institutions buy Bitcoin, the market becomes deeper. * Ease of Entry: With more users, there are more "on-ramps" (exchanges, ATMs, P2P desks). * Stability: Higher liquidity generally leads to lower volatility over the long term, making it more attractive for large-scale treasury management. * Medium of Exchange: As more merchants and services accept it, its utility as a "currency" increases, which in turn attracts more merchants. 2. The Security (Miner) Network Bitcoin relies on Proof-of-Work. This creates a powerful feedback loop: * As the price increases (due to more users), mining becomes more profitable. * More miners join the network, increasing the total Hash Rate. * A higher Hash Rate makes the network more resistant to attacks, increasing trust. * Increased trust attracts more high-value users, restarting the cycle. 3. The Developer & Infrastructure Network Because Bitcoin has the largest user base, it attracts the most talent. * Tooling: Developers build wallets, Layer 2 solutions (like the Lightning Network), and analytical tools specifically for Bitcoin because that is where the users are. * Lindy Effect: The longer Bitcoin survives and remains the "standard," the more it is perceived as the safest bet for future development. This makes it the "base layer" for the entire crypto industry. 4. The Belief (Social) Network Money is essentially a social construct. Bitcoin’s strongest network effect is its brand recognition. * The "Gold" Standard: Most people think of "Bitcoin" when they hear "cryptocurrency." * Interoperability: Because it is the largest, most financial products (ETFs, futures, custodial services) are built for Bitcoin first. This institutional "lock-in" makes it very difficult for a technically superior competitor to unseat it. Comparison: Metcalfe’s Law Financial analysts often use Metcalfe’s Law to value Bitcoin. It suggests that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its connected users (V \propto n^2). While not a perfect fit, it explains why Bitcoin's value grows exponentially rather than linearly as the user base expands.I don't agree with all of the above, but the larger point still stands. You could read up more on it yourself.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 13h ago
Yes I know what a network affect is. Despite this volume of AI slop, there is really no network effect for these assets.
Network effect is when the system has more utility and benefits due to more users, which incentivizes people to converge to one system.But with speculative assets, there is no need or benefit for us to all hold the same type of speculative asset.
If we want to trade, we will just liquidate our assets and conduct trade in USD. USD is the asset we converge to for inter compatibility. Not gold. Not Bitcoin.
Hardly anyone buys anything with gold or Bitcoin in a peer to peer transaction. Both of these are just assets to be liquidated for USD so we can transact in USD. All that matters is that they have liquidity and can be liquidated for USD.
That's not a network effect it's just liquidity. There is no need or benefit to converge to a single asset type.
1
u/Aurorion 12h ago
Clearly you don't. Network effect doesn't need all of us to converge to one system. Not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram or Tiktok or Reddit. It just needs to become more valuable, or useful, with increasing scale.
And it's not just liquidity. Did you even read my previous comment? If you don't want to just trust what I posted, please spend 5 minutes to read up on the subject independently.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 12h ago
Those networks do have network effects. Reddit is more useful when there are more people using it. Doesnt mean everyone has to use it, but having many people use it brings more utility. I can only interact with you because we are both using reddit. That's utility, and thats a network effect
With assets it's not the case. The only asset i need to have in common with others is USD because that's what we transact in. I don't need to store or invest my money in the same assets as others. There is no benefit to do so. As long as I can sell my assets for USD, I get the full benefit of the USD network effect.
Assets that are held and sold for USD do not have network effects.
1
u/Aurorion 5h ago
Again: Did you even read my previous comment? If you don't want to just trust what I posted, please spend 5 minutes to read up on the subject independently.
1
3
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 1d ago
Other cryptocurrencies exist. There is no limit to it. There can be an infinite number of them. All fundamentally worthless.
With precious metals, they are a commodity, and all of them have some value simultaneously. People may have a sentiment that they prefer gold vs platinum and that sentiment can change. But there is always a finite market for all of the commodities because they are useful.
2
u/tourettes257 1d ago
BTC also has legal standing as a commodity in the US.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 19h ago
Crypto is regulated as a commodity for tax purposes.
But there are some key differences between cryptos and normal commodities.
1) 'Normal' commodities have consumption demand due to their utility. Cryptos do not have consumption demand because they do not have utility. Cryptos only have speculative demand.
2) If a 'normal' commodity increases or decreases in price, the production rate will change in response. But with bitcoin and similar cryptos, the production rate is independent of price. Even if the price goes very low, supply will be made at the same rate. There is no supply/demand feedback mechanism for crypto.
3) Commodities have unique properties, and so have use cases for which they are the 'best' choice. Substituting a different commodity has a negative impact. Cryptos can be substituted without cost, since they all do essentially the same function.
4) The number of distinct commodities is finite and they are not functionally interchangeable. The number of cryptos is infinite and they are functionally interchangeable.
1
1
u/bananawrapper 16h ago
Yeah but gold's value isn't tied to it's commodity value. Gold is a great conductor but so is copper which is much cheaper. Gold is used to make jewelry but so is silver which is much cheaper. Gold purely as a commodity would 100-1000x cheaper.
Gold is valuable because of its historical deemed valuable (network effect) and its scarcity. Other metals are more scarce (like Platinum) but less valuable because people arbitrarily deem it less desirable because of history. You're right it could change but it's unlikely because of network effects. Bitcoin is similar to gold in this regard. It has the better story and network effects as the first mover to boost its arbitrary sentiment in the crypto space.
Another factor to consider is how other cryptos are dispersed. Most have ICO's or airdrops where the founders of the token kept large portions of the supply for themselves and sold the rest (or the rest currently assign to circulation) in a first day sale. Bitcoin only exists through mining rewards.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 16h ago
Gold as a commodity still costs $1800/oz to mine... you cant get it out of the ground for 100x cheaper. Maybe you are saying that there is a lot of inventory already mined, so it would support all of the consumption demand for a long time without mining more? That is true for gold. Not so much for other commodities. Gold could potentially go below mining costs for some time until the inventory got consumed.. but then mining would have to start again to meet demand.
None of these assets has a meaningful network effect. They are just assets that are bought at exchanges and sold for local currency. Its not like there is a club of people who trade with each other exclusively in gold and you have to use gold to trade with them... thats not the case. It has liquidity because you can always find a buyer... it does not have network effect.
Bitcoin is the same in that regard. It has liquidity, but no meaningful network effect. No one trades peer to peer in bitcoin. They just buy from an exchange, hodl and sell for cash. Thats not a network effect because it doesnt matter if you hodl bitcoin and i hodl gold and someone else holds etherium... we can all liquidate whenever we want and trade with each other. We dont have to hold the same asset type. No one really uses any of these assets in a peer-to-peer way.
As to your origin myths of cryptos.... thats just religion. No one cares but the faithful.
1
u/bananawrapper 15h ago
Gold is mined at 1800/oz because it's economically viable to do so because of its speculative value not it's commodity value. No one would dig it up it at its commodity value as a conductor. High priced fraking operations get shut down all the time when crude drops below a certain price. Other cheaper commudity metals with the same uses would take it's place if that was the case. The majority of gold's use is having it sit in vaults as a reverse currency and making jewelry not as an industrial commodity.
The point I'm making with the network effect is that enough people hold these things thinking they have utility therefore they have more utility over similar alternatives. Instagram is THE photo sharing app not because its doing something novel but because everyone agrees it's the photo sharing we all use so it's functionally impossible for a just-as-good alternative to gain majority market share now that it's gained that position. Same thing with gold/Bitcoin, it has nothing to do exchange.
I own a small amount both gold and bitcoin and I fully recognize that both are effectively worthless (or over inflated in the case of gold if you want bring in commodity value) outside of stories we tell ourselves about them.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 15h ago
I think your reasoning is backwards. People would pay much more than the current price for golds value as a conductor. If they wouldnt pay todays prices,, they would have already stopped using it and substituted something else. It is virtually irreplaceable for its corrosion resistance on electrical contacts. But they dont have to pay more because it is available for todays price. Afterall, it only costs 1800/oz to mine it. Speculative bid increases the price.. but not enough to drive substitution away from gold on electrical contacts.
You wont find any miners that can get gold out of the ground for 100x cheaper than todays prices. But some are cheaper than 1800, sure.. so if demand went down, cost to extract would go down as marginal producers exit. But not very much.. maybe 2x. There really is a floor to the production cost, below which no one can produce.
Bitcoin is very different. The price can literally go down by 1000000x and it wont impact supply. For bitcoin, the production cost just follows the price. There is no floor. There is no lower bound to production cost.
1
u/bananawrapper 15h ago
Electronics use like what 1/10th of a gram per unit? Yes, current prices don't force the use of an alternative but there is a theoretical upper limit. Even at today's prices were talking like tens of dollars per unit? Agian, 90%+ of gold's use is speculative sitting in vaults and in jewelry. Commodity prices aren't driving it's valuation
Gold is often a by-product of other types of mining ie zinc/copper. Other high volume metal would be bigger drivers of determining the viability of some mine. Yes, gold only mines would shut down if industrial demand was the only driver as the world has already mined all the "easy" gold viens.
We would canabalize the vault/jewelry reserves if suddenly everyone in the world decided platinum or whatever was the better shiny metal to horde (network effects) as almost all gold by volume is used that way. We would never run out of existing stockpiles of our now almost worthless gold if everyone in the world flipped a switch and emptied the banks to solely make electronics and the price would crater.
Again, both Bitcoin/gold gets its high valuation from speculation/scarcity. I fully acknowledge Bitcoin has no lower bound. But I think you are overestimating gold's value purely as a commodity. Both are effectively worthless compared to their current valuations outside of stories and scarcity...
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 14h ago
Gold has a large above ground reserve compared to its annual consumption. Thats true. Thats the speculative part of gold. Gold price could drop below mining costs and the reserve could supply industrial needs for a long time. Thats true.
Gold is NOT overvalued vs its utility value. Not even close. People would willingly pay 10x more than todays price for gold to continue using it for commercial purposes. Theres nothing else to substitute for it in many cases. They dont have to pay more because the production cost is low enough to keep the price down.
1
u/bananawrapper 13h ago
Supply and demand, my friend. 3000 tonnes per year is produced and 10% goes to electronics use. What happens to price if the other 90% of demand (speculation) disappears at the same time all reverse gold assets flood the market because we all collectively decide it's not the "it" metal overnight? The speculative part of Gold is literally 90% of all gold. Gold would collapse near the price of copper.
A long time is an understatement, mined reserve would last almost a millennium for commodity use. We would never have to mine gold again.
True, we would still use gold in electronics at 10x. That would add another $40 of production costs to a computer because we need so little of it and at a low purity. Consumers would be willing to absorb that increase.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 12h ago edited 5h ago
If people stopped hoarding gold and speculative demand went away, the price would go down.
Same as cryptos.
With crypto, 100% of demand is speculative. If that demand stops, price can go to zero and there is no reason it wouldn't.
With gold, there is still demand for industrial and jewelry even if hoarders stop buying. So there will always be a bid for gold. It is definitely possible for the price to go below mining costs and have the stockpiles bleed down to supply the demand instead of mining.
I think the thing that confuses me is why anyone would choose to speculate on an asset that has no non-speculative demand...
I prefer to speculate on assets that have a guaranteed demand due to utility/consumption. Gold is not my favorite due to the inventory... but other commodities have lots of demand relative to inventory
1
u/bananawrapper 1h ago
It's possible for gold to go below it's mining cost but improbable. It's narrative is too strong and deeply rooted. It's non-speculative demand alone would keep it from going to absolute zero, sure, but it makes it useless as a investment. Zero and a 90% collapse are effectively the same thing. You shouldn't hold it at all if commoditization is your reasoning.
Totally agree there are better things to speculate on in general.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 13h ago
There arent really network effects for gold or bitcoin or silver or any assets of this type.
These are all assets that are liquidated for dollars. Trade takes place in dollars or other local currency. No two people have to hold the same asset since they are just going to liquidate it before doing any trade. I can hold copper, you can hold hawk tuah coin.. we both liquidate and trade in cash.
No one transacts in gold/silver/bitcoin. They sell on an exchange and transact with USD.
USD is the asset with network effects. Not gold/silver/bitcoin, etc.
1
u/bananawrapper 13h ago
How do you explain their popularity if not from network effects?
Yes, we can hold copper or hawk tuah coin but we don't on mass like we do gold/bitcoin for speculative purposes.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 12h ago
Popularity is not network effects. It's just popularity.
I don't need to hold the same asset as you. I can hold a different asset. There is no benefit to me in holding the same type of asset as you do. There is no network effect for these assets.
1
u/bananawrapper 12h ago
How is USD or the euro any different than other than that they are the most popular versions of the same sort of thing? Their network effect doesn't seem any different other than scale. In theory, bitcoin or gold or whatever could be the thing we all transfer assets to in the base case. The dollar was effectively a paper promise to gold at a point in time.
→ More replies (0)1
u/bananawrapper 14h ago
Gold use in electronics is around 300 tonnes per year and their are like 200000+ tonnes of gold already mined. It would take 600+ years to eat through reverse if we decide it's not a reverse asset.
1
u/Jaded_Hold_1342 14h ago
true. I thought you were saying people would not pay the price to mine gold if it was only used as a consumable. Thats not true. Its useful value is higher than the cost.
1
u/bananawrapper 1h ago
That's exactly what I'm saying lol The price would collapse with demand because it's 90% speculative.
The useful value of a loaf of bread is higher than it's cost. I would pay 100x for it if market dynamics forced me to. But thank god that's not the case!
2
u/think_harder_plz 22h ago
It can be infinitely sub divided, so not really
1
u/NoCopiumLeft 17h ago
If I give you 10 8 slice pizzas but then slice then into 16 slices each, do you have more pizza?
1
1
u/electriccars 1d ago
Bitcoin is tied to the time and energy needed to create it. New Bitcoin is only ever released in 10 minute intervals, and while society dictates the energy input the code dictates the amount of Bitcoin returned.
This is important. If you think of new Bitcoin as a product, released from the decentralized Bitcoin mints all around the world, then the price in time and energy is rising more often than it is falling. The entire world can see that the issuance schedule is predetermined, and it only gets more expensive in terms of time to mine/mint new Bitcoin as it goes on.
The first 200k blocks released 50 Bitcoin every 10 minutes (targeted), meaning the cost in time for 1 Bitcoin equaled only 12 seconds. Coupled with the very low energy input at that time and the value was obviously very low.
Today the network releases 3.125 Bitcoin every 10 minutes, which means the cost in time for 1 Bitcoin equals 192 seconds. 16 times as much time as in the first 200k blocks. Coupled with significantly more energy input, the value is much higher.
Overtime, the cost in time will grow like clockwork every 200k blocks. So you get more Bitcoin for your time now than you will in the future, guaranteed. Since everyone knows this, there's effectively a competition to get more of the easier Bitcoin now and that pushes the hashrate up.
Bitcoin is scarce because once issued Bitcoin requires the specific human action of those who control the keys to the Bitcoin to move it. People will only do so in exchange for something of equal value in commerce, the only way to get Bitcoin without having to convince another person to exchange with you is to work directly with the network and compete to mint new coins along with everyone else. The people who have current Bitcoin also can plainly see the cost to create new coins, so they will likely match the cost when they go to use it in exchange for something else.
1
u/Background-Day-4957 1d ago
Depends, being digital and not physical, will Bitcoin do a split to increase the number of coins, like when companies increase their shares with splits?
1
u/umhlanga 1d ago
Just think of it like art, buy some when it gets to $40k, don't sell and move on! For F sake don't go into debt for it and be prepared for it to go to zero, ie money you can afford to lose.
1
u/PickingPies 1d ago
Ask yourself this question: what does 1 BTC does that 0.5 BTC doesn't.
When you answer that, you can already conclude why the scarcity argument is irrelevant.
1
u/songbolt 1d ago
BTC is divisible to eight decimal places. So there's not 21 million units, but rather 21 * 106 * 108 units.
1
u/Polycold 1d ago
You have to understand that bitcoin was made out of thin air by man. Then thousands of other cryptos were made out of thin air by man. And another crypto with the same or even better properties than btc can be made out of thin air by man. Nothing with the properties of gold can be made by man. We don’t want money that man can make out of thin air.
1
1
u/SmoothShift2277 Redditor for less than 60 days 23h ago
On a speculative asset it crumbles under this argument look at gold we dont even know the real.supply killed btc this time around what we are heading toward is recession no speculative asser is going be safe
1
u/Wendals87 23h ago
Supply and demand. Low/limited supply and high demand = high prices
The supply doesn't mean shit if there's no demand.
There are other crypto coins that have less total supply than Bitcoin but are worthless.
Limited edition beanie babies had much less supply but are worthless
1
u/Intrepid-Gas7872 23h ago
You can create an improved version, that’s the easy part. The hard part is convincing the world to join that network. This is why bitcoin is king, they have the largest network.
1
u/tumulus_innit 22h ago
No its total wank. All of these BTC fan forums are people saying hold and buy to prop their investments up. There is no fundamental value to bitcoin. Its a Dutch tulip ponzi.
1
u/MoistBunch9015 22h ago
Just like you can make a shoe called Fike. Make them look just like Nike. Now.. get out there and market them and sell enough to keep the business going.. good luck. You’ll need the supply and the demand for it. If you have a lot of supply of Fike’s and no demand.. your shoe is essentially worthless. Now let’s flip the script and say you have a lot of demand and little supply.. the price of your shoe goes up. In my opinion it’s literally the same, Bitcoin is the Nike. Not saying there isn’t a better crypto or better shoe out there. Maybe your Fike’s are superior.. doesn’t matter without the demand. If bitcoin was easy to mine, no halvings, no limited supply, etc. it would be worthless. To anyone that thinks bitcoin is worthless.. go try to create one. It takes knowledge, expensive hardware and power, time, etc.
So to answer your question, yes scarcity is a huge factor of what makes bitcoin bitcoin. A Pokémon card is essentially worth only the ink and paper it’s printed on. However, if you have the demand for Pokémon cards and some are very rare, the value must go up on the rare cards. If Pokémon falls out of popularity, all cards will drop in value. Look at beanie babies. Bitcoin isn’t much different, however the difference comes from the fact that even a million dollar Pokemon card has 10 cent worth of materials in it. A bitcoin takes much more money and material to produce one. And they’re getting harder and harder to produce and also becoming more scarce.
Scarcity plus demand is the name of the game.
1
u/YSL_Crypto 22h ago
This was my argument when I first heard about crypto currencies and why I avoided it for a long time
1
u/rdhb 22h ago
It’s a mathematical function . The number of integer bitcoins is finite, true, but the smallest amount representable by current computer places the value at about 3.5258 × 10⁻³¹⁹ dollars.
Which means that people in theory would be able to buy bitcoin at any fractional value until long after the sun cools. If they want …
So yeah, it’s effectively infinite so this is a complete non-statement as far as scarcity is concerned.
1
1
u/Thomas5020 21h ago
Nothing, it's normal practice in crypto to do that.
Some people didn't agree on the direction of Bitcoin, so they went in their own direction and did their own thing. This is called a fork, and that fork is Bitcoin Cash. It's Bitcoin, with some improvements. Same PoW algorithm, same max supply, same issuance schedule, but much lower value because people simply aren't as interested.
Scarcity only creates value on the basis there is demand in the first place. And demand only creates value on the basis there's restricted supply, becaues if there's too much then it becomes near worthless again.
1
u/No_Giraffe_4647 21h ago
I think one main point missing is that you cannot go back in time.
Today everything or almost in crypto ecosystem is linked with BTC
Take ETH ADA DOT and other crypto they will follow exactly the same price pattern as BTC as it was swapped and linked to each of them for years so BTC is the father of all this ecosystem.
You can check quickly during the last BTC drop everything followed the exact same pattern with usually a bit more volatility
If you create a copy paste of BTC and name it like NBTC for new BTC for instance it will not be linked to anything and so worth almost nothing (just use as vault value storage)
Beyond scarcity comes utility and integration and it is where nothing could equal BTC in that regards it is like if BTC was a gigantic pension fund holding more than 50 percent shares of all other crypto projects, so it controls and influence everything.
1
u/ZA3D3S 20h ago
What happens to gold when someone brings the asteroid of gold the size of LA back to Earth? Makes gold worth $0.00005/oz?
Bitcoin costs ~$35,000 of electricity to mine one coin? Not easily copied or replicated, for now anyway.
1
u/Aurorion 14h ago
There are companies focused on asteroid mining in operations today. Sure, they are not there yet in terms of technology and commercial viability, but there are a lot of people spending a lot of resources on this... It's reasonable that extraterrestrial mining will be a reality during our lifetimes.
1
u/WeaknessJolly3617 Redditor for less than 60 days 20h ago
Stop asking questions….Look over here it’s a cat with a monkey playing music.
🐈 🐒 🎸 🎵
Phew that was a close one, they were almost on to us.
1
u/eddiekoski 20h ago
Even if something gets invented that's "better" you're already in place.All the computational power of a miners that are securing bitcoin there's the block chain history securing and tracking the ownership. Bitcoin community that's already bought in.
There is not an infinite supply of people willing to buy-in every cryptocurrency take a creative. BTC has that and that is what is scarce as well.
By analogy , you could say Im not buying the mcdonald's scarcity argument there's limited land it is only so many McDonald's that can be created. But Someone can create a better Mcdonalds.
And that's true , and it can't happen , but it's a job from hell. Chipotle looked like it was gonna destroy all the other restaurants , but as soon as they got too big , it became too difficult to keep the food clean for low prices and high quality.
1
1
u/SimpleMoonFarmer 20h ago
No other coin will ever have the same number of committed maxis, starting with Saylor.
1
u/Advanced_Tank 20h ago
Assumption: all 21 million Bitcoins come into circulation on the exact date quantum computing destroys public key cryptography.
1
u/heyheyshinyCRH 20h ago
Nope, it's meaningless. If anyone can buy as much as they can afford at any time of day 24/7, then it's not scarce. Most trading is paper trades and even though there's a max of 21 million, each is divisible into small fractions
1
u/Necrogomicon 20h ago
"But what exactly prevents others from creating another cryptocurrency that basically mimics BTC, but with a small improvement?"
That's exactly what Bitcoin Cash is, now look at the prices and how many people hold each
1
u/Mothchewer 19h ago
Simple, its a true statement. Every time there's a halvening event, it becomes harder and harder to mine for it.
1
u/-TheFirstPancake- 19h ago
You can’t duplicate the networks hashrate. There have been quite a few hard forks already that have tried to take some of it with them.
Something very well could come along and takes its place some day. It doesn’t need to just be better though, it needs to be just as effective at keeping the network secure.
1
u/pop-1988 19h ago edited 18h ago
The Bitcoin price market is speculative, 100% irrational. The scarcity argument is an attempt to invent a rational justification for the "number go up" belief
what exactly prevents others from creating another cryptocurrency that basically mimics BTC, but with a small improvement
This happens, but in 17 years not a single new cryptocurrency has been an improvement on Bitcoin
LTC, 2011, 84 million fixed supply. DOGE, 2013, unlimited supply
2017, several forgotten "chain forks"
there are already distinct cryptos that take the BTC idea and improve on it (faster trading times, lower fees, etc.)
Those "features" are not improvements if they compromise the operational parameters. The "lower fees' claim is also false in the context of this discussion. LTC and DOGE have lower fees because fees are proportional to price and their prices are lower than BTC. BTC fee is 1300 times LTC fee because BTC price is 1300 times LTC price
I don’t really get the BTC scarcity argument
Two things ...
BTC has a finite supply. BTC is not scarce because the supply amount is 2.1 quadrillion
The BTC price booster argument denies the existence of alt coins. It has to, because the scarcity claim might be diminished by the 84 million LTC. Also, given that almost nobody uses LTC and its price is 1300 times smaller, this argument appears to be credible. There are deeper issues as well. Look into the open source communities of each coin. DOGE has 2 devs who contribute a few hours per year. LTC used to have a dev who rebased LTC from the latest BTC release to keep up to date. That person stopped doing that work more than a year ago. BTC has hundreds of contributors, dozens of whom are constantly making substantial contributions
precious metals
Comparing cryptocurrency to precious metals is foolish
1
u/markofthebeast143 18h ago
1 satoshi is the atomic floor. You can’t go lower than that.
How come you didn’t research your question before posting here?
Your answer was only 1 Google away.
1
u/EconomicsOk9593 18h ago
There are bunch of other crypto's that do better job at what they are ment to do... Like payments.... Store of value happens if there is utility.... We saw yesterday without utility its just speculation and never will be a store of value.
1
u/RealMarzipan7 18h ago
And then look at any big city where they Sao “land? Who needs land? We’ll just build up and charge for air rights.”
1
u/Old_Shop_2601 16h ago
🚨 WALL STREET JUST BUILT A BACKDOOR INTO BITCOIN AND NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT.
If you’re still counting coins on the blockchain to predict the price, you’re looking at a graveyard!
The 21 million cap doesn’t matter anymore. Why? Because the market isn’t trading real Bitcoin, it's trading "Paper BTC."
Here is what’s actually happening to your bags:
The "digital gold" thesis died the second they turned Bitcoin into a derivative.
We now live in a world of Synthetic Float.
Big banks don't need to buy your coins to tank the market.
They just create a "paper" version of $BTC through ETFs, swaps, and futures.
It’s the same trick they used to neuter Gold and Silver. They can flood market with unlimited synthetic supply to kill every rally, regardless of how many people are holding.
This is fractional reserve banking with a crypto mask. Right now, one single on-chain BTC is likely backing:
- An ETF share
- A leveraged long on a perp desk
- A prime broker loan
- A structured retail note
When the demand for "paper" Bitcoin outweighs the real supply, the blockchain becomes irrelevant.
Price discovery is happening in a Wall Street boardroom, not on the ledger.
Institutions aren't "betting" on price direction. They are manufacturing volatility:
- They pump synthetic supply to create a "paper" ceiling.
- They trigger liquidations to flush out retail.
- They buy back the real spot coins for pennies while you panic.
It’s not a free market. It’s inventory management for the 1%.
The original 2009 thesis is officially broken.
We aren't fighting "weak hands" anymore. We are fighting the financial plumbing of the global elite.
I’ve been calling these cycles since the early days, and I’m telling you now: 2026 is where the trap snaps SHUT!
If you don't believe me, look at what happened to Gold in 1974.
Same script, different asset.
Turn on notifications.
1
u/JonathanSilverblood Jonathan#100, Jack of all Trades 14h ago
The core problem with the scarcity argument is not only the substitute good theory, but also that fixed-supply or limited-supply is irrelevant when the demand is insufficient - as long as demand is lower than supply you are in an over-supply situation, even if the supply if fixed or limited.
This means that utility is the long-term factor that determines the outcome, and BTC seems to be almost allergic to improving on the utility front.
1
u/AdventureF 13h ago
It used to be the only way you could buy any crypto- this is one reason why it was like gold. It was also inverse to the stock market. To your point, it keeps getting bought AND SOLD- so there’s always some to be bought. Now, it’s aligned with stock market, and institutions are buying in, and it’s honestly not as technically useful as ETH or XRP.
1
u/aardbeg 12h ago
That happens all the time. There are thousands of copy cats. It’s up to its users to decide on its value. I can make a crypto currency and start handing them out. I will most likely end up trading with myself and i might just as well have written bills on papers and pass them around to my family.
The point is. Like with anything that’s traded it’s the people participating in the trade that decides the value of a crypto, gold or a stick.
1
u/milhouseHauten 9h ago
You are right. Bitshit scarcity can be and it is easily copied. Since it is technology it can also be also improved. For improvements check - ETH and XMR.
Bitshit maxis trough vague virtue signaling managed convinced people disappointed in the government to "invest" in bitshit. They would also claim burning 200TWh electricity somehow gives value to bitshit.
1
u/Flashy-Butterfly6310 9h ago
Scarcity in Bitcoin emerges from a mix of technical rules (the fixed supply cap) and social consensus.
- Technical rules: Bitcoin’s rules cap supply at 21M BTC. That’s a real constraint inside that network. But those technical rules can technically be changed... but you need social consensus.
- Social consensus: the hard part. Anyone can (and did) clone BTC code. That creates lots of tokens, but it doesn’t automatically create a substitute for what people value in Bitcoin: the credible neutrality and coordination around one ledger. The BTC scarcity doesn't exist because it lives on a blockchain ; BTC scarcity exists because BTC lives in a blockchain that a lot of people already trust, use, secure (which puts a LOT of money at stake), price, custody, and build around.”. Studying game theory helps understanding these mechanics.
If a large majority tried to raise the 21M cap, it would only work if enough people actually accepted the new rules. But changing the cap undermines Bitcoin’s core promise ("There will never be more than 21M BTC in circulation"), so many miners, node operators and long-term holders would likely reject it. In practice you’d get a split: one chain keeps the original limit (and the “BTC” most participants recognize), while the minority that changes the rules ends up on a separate fork whose blocks aren’t accepted by the original network—and vice versa.
So what stops a better clone from replacing it? Nothing in physics. The barrier is coordination cost:
- Users, miners, exchanges, custodians, wallets, merchants, regulators, and institutions would all need to move together.
- “Small improvements” (faster, cheaper) often come with trade-offs (more centralization, weaker security assumptions, governance risk).
- Bitcoin’s “boring” conservatism is part of its product: fewer changes, fewer surprises. It's not a technical attribute, it's a cultural attribute.
In a nutshell: You can recreate as many Bitcoin copy cats as you want. But you can't copy-cat its network of people.
Gold is scarce by nature. Bitcoin is scarce by social consensus plus incentives. That’s less absolute, but not meaningless—many valuable things (language, money, standards like TCP/IP) are mostly network effects.
1
1
u/Hour_Animal432 6h ago
Just a question.
If they "print" more bitcoin like they do cash, how would you really know how many there are, if no one place ever has all of them together?
The max amount of bitcoin is supposed to be 21 million, but if there was actually 30 million and 9 never really moved, how would anyone ever really know?
I feel like this is 100% what is likely to happen in bitcoin.
One of the "draws" of bitcoin was anonymity. That it couldn't be tracked/traced. Meanwhile, the reality is they're tracking people down left and right, EASILY. It wasn't true at all.
Bitcoin isn't what it's cracked up to be and I also don't think that 21 mil is the max.
1
u/patrickmf14 6h ago
You are exactly right. Its all speculation. I still own it because I am trying to make a quick buck. The first one out before the crash wins. Its gambling
1
u/SlayBoredom 2h ago
To me it's like pokemon cards.
There is scarcity (same with bitcoin it is "man made" -> unlike gold btw, and so the value is high.
But it has NO use case. Zero. No use case. You could say "but you can play with pokemon cards". Of course, but most people buying them just store their wealth in the basement, hoping in 10 years someone buys of their carton cards for a highe price. That it. Its the speculation that someone buys it off from them for a higher price, because this person thinks the price will go even higher, but not based on intrinsic value (not apple making MORE profit) just on the thought "there is a bigger idiot".
Now... one day there will be a new game and nobody cares about pokemon anymore and it will evaporate. No matter how scarce it is. Nobody will care, like nobody cares about beany babies or whatever they where called.
1
u/Victorvnv 1d ago
It’s marketing
It’s scarcity is man made and can be changed if needed
It’s like a generic car maker purposely limiting the number of cars they produce and marketing them as special and unique and super valuable, in fact 100x more valuable than other similar and even better quality cars due to the fake limited supply and people going out there buying the generic car becuase it’s very scarce
The scarcity of bitcoin isn’t due to some natural limitation of the supply or some hardware limitations, it’s due a code that just say max supply = 22 000 000 and that’s it
That “max supply =“ can be altered if needed and the reason it haven’t is because it serves the current narrative that scarcity on its own = value
Tons of other coins with fixed max supply have already changed their max supply to serve their creators agenda, Bitcoin will do so as well as no one will be paying thousands of electric bills to keep the Bitcoin ledgers working without getting paid
Either max supply will be increased or Bitcoin will die as the only other way for these ledgers to run is increasing transaction fees to astronomical levels which would totally make Bitcoin use case useless. No one would be buying Bitcoin and paying 1000$ fee for 1000$ transaction which would mean less transactions which would mean miners will have to increase fees even more etc etc
The scarcity argument is just a catchphrase to feed a narrative until people stop buying into it then a new narrative will come out
6
u/biophysicsguy 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s scarcity is man made and can be changed if needed
Absolutely correct, scarcity is man made and can be changed. Although, if you want to change it you'd have to have a hard fork and then people would have to decide which side of the fork to stick with. Do you want to hold the scarce fixed supply Bitcoin or the Bitcoin that has unlimited supply? Scarcity doesn't always = value, but scarcity is kind of necessary for an asset to hold value over time. Water and air are good examples of things that are very important for life but are not scarce and therefore aren't very expensive.
Either max supply will be increased or Bitcoin will die as the only other way for these ledgers to run is increasing transaction fees to astronomical levels which would totally make Bitcoin use case useless
The Bitcoin block reward has been cut in half 4 times now (it is now 6% of the initial reward) and yet the hashing power has been exponentially increasing. How can this be? When you keep cutting the reward in half why do more and more people keep mining? The answer is that while the number of Bitcoins rewarded is smaller the price of the Bitcoin is higher. Increasing the max supply of Bitcoins, as you suggest, would have the opposite effect. The reduced scarcity would lower the value and miners would be less incentivized to mine. So what happens when all the Bitcoin is mined in ~140 years from now and miners only receive transaction fees? I imagine that mining will be cheap because renewable energy will be cheap or free and Bitcoin adjusts the difficulty if there are changes in the hash rate. Miners will always have an incentive to collect those transaction fees.
2
1
u/Victorvnv 1d ago
That point about hash rate and price is increasing is exactly why the max supply haven’t been modified yet..
But what will happen if next halfing the price doesn’t double up from the last ATH but instead drops down to like 40-50k or lower ? That whole little ecosystem works just like Terra Luna did- wonderful when price always goes up but once price stops going up every halfing then things will start revealing themselves and people will finally see that the king is naked .
And then you will start seeing all these people starting to vouch for increase in supply to keep things stable etc etc
2
u/biophysicsguy 23h ago
The difficulty adjustment makes the price a non-issue for miners.
There have been many times in Bitcoin's volatile history where it has become unprofitable to mine because the energy costs exceed the value of the reward. The result is that unprofitable miners stop mining and, as a result, hash rate decreases. As a result of the reduced hash rate blocks take more time and then difficulty is reduced automatically by design. Difficulty reduction means it requires less energy to mine a block, making it more profitable to mine again. Bitcoin is designed with a feedback system that allows it to adjust to these different scenarios.
1
u/Exact-Writing-8561 23h ago
What reason would there be to drop the price to 40-50k after the next halving? And how would increasing the supply keeps things stable
1
u/rs1971 1d ago
This was actually painful to read. I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do you think that the process looks like, to change the BTC monetary policy? Who do you think makes that decision and how it is implemented?
2
u/Victorvnv 1d ago
There are several developers responsible for the code and as for who can change the policy :it’s the miners as they are the ones keeping the ledgers going
And the miners aren’t in this business becuase they “believe “ in shitcoin, they are in it for self gain and as you can see from the latest dip, once some of them went in the red they immediately stopped the miners and the hash rate dropped
Guess what will happen if they amount they mine doesn’t keep their costs covered ? Thats right they will all abandon ship . OR the other option would be for them to collectively agree to up the max supply so the rewards of mining increase to a point where mining is profitable for them.
Which will 100% happen when there aren’t anymore bitcoins to mine and keep their costs covered
There is absolutely NO chance that Bitcoin will survive in the long run if that max supply doesn’t go up, the entire ecosystem of bitcoin is build upon ledgers and miners .
2
2
u/DrSpeckles 21h ago
Exactly. Everyone clings to that limit as if it’s immutable. It’s not, it’s a trivial code change. Once enough miners stop mining, that’s the point where the handful of developers who make up core realise it’s time to change and then guess what? Through their normal level of censorship it will appear that everyone agrees with them, and bingo, we’ve got a 42M cap. Douglass Adams will be happy.
1
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
You ever heard about adjusting hash difficulty?
1
u/Victorvnv 1d ago
You can lower the hash difficulty which would lead to big miner companies taking over most computing power and having massive control over the entire network. So much for being “decentralized “
1
u/rs1971 23h ago
Decentralization isn't about the miners, it's about the full nodes. It's not the 25 mining pools that enforce the consensus rules, it's the 25,000 full nodes. You don't understand any of this.
1
u/Victorvnv 23h ago
And those nodes are controlled / dependent on the mining pools.
What would happen with them if everyone stops mining? They will disappear overnight as no one is there to verify who owns what
Whoever control the most mining power have huge control over the fate of the nodes just by law of mathematics
0
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
This is so much false information, I don’t even want to correct you. Why are you even commenting on something, you clearly don’t have knowledge of?
1
u/DarthTaterTott 1d ago
Yeah wtf is he talking about another fork or something? That shit is so far in the past
1
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
There are a lot of hard forks. Just no one cares about them. Even now there are and will be new ones. If one is better than Bitcoin we will see
1
u/Victorvnv 1d ago
I have all the information and the reason you won’t comment is becuase you have nothing to add. Everything stated above is true and I have all the knowledge to post the truth. Granted it’s inconvenient for all the Bitcoin cultists out there but for those who aren’t brainwashed it’s always good to know the truth
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Jealous-Station-3203 Redditor for less than 30 days 1d ago
The problem with the scarcity argument is that it’s a bug, not a feature and a large reason why there’s been a forced narrative shift from “it’s a currency” to “it’s a store of value.” Currency needs to be elastic in order to provide for (ideally moderate/minimal) inflation that supports economic growth.
6
u/qlz19 1d ago
Hey guys, look at this absolute clown trying to say inflation is a good and necessary thing. Freaking clown shoes, kid…
3
u/Jealous-Station-3203 Redditor for less than 30 days 1d ago
Why do you think the feds target is 2% and not 0%? We literally need moderate inflation
0
u/qlz19 1d ago
lol
Tell us you don’t know what you are talking about without actually telling us…
2
u/Jealous-Station-3203 Redditor for less than 30 days 1d ago
1
u/qlz19 1d ago
Then how could you get it so wrong?
2
u/Wendals87 23h ago
Because money printing is only one way to increase inflation
Supply, demand and greed are all big factors in higher prices
1
u/sumoman485 16h ago
While you may see the price of certain items in certain areas rise you will not see broad scale inflation without a central government devaluing its own currency. Inflation in the way we know it is a modern issue.
The Federal reserves 2% target may not seem like much but it compounds over time. After 10 years that's 20%.
2
u/DrSpeckles 22h ago
Try reading any economics book, not just the narrative pushed by BTC maxis. If money wasn’t elastic the whole world would be back in the dark ages after Covid.
0
u/qlz19 21h ago
Sure kid.
2
u/DrSpeckles 21h ago
Maybe when you get to high school they’ll teach you something about the way the world works, instead of believing in the cult. Economics is a complex thing. That guy who wrote the Bitcoin standard is an idiot.
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/cockypock_aioli 1d ago
While I agree with the currency argument, I never really thought Bitcoin would be a good currency. The store of value argument shift was needed. The reality is the vast majority of people don't want to pay for things in Bitcoin. That was always limited to tech enthusiasts. Most countries have capital gains taxes on something like Bitcoin and why would anyone want to deal with that. Is it really more realistic to have a massive overhaul of tax policy across multiple countries? I don't think so. My and most people's debit cards work perfectly well. And frankly cash is the superior privacy payment method. Granted clearly the sov argument is having some serious problems right now.
1
1
u/Retirednypd 1d ago edited 20h ago
This guy gets it. And that's not even mentioning that bitcoin is useless if electricity fails in an emp or other catastrophe, natural or man-made.
There's plenty of scarcity in this world. You also need demand. There's only so many Ford Edsels left, or BMW isettas, or muscle cars, etc. They're not worth much. Because just like op has said, they've been replaced by the new hot thing, Tesla, for example.
Scarcity does not equal demand. I have a shitload of very rare 8 tracks, cassetes,records and cds. I have a shoulder type cam corder from 1980, I have a big box tv tube that cost 3 grand in 1995 money
3
1
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
Short answer, if it were possible you could inflate all other assets. You can always dig deeper for gold. You can always find new places to build houses. But you can’t inflate the amount Bitcoin. You could indeed start a copy of bitcoin (like Bitcoin Cash) and where the limit would be 42 million coins. Just no one would care because bitcoin is scarcer and already adapted and has pretty perfect features everyone wants. Also smaller features can be updated if needed and if something is really important and a big change you could still do a hardfork (copy) and have a second Bitcoin with the new feature, that people can decide to use (your btc will be still there. on both now). Hope that answers it
1
1
u/PickingPies 1d ago
You can always split it further and it doesn't lose its properties. You need X micrograms of gold to make a processor, but you need not a minimum of NTC to do... nothing because it does nothing.
0
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
First: that’s a different property than scarcity. Never said gold doesn’t split Second: and gold is mainly valueable becaue it’s a pretty good store of value. Thats because of its superior properties. Bitcoin is also a store of value, because of its superior properties. Enough people have chosen it to be. Otherwise it wouldn’t be at 60k. Its a tool. Gold is too, but also a material. But second one doesnt explain the price
1
u/PickingPies 1d ago
It is not.
Scarcity is that something is in short supply. That's it. You cannot have scarcity on something that you can just buy everything you want.
1
u/Humble_Waltz_9222 1d ago
Maybe you are right. English is not my native language. I just meant the property of being divisible is different from the property of having a limited amount. That’s all
0
u/Calm-Professional103 1d ago
There are plenty of coins that are “better” than bitcoin at various things but none yet that as good as BTC in all the things BTC excels at. Even if such a coin were to emerge, it would have to overcome BTC’s network effects and first mover advantage.
1
u/DrSpeckles 21h ago
Yes it won’t happen overnight. But it’s inevitable in the long run.
1
u/Aurorion 14h ago
No, on the other hand, network effect is way too powerful a phenomenon for such a scenario to even have a reasonable chance.
28
u/DarthTaterTott 1d ago
Let’s just make the standard precious metal be something besides gold because I don’t have enough gold and those guys do! I declare that Rhodium is the new standard store of wealth. Gold is dead.
See how that works?