asourcefamiliarwiththematter on Nostr: If Bitcoiners think Peter Schiff is just wrong, why are they (you) so sensitive about ...

If Bitcoiners think Peter Schiff is just wrong, why are they (you) so sensitive about it?

He says (in essence) that Bitcoin is just nothing, it's numbers made up out of thin air and there's no physical use for it. I think that's obviously correct. The Bitcoin whitepaper defines "a bitcoin" as a digital signature. This of course can be copied infinitely. In fact, Bitcoiners often encourage each other (and neophytes) to copy the entire blockchain (ie run a node). So the scarce thing isn't the technology or the bitcoins but just a ledger record.

You can deny the obvious (that Bitcoins are just made up) or you can try to make the case that these made-up things are so wonderful and useful that they have value despite being made up nothings.

The problem, from my point of view, with the latter approach is that it's circular. If there was some use for these numbers, or if people had some good reason to value them, it would be great to be able to securely and (relatively) cheaply transfer these valuable things around. That would be awesome. But that capacity only has value if the "coins" somehow have value already. It can't give them value they otherwise wouldn't have. Why not? If Bitcoins didn't have any value, transacting in them securely would not constitute a payment system or a money or a valuable service.

I observe that Bitcoins do enjoy a fiat price at the moment. So clearly some subset of people are willing to forego/provide other assets to acquire them. However, this was also true of Enron stock at one time.