-
@ Saberhagen The Nameless
2025-05-07 09:51:53
Sorry just saw this.
We've now drifted from the original topic up in this thread with this SoV and MoE talk. But ok.
I'm not making an argument from authority. If you don't identify with austrian econ, then my examples will have no weight, and that is fair. And if you are in the austrian econ camp you don't necessarily have to agree with Rothbard/Mises etc, but then I would like to hear why you disagree.
If you adhere to subjective theory of value, scarcity *alone* can't make Bitcoin increase in value. There are many things in this world that are scarce, but have no value (i.e. unique artwork).
The free market is also capricious and never "settled". It is always reevaluating. There are plenty examples of products and companies that were once valuable and now practically worthless or non-existent.
But this all has nothing to do with my original point. The value/market cap of Bitcoin has nothing to do with it's "value proposition" (the market could just prefer speculating to get rich and not care as much about permissionless transactions aspect of it).
Maybe you're confusing it because they both have the word "value" in them. Call it "core proposition" instead of "value proposition" if that helps. The core proposition is the only thing that distinguishes it from everything else. Without that it is just a glorified Paypal.
If the only way you can transact on the white market is by following the rules of a central authority, it doesn't mean that Bitcoin itself isn't permissionless (you can defy the rules aka black market transactions), but it means that any transactions placed on that market ARE PERMISSIONED SO DONT BENEFIT FROM THE CORE PROPOSITION OF BITCOIN.
Sorry for caps. Wanted to make my central point clear because we keep talking in circles.