I don't think it is the same thing. Everyone agrees that mining the next block is valuable.

Unless they didn’t.

There’s nothing inherently valuable about crypto beyond what value people assign to it in their minds.

Same with all money. Please research more before parroting this argument. You are not the first person to think of it.

Fiat money has a difference: an army. It is issued by a government which has the legitimate right to demand taxes, paid in their currency, and deprive you of life and liberty if you don't.

Ultimately the populace could repudiate the whole social contract, which is also just consensus, but that's a far bigger deal than mere money.

Well to be pedantic, in the USA at least the value of the dollar is largely maintained by civilian law enforcement rather than the military. If you incur a tax liability and fail to pay your debt in US dollars then eventually the IRS will seize your assets and auction them off to settle the debt. Due to the Posse Comitatus Act, the Army doesn't get involved.

The true value of (fiat) money is derived from the fact that contracts are denominated in that money and those contracts are enforced by a central authority with guns. No other assumption is needed in financial engineering.

GP was arguing against GGP’s point and I was simply pointing out that the argument was hollow.

What are you referring to with “research more”?

I don’t discredit any crypto based solely on its ability or inability to fulfill debts, public and private.

But I do wonder if the abstract nature of it will forever hinder its ability to do so universally.

I’m also interested why Bitcoin Cash wasn’t more successful after the fork.

>I’m also interested why Bitcoin Cash wasn’t more successful after the fork.

you mean besides it being run by a bunch of crooks and scam artists like CSW?

I wasn’t actually asking, but making a point. Thanks for helping spell it out though!

False. Gold and silver have intrinsic value beyond their use as currency.

True, but only a minuscule fraction of it is used for that purpose. If that were the sole source of its value, it would be worth pennies per once.

https://pse-info.de/en/scale/price - gold doesn't stand out, there are a few similar ones (Rhodium/Palladium/Iridium/Platinum). I haven't checked, but we'd probably find the gold price sits in a boring-looking distribution of the prices of other elements. Probably an exponential or something that could be mistaken for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prices_of_chemical_elements if you prefer wikipedia.

If it wasn't radioactive, poisonous and pyrophoric people would probably all just leap into the Neptunium market.

That is obviously false on it's face.

If it were only worth pennies an ounce, numerous industries wouldn't be paying what they do for it. The fact that many industries value it at several thousand dollars an ounce is self-evident from their continued use of it.

This is interesting to think about: For gold I'd say the demand is coming from both industries and from people who want it as a store of value. If it was only used as an industrial chemical, then surely the price would drop because there would be less demand.

Some bitcoin advocates will talk about how useful it is as a currency, and I wonder how much bitcoin is actually used for purposes other then to hope you can sell it to someone else for more than you paid.

If the price dropped, it would be even more in demand and reach equilibrium. Gold has several unique mechanical properties, being the most corrosion resistant metal and one of the most electrically conductive, as well as being able to be flattened into extremely thin sheets and drawn into extremely fine wire.

Not for most people. They aren't going to smelt it down and use it to build electronics or jewelry.

For most people the value is what they can receive for it in trade. Which holds for all money.

It's always hilarious when people who are unclear on the basics themselves tell other to "research more". I suppose it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I don't see it that way. I see the person saying "stop making tired arguments" or "don't ask questions that have been answered hundreds of times".

But that's irrelevant to the question above. The question asks "isn't [this attack] the same as saying that if everybody agrees that the USD is worthless, then it is worthless?".

The answer is "no, it's not the same". The attack does not require everybody to agree that the bitcoin is worthless.

Obviously if everybody agrees that the bitcoin is worthless, then it is worthless. But that's a separate topic.

Okay, fine. Everyone involved** agrees that mining the next block is valuable.

That's a good question, but it is different. The equivalent would be "if everyone just agrees that a bitcoin is worth nothing, then it is worth nothing".

I don't know if I have a good comparison here, but maybe something like "if the bank keeps your money for a little longer before validating your transaction, they can use your money for a little longer and make more money from it". Of course if your bank says that a transaction takes 1 year, you will go to another bank. But if they say it takes a day...