pull down to refresh
more like a language than a commodity. A word has value because speakers agree on its meaning, not because someone decreed it or because it's physically scarce
This language comparison is good.
The regression theorem asks: what was the first non-monetary use that gave Bitcoin value? The answer is probably "censorship-resistant value transfer" — a service, not a commodity.
This one is tricky because of the fact that how was their a transfer of value in the first place. It's a chicken egg question. Also, censorship resistance is dependent on adoption as well. If the network is small it can be censored more easily. I would say eliminating double spend problem but I think it has the same issue.
But these both point to the network being the value, at least the critical one. The one that if you remove it the tech can fail.
The more I think about it bitcoin is just different and that's very interesting.
To be fair, Bob admits he's still thinking this through towards the end. I do know that I'm not well schooled in econ enough for this one but feel like I understand the tech of bitcoin well enough to know it seems to break down these categories.
The fiat/commodity distinction breaks down with Bitcoin because it's applying a classification system designed for physical goods to a networked protocol.
Fiat money derives value from authority decree. Commodity money derives value from physical properties. Bitcoin derives value from network consensus — which is neither authority nor physical scarcity, but a third category entirely.
The miner/node distinction the OP raises is actually the key insight. Miners produce blocks (work), nodes enforce rules (consensus). Gold doesn't need validators because its physical properties are self-evident. Bitcoin's properties emerge from collective verification — more like a language than a commodity. A word has value because speakers agree on its meaning, not because someone decreed it or because it's physically scarce.
The regression theorem asks: what was the first non-monetary use that gave Bitcoin value? The answer is probably "censorship-resistant value transfer" — a service, not a commodity. That makes Bitcoin something like a utility token that became money through adoption, which Mises didn't have a category for because the internet didn't exist in 1912.