pull down to refresh
126 sats \ 9 replies \ @SimpleStacker 21 Sep 2023 \ on: What is the issue with Michael Saylor's Bitcoin is "Digital Energy" Idea bitcoin
I'm one of those people that doesn't like the phrase. Not because I don't understand Saylor's point. I do. Bitcoin is proof of work (i.e. energy expenditure). Work has value. Therefore Bitcoin is a persistent store of the value that the work represents, and you should be able to trade it for equivalent work in the future. Actually, you should be able to trade it for more work, because the amount of work to make a bitcoin increases over time.
Fiat, by contrast, is proof of nothing. There's nothing that anchors it to an equivalent in the future other than vague beliefs, which can always shift with the winds of change.
But I don't like the phrase because it's needlessly imprecise. It sounds a bit like marketing hype / scientific mumbo-jumbo, even though it isn't. But I think that's off-putting to people who aren't already on board. Overall, I prefer sticking to the term proof of work as it's more precise and promotes better understanding
See Labor Theory of Value.
Work doesn't have value. Producing things valued by others has value. We don't exchange things of equal value. In voluntary exchanges both parties end up with things they valued more.
reply
I exchange my time, attention, and effort to create a product or service. The product or service may or may not have value but my work has value to me. I've never heard of a business that pays people to work. They want a product/result. But you don't get the result without the work. So the work by relation has value but not on its own. That said, my time has value to me even if not to others.
reply
You're hitting on it pretty well. Your work has value to you, because there are other things you'd rather be doing. That means the product of your time needs to be valuable enough for your employer/customer to be willing to pay for it.
The easiest way to see the flaw in thinking work itself adds value is to just imagine how much you'd still get paid if technology made it possible to produce the same goods from the same inputs without your work.
reply
Fair enough. But I'd also say that work has the capacity to create value, as it is what enables the transformation of lower-valued resources to higher-valued resources.
And, in a way, work might be the most sensible common denominator for value... and since Bitcoin is proof-of-work, bitcoin might be the most sensible denominator of value too :)
reply
All that matters from a value standpoint is the final product. The costs, including work, are the producers problem and reducing them is where profits come from. Thinking of work as part of what determines value is literally the labor theory of value fallacy.
The reason it seems intuitive is that people are willing to work more to generate things of high value, but notice the causal connection is exactly the opposite from the labor theory of value.
reply
Nope, you don't understand what bitcoin is and why it matters, but you accidentally nearly stumbled on an observation that is true: value cannot be generated without work
reply
"Bitcoin is proof of work (i.e. energy expenditure)"
WRONG
AS MUCH GIBBERISH EQUIVOCATION AS SAYLORS. TAKE THE ANSWERS IN THIS THREAD AS APPLYING TO YOUR NONSENSE TOO!
IF I DELIVER YOU A SMACK IN THE FACE FOR YOUR STUPIDITY, IT IS FALSE TO STATE "STINGING SENSATION" = "A SLAP IN THE FACE"
LEARN WHAT THE WORD "IS" MEANS 🤦♂️
reply
It depends on what your meaning of the word is, is
reply
Underrated comment ;)
reply