reply on: Josh doesn't know where Bitcoin gets its value \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Yes, and my sense is that Josh would agree with you. From his replies to folks, it looks like he finds the regression theorem a little silly.

The main points of his argument are:

people only really want things that are an end in themselves.
things that are a means to an end still need to have some aspect in which they are an end.
what is bitcoin's end?

The second point is the silly one and the third point makes sense after realizing that.

There are any number of factors of production that nobody wants for any reason other than they are a means to a desired end.

Do people just love talking to lawyers? Or, do they pay heavily to do so in order to reach a desired end?

Perhaps I have oversimplified his second point.

People probably don't just enjoy holding dollars. They like what dollars can get them. In that sense dollars are just a means.

However, there are also some things only dollars can get you (you can only pay US tax obligations in dollars).

So dollars have an end for Josh.

Lawyers may be a means to a lot of things, but there are some things you can only get if you hire them.

I have a feeling Josh does not count bitcoin's censorship resistance as an end.

I think you have this correct too: you can only use the bitcoin ledger if you own bitcoin.

Therefor, bitcoin is an indispensable means to a valued end.