You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bitcoin is very expensive and inefficient currency
I tend to no longer think of Bitcoin as a currency, but more as a "backup" to other crypto-currencies and a very risky long term investing vehicle.
It's similar to the gold-dollar relationship, but less secure. Almost like an independent "index" (although it isn't) to gauge the blockchain market.
I don't see any reason to think Bitcoin as a some kind of backup. It needs huge sums of money just to exist. Most of the block reward is going to buying mining hardware and paying electric bills, the value is not even staying in the ecosystem.
A true backup would be like gold – you just buy it and it exists on its own. It's very durable and resilient.
Actually, Bitcoin requires energy to exist, not money. Energy is something much more fundamental than money. Energy can be bought with money at different costs depending on how and where it was sourced. But in contrast to money, energy can never be fabricated.
The point that I´m trying to make is that bitcoin is based on the everlasting and unhackable rules of thermodynamics.
At the same time, I fully agree that other digital tokens are better suited for everyday transactions. Yet I would argue that those wouldn´t even exist without the bitcoin bedrock.
Well look at it this way, bitcoin is a rival to fiat currency, it's never meant to replace gold. This transaction fees issue is just temporary :).
But it doesn't work as a currency because the blocks are full.
Think of the bitcoin space itself as a "tech and money reserve", for the other currencies. It will empty in time without developement, but first mover advantage is huge.