All that barrel does is stop counterfeiters and tax evaders. Neither of those things are "intrinsic value". And Bitcoin is FAR more difficult to duplicate (you can't even forge or counterfeit it, you have to "double spend" it in a tricky operation requiring owning at least 50% of the network, good luck with that) than any other currency.
Basically, a currency cannot drop to zero value unless ALL trade in it stops. If you think about it, this makes sense. So that is its "intrinsic value". The trade volume props up this minimum. There is of course "speculative value" laid on top of that, but where one stops and the other begins is anybody's guess.
>All that barrel does is stop counterfeiters and tax evaders. Neither of those things are "intrinsic value".
If anything can be said to have 'intrinsic value', being free from prosecution is surely one of those things. Dollars can buy you freedom from prosecution for non-payment of taxes. That's a lot closer to 'intrinsic value' than anything bitcoin can put up.
If your argument is that I'd have to convert bitcoin to dollars in order to pay taxes, that's a nonargument. I am sure they would take Bitcoin directly if pressed. Just ask the FBI, who is now in possession of the largest bitcoin cache on the planet... I suppose you think they're just going to erase all of them because, you know, they're not "backed" by anything?
The FBI is doing what it always does - it's auctioning them off. They might sell for a $1, they might sell for $1000. But they're not being given any special status beyond "appears to be a product people buy".
If they'd seized a bunch of legal movies or video game licenses they'd also do that.
>If your argument is that I'd have to convert bitcoin to dollars in order to pay taxes, that's a nonargument.
It's not a 'nonargument'. It's true, and very relevant.
>I am sure they would take Bitcoin directly if pressed.
That's speculation. You have no reason to believe they'd accept bitcoin. As of right now, they do not. That's all we have to go on.
>Just ask the FBI, who is now in possession of the largest bitcoin cache on the planet... I suppose you think they're just going to erase all of them because, you know, they're not "backed" by anything?
Is there a reason for making this absurd strawman? Where has anyone ever suggested that people should erase their bitcoins because they're not backed by anything?
None of those that come to mind have anything to do with support of the currency, so far as I can tell. You will have to be substantially more specific.
Lybia, Iran and Iraq. This topic comes up every day, and every day someone who doesn't know history will show "skepticism". I don't have a copy/pasteable text in hand, and I'm not gonna write one from scratch. Just learn some history please, for the sake of mankind.
Petrodollar. Denominating oil prices in other currencies would cause oil producing countries to stop importing dollars (accepting payments in dollars), which would cause all those dollars to return back to the US and cause a hyperinflation. Furthermore, as if that wasn't bad enough, the Fed wouldn't be able to print dollars at the rate they currently do (the money would have nowhere to go), which would cause the country to default because the government wouldn't be able to repay its obligations.
The war in Iraq and the coup in Libya were done purely out of economic self-preservation, and not because a few savages with AK47s would pose a serious threat to the western world.
