/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58682825
scarcity alone no but if you add all the other stuffs previous anons mentioned, then it does
scarcity, possibility to send it abroad easily, secured network, proof of work...

>>58510093
i hear you but i disagree on certain things
if we are realistic, ok about your first paragraph even though it's not that simple otherwise BTC as we know it today would be in fact BCH if big players were/are the only one to decide
UAHF and UASF are a real thing and give power to people, even though it's not perfect

about no accountability, i'm fine with it. and i don't see why there should be accountability. bitcoin isn't a company and promise nothing. i strongly believe that if one fucks up, it's is own fuck up.
all the people losing their bitcoin made a mistake somewhere. many never did

bitcoin is what people decide it to be. it will probably evolve further than what satoshi intended.
last time i read an anon saying: the guy who invented the telegraph did it so people could communicate. he had no idea of all the use cases that would come up later with his invention

i've had the feeling you were talking about bitcoin AND altcoins together. am i right ?

>>56255078
>Have fun trying to buy and transfer your digital gold when the network is clogged, fees half of your salary and the wait time of a few weeks if not a lot more. All of that while miners eventually pull the plug and the the network crumbles under its weight and shit security.

woh anon, don't show all at once how much you are clueless about how bitcoin works

>>56208733
that's not the point
inventing digital scarcity is a one time only event
all the other tokens/cryptos are copying this outbreak. they are mere copies of the invention of digital scarcity
then you add to that the network effect and the fact all the other ones are securities (they all have a team promoting them)
look at pic related and tell me in which bubble do you think people will prefer to put their earned money in