What is the best response to the argument that Bitcoin isn’t truly scarce?

I’ve heard Peter Schiff argue that Bitcoin isn’t truly scarce because an infinite number of competing cryptocurrencies can be invented. But by that logic, gold isn’t truly scarce either because I can take a random piece of wood, spray paint it gold, and offer this “woodgold” as a competing commodity.

A goldbug might reply that this analogy is ridiculous because gold has properties (scarcity, historical value) that woodgold doesn’t. But that’s exactly the point. Bitcoin has properties that a random altcoin doesn’t; i.e., network security (people seriously underestimate how valuable it is that Bitcoin has survived nearly a decade of sophisticated and persistent attacks), the development community, first mover status, number of adopters, etc. Sure, anyone can create an infinite number of random altcoins, but good luck trying to get people to adopt it and to take the time to protect the integrity of the network.

What is your best response to the “bitcoin isn’t truly scarce” argument?

submitted by /u/newkidonblockchain
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin – The Currency of the Internet

The number of times I’ve been told I’m “backing out of an agreement” is staggering. I’m fine with debating any 2X supporters, but drop that BS argument because NONE of us agreed to anything

It's amazing how heavily some 2X supporters lean on that nonsensical argument. My tendency is to think it's an extension of the endless "social contracts" the government forces onto everyone. We get so entrenched into thinking that if the "authority" decides something, everyone else has to follow.

In the Bitcoin network, at first glance, miners and large businesses appear to fill the role of "authority," and they have been absolutely furious that we didn't just roll over and install the client they said we were going to install.

It makes them all look like fools. As they should for thinking they can hold us to their agreements.

Again, I really don't want to throw salt here, and I would love to argue any legitimate points regarding a HF. But the accusation that we somehow have collectively "failed to keep our word" because someone "promised on our behalf" is some statist crap if I've ever heard it.

No core developers signed the agreement, therefore none are breaking promises.

None of this community signed the agreement. Therefore none of us are breaking any promise.

TL;DR The very reason I'm so unwaveringly against 2X is because of how aghast so many 2X supporters are that I have the audacity to disagree with what "The Almighty Miners" chose for me. I think it's far more important for those people to understand that they can't hold me to anything, and I'm here specifically for that feature.

My node runs 0.15

submitted by /u/Cryptoconomy
[link] [comments]