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?