Satoshi has not envisioned ASICs, no. But it doesn't matter what Satoshi thinks/thought of. Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone; anyone can introduce a better way to mine/use it.
It helped and is helping people escape oppressive regime in Venezuela. Your snarky question comes from the place privilege as you've never experience this kind of oppression.
BTC is liquid enough today for companies to move $1B without moving market (see MicroStrategy). Granted, money (USD specifically) is even more liquid, but that's why it's money -- by definition, money is the most liquid good.
BTC's liquidity has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future, so it's just a matter of time.
And you are again conflating SoV with volatility. Todays cash (USD) is not volatile but it's a terrible SoV. That's why no one is storing their wealth in USD and flee to harder assets (stocks, bonds, gold, and BTC).
Case in point still. The contradictions you make are astounding. What's more astounding is that you are not even noticing them.
> Huge investment firms diversifying into crypto
> this is an indictment of the cryptocurrency community's basic financial literacy
I suggest that maybe it's you who lacks basic financial (and econ) literacy, not investment firms or the "cryptocurrency community"
> You can't just call a speculative instrument a "store of value" because every who bought into it in the past two months has seen a positive return
No, everyone who bought BTC at _any point in the past_ and didn't sell are seeing positive returns. This is the definition of a good store of value. You are conflating SoV properties with volatility. They are orthogonal. SoV is a long-term play.
I (and anyone else) can buy food and water with BTC. This statement along completely negates your point. To understand why BTC is valuable and educate yourself on the topic of money, I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BPM3GZQ/
> 50% chance of Bitcoin crash like in 2018, 50% chance of further price appreciation but I think $100,000 is absurd for a commodity that has close to zero intrinsic value
"$100 is absurd for a commodity that has close to zero intrinsic value"
"$1,000 is absurd..."
"$10,000 is absurd..."
At this point, the burden of proof is on sceptics to show why a commodity with zero "intrinsic" value trends upward despite those sceptics' predictions during the last ~10 years.
> Is Bitcoin more inherently valuable than garlic coin? If so, why?
Because of built-in scarcity. No other asset is as provably scarce as btc.
> Also how is BTC the most reliable store of value? It’s had multiple crashes and is one of the most volatile instruments.
Two points here:
- BTC is of course not good for short-term speculation, it's a long-term savings vehicle. Short-term volatility doesn't affect the properties of a long-term store of value.
- There was no period in history of btc where you would buy it and lose $ after 5 years of holding. Most likely, never will be due to my answer to #1 - inherent and ever increasing scarcity.
Is it a trend that the quality of comments about BTC on HN has increased drastically? It's about 50/50 of the good/bad ratio now, whereas 1-2 years ago, I'd say it was easily 10/90.
Tell me mister gxon, are you a good representation of the HN crowd, or is it just Bitcoiners have piled on this article for some reason?
May I ask how you trade options? I've bought a bunch of call options with $25k strike for 12/2021, and I think it will pay out handsomely ($38k is my break-even point, accounting for the opportunity cost of just straight-buying the bare BTC). What's your strategy?
What's discussing is handwaving real-world problems because they don't fit your agenda.