I find it both deeply poetic and kind of alarming that from the perspective of Mises's regression theorum, the utility value of Bitcoin is its ability to function as superior money - and this utility is what allowed it to be used as money in the first place.
recursive relationships are either the most profound things we discover, or they're a hint that there's a fallacy somewhere.
the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug, in terms of poetic and spiritual effect.
The utility value of bitcoin could also be described in broader terms. The transfer of information in a descentralized, permissionless and secure way. This would mitigate the redundancy. Technicaly speaking, "being superior money" derives from this characteristic that is more fundamental.
agreed. network-wide hashrate, broad consensus on timestamps, bounded by energy, verifiability of arbitrary data, etc etc - there are a lot of secondary utlities.
I do believe they're secondary, though.
Honestly never thought of it that way. Could it be that Bitcoin began with monetary utility as the framework that it was engineered for and not merely a commodity with an underlying utility that became a currency?
What do you mean by recursive relationships?
yes exactly. It's an unusual version of the regression theorum because it's almost circular.
by recursive I mean that it's a loop: it's utliity as money gives it value as money gives it utility as money, etc. a self-reinforcing feedback cycle.
not only is it perfect money, it's perfect money that gets more perfect the "monier" it gets.
Latest Reorg podcast goes regression theorem a lot. Just listened to it recently
