steelmanning the “no intrinsic value” argument to then destroy it, in my book.

it’s why u need the philosophy first.

when we start arguing about non-monetary uses as the basis of intrinsic value, we let old peter schiff off the hook because we swallowed his contradiction already.

gold being used in jewelry or computer chips is extrinsic value.

an accident, not essential to the nature of gold, ie. not intrinsic

we don’t take the bait, and we just pile drive him on the logical contradiction

it hit me when I was listening to nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqprfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezummjv9hxwetsd9kxctnyv4mqz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsfyjjen debate peter

then we can explain what intrinsic value is, as it pertains to what is inside the nature, essentially to a monetary object.

and demonstrate that both gold and #bitcoin do have intrinsic value. btc just a hell of a lot more than gold