@25:24 - 26:17
Peter Schiff: "When you buy Bitcoin, it's not providing any service. It's not satisfying any of your needs or desires."
Anthony Pompliano: "It's providing cryptographic security."
Peter Schiff: "But security of what? You've secured nothing. Yes, I mean, I could even concede potentially that... if I own a Bitcoin, no one's going to steal it. But if I have nothing, then what difference does it make whether someone steals it or not? I mean it only has this value to the extent that someone else believes that they're going to get rich by buying it. And again, y'know, you don't want to confuse (because you said earlier that [Bitcoin is] a store of value)- I will concede that the price of Bitcoin has gone way up, buy you can't confuse "price appreciation" with a "store of value." Anything that can go up can also come way down, as we've seen before. I mean Bitcoin has had some spectacular declines, and so there's a lot of volatility there."
P1. If an asset has risen in price because of purely speculative hopes, then that asset is not a store of value. P2. Bitcoin has risen in price because of purely speculative hopes. Therefore: C3. Bitcoin is not a store of value.
P1. Agree. If an asset has risen in price because of purely speculative hopes, then that asset is not a store of value.
P2. Disagree. Bitcoin has risen in price because of speculative hopes, for sure (and we might call that an "offensive" use case), but Bitcoin has also risen in price because of increasing demand for its utility (which we might call a "defensive" use case):
Bitcoin's utility is appealing to people who have been (or might be) the victim of theft, extortion, censorship, restriction, inflation, marginalization, suppression, surveillance, or another form of financial oppression. Bitcoin stops third parties - including corporations and governments - from oppressing its users.
C3. Disagree. Bitcoin enables its users to "store their value" outside the reach of individuals and institutions.