Bitcoin is a speculated gambling asset, says Craig Wright

In a recent post, Craig Wright spoke about the fallacy of value through labor and how it was used to justify Bitcoin. According to Craig, many individuals believed that Bitcoin was valuable only because of the energy it uses in creating blocks. However, this was a very wrong notion just like the defective Marxian fallacies. He added:

“It is not the creation of a thing that adds value, but the subjective demand for it”

Craig opined that there was an infinite amount of labor. He further added that “more the number of individuals there are, there will always be more to do.”

Craig used this argument against the government regulations. According to him, regulations imposed certain barriers to the entry into markets as it made business more capital intensive. This would result in certain big corporations and companies forcefully removing the small entrepreneurs from the market.

This would affect the small businesses who are generally more innovative as they have to compete with the larger businesses. He added:

“You create a better mousetrap or a more cost-effective process.”

According to Craig, regulations discourage innovation and entrepreneurship by framing rules. As regulation is reactionary, the emerging market rules would frequently change over time and after an event occurs. This means that they are not flexible but remain rigid until a point where they are broken and are further replaced.

Craig further gave an example of recruiting highly paid corporate CEOs to make wine using 14th Century methods and how it was the same as spending a huge amount of money to create a system which is not valuable and would eventually become a Ponzi scheme. According to him, in the case of wine, a huge amount of money is spent on something only a few would desire whereas in the case of Bitcoin core [BTC], ” a speculative gambling asset, a Ponzi that is designed to pump until, well it doesn’t”

Bitcoin [BCH], on the other hand, is a P2P cash system which focuses on solving the problem of double spending. He stated:

“It doesn’t save the world, it’s just a system of money that is difficult to demure. That may not be enough for you, but, to some of us, it is all there needs to be”