First and foremost, I applaud Peter for coming up with an educated attempt to challenge Bitcoin, since most criticisms are usually leveled by clueless and embarrassing amateurs who probably take their economic advice from Paul Krugman and other modern day priests.
His argument boils down to one point: He claims bitcoin doesn’t have “intrinsic value”.
This surprises me, since as a fellow Austrian he should know that there is no such thing.
Value is by definition contingent upon external factors, namely where someone places it on his preference scale against other goods.
I believe what he’s TRYING to say though is that gold can still be used as jewelry if all fails, while Bitcoin has no other utility than for it to be used as a medium of exchange.
This argument can be quickly dismissed because even if I couldn’t use it as a medium of exchange I could still use it as a proof of ownership certificate (just to name one example), as can already be witnessed with projects such as Colored Coins and MasterCoin.
It’s still too early to say what other purposes Blockchain can be utilized for, but I would submit that the opportunities are literally infinite.
I’d be curious what he’d say if someone filled that knowledge gap for him.