Firstly, Warren Buffet's take on Bitcoin is the same take that he has on Gold. And do you believe Warren Buffet doesn't understand Gold? Don't you think Gold investors write articles on how Warren doesn't understand Gold? Just because someone doesn't buy into something doesn't mean they don't understand it. Which brings me to my second point: Blockchain is not Bitcoin.
From a technology perspective Blockchain will increasingly become more important. From an investment perspective I'm with Warren Buffet - Bitcoin is shit.
It's important to understand that Blockchain as a tool can create technology which will have utility (and thus value), but Bitcoin has limited utility and no intrinsic value, in just the same way Gold has no utility nor any intrinsic value. Just because Bitcoin utilizes Blockchain doesn't mean Bitcoin inherits that value as a product (or in this case: currency).
Edit: BTW - the rest of the article was great... I just couldn't get over the Buffet/Investment part (which to be fair is pretty much the opening statement for the article).
I don't think there's any example of a systems which fulfills the desired properties of a Blockchain without a native cryptocurrency.
I'm skeptical of the notion of intrinsic worth. I think things have value because humans value them.
Gold has a lot of utility, you probably use it frequently without knowing it.
I think it's more accurate to say that Blockchain uses Bitcoin, since Blockchain was the solution necessary to create Bitcoin(speaking of course before the advent of derivative cryptocurrencies+blockchains), but really they're codependent.
You need bitcoin to write to Bitcoin's blockchain. That's very useful.
> You need bitcoin to write to Bitcoin's blockchain.
Right so, Blockchain is a methodology for a cryptographic system of record with transaction capability, and doesn't have to be used for currency, even though that's how everyone is using it. When you simplify it down to a 'system of record' then other use cases become new opportunities. I don't currently have useful ideas outside of currency, but my point was that Buffet doesn't need to understand the details of the methodology (bottom up) to establish an understanding of Bitcoin for investment purposes.
Even as a currency it is valuable provided that it gets tied to something tangible/meaningful. Personally I'm interested in ethereum because of its smart contracts and dapps.
> Gold has a lot of utility,
I'm aware that gold has some utility, so you are correct that I shouldn't haven't stated 'no utility', but gold's utility is not capable of justifying the price on the market. If gold was not being held as asset for the sake of being held as an asset, based on its rarity, then its market value would plunge to the near bottom.
> I'm skeptical of the notion of intrinsic worth. I think things have value because humans value them.
Right so, Gold has value because humans value it, but its value on the market is not tied to its intrinsic worth it's tied to its rarity alone. And that's the point of highlighting intrinsic worth over a human valuation. The value stability/durability is tied to its intrinsic worth.
The overall point is that Buffet is a value investor that's known to use intrinsic worth as the value measure. This is why Buffet hates both gold and Bitcoin. So let's not assume that he doesn't understand. Bitcoin's value is not stable because it's not tied to anything tangible. Even $ are just notes, but they are backed by a gov't which is why they have intrinsic value and therefore much more stability (or as much stability as the gov't/country provides).
note: made some edits to support correct word use.