The problem with such thinking is that the labour theory of value (offen associated with #marxism) has been refuted. The work in general has no value in itself. The fact that work has been performed may provide “psychological value” for some, but there’s no real utility associated with it. More on this topic: https://mises.org/wire/labor-theory-value-refuted-nobody-cares-how-hard-you-work
@KrzysiekJ and you didn't mean anything more specific by it in this context?
Ok, so let's say that the person who said about proof-of-work sells electricity, and their earnings depend on the amount of electricity sold. Surely for them it is profitable and beneficial that people mine a proof-of-work currency, because this increases the profits from selling electricity to those miners.
@Wolf480pl Well, in that sense if I turn a light bulb on, but close it in a black box, then it is profitable to electricity sellers. However it is neither profitable nor beneficial to me, hence from my point of view there is no utility in turning the bulb on. What utility does proof of work provide to cryptocurrency users (unless it is used to obtain security, as in Bitcoin)?
@Wolf480pl Giving money doesn’t sound like creating previously non-existent utility; it’s just changing ownership of resources. And clearly some resources (energy) which have utility are destroyed in proof of work. Refer to Bastiat’s parable of the broken window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
@KrzysiekJ Have a look at the wikipedia article about socially necessary labour time, it's quite good: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time
> #proof_of_work to obtain “intrinsic value”.
- this has very little to do with the LTOV (which by the way has not been refuted, regardless of the delusions held by Austrian school economists), as proof-of-work refers to processor cycles in this case. But that's not even the point here. The interesting bit is that somebody out there thinks a cryptocurrency can hold "intrinsic value"...
@Antanicus Well, human labour can be exchanged for computer labour, so I see no problem in that matter except that Marx’s Law of Value seems to artificially limit itself to human labour (at least when reading the abstract at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value ). Let’s say that we have a transport service. Does the value of that service fundamentally depend on whether it is performed by a human, by a horse or by an autonomous car?
> Does the value of that service fundamentally depend on whether it is performed by a human, by a horse or by an autonomous car?
-Of course. The marginal value of a good or service is always calculated based on the input cost vs. the unit cost. As the cost of machine labor is negligible compared to human labor and is infinitely available, then the value of a good/service produced by a machine will necessarily decrease over time to the least possible price.
@KrzysiekJ no, the LTOV tells us that the value of a product/service includes the cost of the labor that is needed to produce it. Which is why capitalism doubled down on automation since the very beginning: automating away human jobs is the best way to lower the price of a product and thus sell more units and/or undercut the competitors.
@Antanicus I can perhaps agree with the above (assuming we’re talking about transactional price), however Wikipedia defines both terms differently:
LTV: “the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of »socially necessary labor« required to produce it”. Hence it should not matter if a car has square wheels.
law of value: “the relative exchange-values […] are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time”. “Proportional”, hence capital does not matter.