What are the similarities and differences in Bitcoin's value logic compared to historical currencies such as shells, salt, and gold?

Good question. This really gets to the root of "what money actually is." Let's skip the fancy jargon and talk in plain language.

Similarities: The Core Logic is Inherited

Think about it: why did people thousands of years ago accept shells, then salt, and later gold as money? They all shared several common characteristics, and Bitcoin, in essence, is mimicking these characteristics through code.

1. Scarcity (Everyone wants it, but there isn't much of it)

   • Ancient Times: People living by the sea might not have found shells rare, but inland, beautiful shells were a rarity. Salt was a strategic commodity in ancient times, difficult to produce. And gold, of course, there's only so much of it on Earth; every piece mined means one less.
   • Bitcoin: It's not naturally scarce, but "artificially scarce." Its chief architect (Satoshi Nakamoto) hardcoded a total supply of 21 million units; not one more can be created. This is like nature dictating the total amount of gold on Earth, except Bitcoin's rules are guaranteed by mathematics and code.

2. Consensus (Everyone agrees this thing has value)

   • Ancient Times: This is the most crucial point. In a tribe, if everyone agreed to use shells to trade for cattle and sheep, then shells were money. Not because they could be eaten or drunk, but because you believed that if you accepted a shell today, you could exchange it for something you needed from someone else tomorrow. This "shared belief" is consensus. The consensus around gold was gradually built globally over thousands of years.
   • Bitcoin: It's the same. Bitcoin's value comes from millions of people worldwide believing it has value. They trust that the system is secure, the supply is constant, and it can be used for transactions and as a store of value. As long as this belief persists, its value remains. So, whether it's shells or Bitcoin, the foundation of value is human consensus.

3. Usability (Easy to carry, divide, and preserve)

   • Ancient Times: Compared to a cow or a sack of rice, shells and gold were easier to carry, divide (gold could be cut into smaller pieces), and didn't spoil easily (gold is particularly stable). While salt was a bit more cumbersome, it also met these basic needs during certain periods.
   • Bitcoin: In the digital age, it takes these characteristics to the extreme. It's just a string of code, weightless, and can be instantly transmitted across the globe via the internet (ultimate portability); it can be divided down to eight decimal places, or 0.00000001 units (ultimate divisibility); and as long as you remember your private key, it will never decay or rust (ultimate durability).

So, you see, from the core logic of value, Bitcoin and gold are very similar; both address the question of "how to create a trusted, scarce, and usable medium of exchange."

Differences: Form and Foundation Have Completely Changed

While the core is similar, the implementation and environment are entirely different, leading to significant distinctions.

1. Physical Entity vs. Digital Virtual

   • Ancient Times: Shells, salt, and gold are all tangible, physical entities. Even if you don't consider gold as money, it's still a shiny precious metal that can be made into jewelry and has industrial uses. Part of its value is supported by its inherent physical properties.
   • Bitcoin: It is purely digital. You can't touch it; it's just a string of digital records in your wallet address. It has no physical utility; you can't make jewelry with it or use it to fill your stomach. Its value is 100% built on consensus and its monetary properties, with no underlying physical value to "back it up." It's like a physical book versus an e-book; the content is the same, but the medium is entirely different.

2. Centralized vs. Decentralized

   • Ancient Times: Although gold is naturally occurring, its mining, minting, and circulation were largely controlled by the centers of power at the time (e.g., kings, governments). A king could declare a gold mine his own and mint coins bearing his image. While its value had global consensus, it was also influenced by authoritative institutions.
   • Bitcoin: This is its most revolutionary aspect. It has no center. No CEO, no board of directors, no servers located in the US or China. It's an open ledger maintained collectively by thousands of computers worldwide. No government or institution can shut it down, freeze your Bitcoin (as long as your private key is secure), or over-issue it. Gold's scarcity is "God-given," while Bitcoin's scarcity is "code-given," and this code is executed by a decentralized network that no one can alter.

3. Different Sources of Trust

   • Ancient Times: You trusted gold partly because of its physical scarcity, and partly, in many cases, you also had to trust the regime or authority that issued the gold coins. If a king wildly debased the gold coins, the credibility of that currency would decline.
   • Bitcoin: You don't need to trust any person or institution. What you need to trust is mathematics and code. You trust that cryptography is secure and that this decentralized network is immutable. Its foundation of trust shifts from trusting "people" or "institutions" to trusting "technology" and "rules."

In Summary

Simply put, you can understand it this way:

• Similarities: Bitcoin is like the "gold" of the digital world. Both are valuable due to scarcity, have worth due to consensus, and are quite usable (in their respective eras).

• Differences: Gold is a product of the physical world, its value supported by a tangible entity, and authoritative institutions can partially influence it. Bitcoin, however, is a creation of the purely digital world, its value entirely derived from consensus, and its operating rules rely on a decentralized system that is beyond anyone's control, open, and transparent.

Therefore, Bitcoin can be seen as humanity's entirely new, disruptive social experiment in the digital age, applying technological means to the ancient logic of money that has existed for thousands of years. Whether this experiment ultimately succeeds, history will tell.