If the value of art derives from "consensus," can Bitcoin's value inherently mirror the value of art?

This analogy is actually quite clever, and many people have had similar thoughts. We can look at it this way: they are indeed very similar at the fundamental level of "consensus," yet they represent two completely different kinds of "consensus."

Imagine them as two individuals who became famous because "everyone thinks they're amazing."

The value of a work of art is like a "cultural consensus."

Think about why the Mona Lisa is so valuable:

Scarcity: Painted by Leonardo da Vinci, there's only one in the world. That's it.
Story and Endorsement: It has Leonardo da Vinci, a super IP, behind it, centuries of historical stories, it's housed in the Louvre, and countless art historians and critics have written extensively praising it. This "circle of consensus" consists of top experts, authoritative institutions, and wealthy collectors. They declare it to be excellent, historically significant, and representative of the pinnacle of an era.
Emotional Value: When you see it, you might be moved by its beauty, mystery, or historical significance. This value is subjective and emotional.

This consensus formed slowly, like a snowball, rolling for hundreds of years. It is built upon human history, culture, aesthetics, and emotion. In essence, its value is rooted in the ability to tell a story.

The value of Bitcoin, on the other hand, is more like a "mathematical and network consensus."

Think about why some people believe Bitcoin has value:

Scarcity: The code dictates a total supply of 21 million units, no more, no less. This is mathematically guaranteed and unchangeable by anyone.
Rules and Endorsement: Its rules (e.g., who records transactions, how transfers work) are hardcoded and maintained by countless computers worldwide; no one can unilaterally control or tamper with them. Its "endorsement" doesn't come from experts, but from a set of transparent, uncheatable mathematical algorithms and a robust computer network.
Rational Value: People trust it not because it's "beautiful" or "has a story," but because they believe this system is reliable, decentralized, and capable of protecting private property. This value is logical and rational.

The establishment of this consensus relies on trust in technology and code. In essence, its value is rooted in verifiable rules.

So, their relationship can be mapped as follows:

Similarities (Why they are alike):
- Neither has "practical" utility. You can't eat the Mona Lisa, nor can you use Bitcoin as a blanket.
- Both rely on "scarcity." One is physically unique, the other is numerically constant by code.
- Their value both stems from people's "belief." If tomorrow everyone decided the Mona Lisa was just a pile of paint, or that Bitcoin was just a string of code, they would instantly become worthless.
Fundamental Differences (Why they are analogous, not equivalent):
- Basis of Consensus Differs: Art's consensus is subjective, cultural, and elite-driven. Bitcoin's consensus is objective, mathematical, and code-driven.
- Verifiability Differs: The authenticity and value of a painting require a panel of experts to appraise, which is difficult for ordinary people to understand. The authenticity of a Bitcoin, however, can be verified by anyone with technical knowledge through code and the network; it is absolutely transparent.
- Core Differs: The core of artistic value is human emotion and narrative. The core of Bitcoin's value is trust in a set of neutral rules.

In simple summary:

You can view art as a value cultivated over hundreds of years by "old money" and "cultural elites," relying on their taste, knowledge, and influence.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is more like a group of "tech enthusiasts" and "idealists" who, using an unbreakable set of mathematical rules, rally people to believe in a value system that is independent of any person or institution.

Therefore, using "consensus" to draw an analogy between their values is an excellent perspective. Both stand on the foundation of "consensus," but one has built an artistic palace full of humanistic charm, while the other has constructed a digital fortress composed of code and logic.