![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/moneywithkatie.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/unsplash-image-aX1hN4uNd-I.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Before we launch in, I want to give a special shout-out to Money with Katie reader and friend who took it upon himself to aggregate a lot of the resources I used when writing this post \u2013 without Andrew Pinter, it\u2019s no doubt that this article wouldn\u2019t exist (at least, not for a lot longer). He rescued me from staring into the abyss wondering where to start, and his takes and influence are woven throughout. He\u2019s a law student at Boston College who\u2019s 50 shades of smarter than I am, so enjoy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n That\u2019s a title I thought I\u2019d never type. For a long time, I dismissed the hype around Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as a passing, speculative fad, borne out of a time of uncertainty and insecurity (global pandemic) where people were searching for a hedge against a failing economy on government life support. (To be fair, I\u2019m still not wholly convinced it\u2019s not, but only time will tell.)<\/p>\n It was easy to dismiss it for a while, since the majority of said hype was coming from Bryce Hall-equivalent Tik Tok stars and other 19-year-olds promising a get-rich-quick scheme to their followers. <\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t until some of the smarter people I know started getting excited about it that I began to take it more seriously. Call me intellectually snobby, but I wasn\u2019t about to take investing advice from Addison Rae\u2019s boyfriend \u2013 and the general \u201cmeme\u201d culture around crypto had me mostly writing it off. <\/p>\n The purpose of today\u2019s post isn\u2019t to give you the world\u2019s most thorough run-down on the technical aspects of Bitcoin \u2013 if you\u2019re looking for that, there\u2019s an in-depth discussion<\/a> with different \u201cchapters\u201d you can find here, from Coindesk.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s post is intended to show you how I\u2019m<\/em> thinking about Bitcoin \u2013 why I was skeptical, what I\u2019ve learned since then, and how I\u2019m making sense of it. I\u2019ll also share the broader questions I have about the technology, some of which I\u2019ll answer today (and others I\u2019ll just thrust out into the open and pray some overzealous crypto commenter will answer for me).<\/p>\n \u2026because it begs the existential question: What is money?<\/strong><\/p>\n What gives money value? <\/p>\n The dollar hasn\u2019t been backed by gold since 1973, so it\u2019s not like there\u2019s some secret, underlying asset that gives the dollar some inherent value. <\/p>\n In a lot of ways, money is a collective delusion that we\u2019ve all agreed on. The idea that one could just \u201cinvent\u201d a new \u201cmoney\u201d didn\u2019t make sense or fit into my framework of \u201cthings that can happen.\u201d<\/p>\n Before we dive into how I\u2019m making sense of it, I want to highlight reasons for my initial skepticism \u2013 so you know that I\u2019m not close-minded, just paranoid and pessimistic. So much better, right?<\/p>\n For one thing, I judge someone\u2019s understanding of complex things by how simply they can break it down. If you can explain something to me like I\u2019m a fifth grader distracted by the high of a Scholastic Book Fair and still make it comprehensible, then that\u2019s a pretty good sign you understand it. <\/p>\n It felt like every single explanation that people rattled off to me about cryptocurrency, blockchain, or Bitcoin was riddled with jargon, lofty language, and concepts that I wasn\u2019t quite sure even they<\/em> understood.<\/p>\n I felt comfortable investing in the stock market because there\u2019s a century of data behind it. Whether the sense of security I feel is false or not, it\u2019s something with 100+ years of history backing it up \u2013 along with experts, industry, and more Suze Orman books than would fit in your local Half Price Books. <\/p>\n It felt like a relatively safe bet.<\/p>\n Cryptocurrency was invented in 2009, when I was a freshman in high school. And despite the fact that that time was plagued with me replacing the pink silicon cases on my Blackberry on a rotating three-month cadence and layering earth-toned Abercrombie polos \u2013 a lifetime <\/em>ago \u2013 it\u2019s really not a very long period of time for something to prove it\u2019s got long-term value, especially when the growth chart looks like this:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So much of the explosive growth has happened since November of 2020, which gives me slight \u201cbubble\u201d vibes.<\/p><\/div>\n We should note the counterpoint here \u2013 if this technology is in its infancy and destined for a truly valuable future, now\u2019s a great time to get in. It could be Apple stock in the 1980s \u2013 or much bigger, which leads me to my third point of skepticism.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n You can\u2019t talk about cryptocurrency without talking about Bitcoin, the O.G. poster child of the movement (should we call it a movement? New wave of money? I don\u2019t know). There are a defined number of Bitcoin that can exist \u2013 21 million \u2013 and we\u2019ve \u201cmined\u201d about 18.7 million of them as of the time of this writing (May 15, 2021). Here\u2019s a real-time counter<\/a>.<\/p>\n This creates the perfect breeding ground for a supply-and-demand bonanza \u2013 because what makes an asset valuable? Scarcity. <\/p>\n By that, I mean: People want something more if they know it\u2019s scarce. That\u2019s why \u201climited edition\u201d brand drops are so popular for marketers; scarcity drives demand. <\/p>\n But the skeptical side of me saw that as a big FOMO inducer \u2013 people were talking about Bitcoin in the, \u201cYou better get in now or you\u2019re going to miss the trip to the moon!\u201d way, and it felt like a big circle jerk. If I own Bitcoin (read: I have some of the supply<\/strong>), it\u2019s to my benefit if I pump up the demand<\/strong> by telling you that you need some, too. The more people want it, the more \u201cvaluable\u201d it becomes. <\/p>\n It felt like a tech bro\u2019s perfect MLM, and I was not into it. (Don\u2019t worry, we\u2019ll get to the \u201cmaking sense\u201d piece soon, but I wanted to be sure to explain all my initial hesitations in case you\u2019ve got the same ones.)<\/p>\n By nature, I always analogize things. It helps me understand the world around me. And for the longest time, I had nothing to compare this to \u2013 until someone said, \u201cHow do you think people felt when they first heard about the Internet?\u201d<\/p>\n Whoah.<\/p>\n I probably would\u2019ve reacted the same way to the invention of the Internet as I am right now \u2013 \u201cWhat do you mean it\u2019s an interconnected network using standardized computer protocols? F*** you, I\u2019m going back to the Book Fair,\u201d I would\u2019ve said. <\/p>\n It wouldn\u2019t have made intuitive sense to me, and frankly, I still don\u2019t understand how it works \u2013 I just know that it\u2019s the reason I can blast my ridiculous musings to the world and somewhere, someway, you\u2019re sitting in front of a computer on the other side of the country reading them, almost instantaneously. <\/p>\n Looking back, I probably would\u2019ve been one of those people saying, \u201cYeah, but we have hundreds of years of proof that mail works! Why do we need this interconnected computer network? Dumb.\u201d<\/p>\n And I would\u2019ve been wrong.<\/p>\n People have been saying that blockchain is \u201cthe next Internet,\u201d which makes this comparison all the more appropriate.<\/p>\n But that calls to mind an even scarier parallel:<\/p>\n The dotcom bubble<\/a>. <\/p>\n My understanding of the dotcom bubble was that everyone got too excited about the prospect of the Internet all at once, that confidence translated to a ton of money pouring into tech stocks, and then it all came crashing down in 2001 and 2002. Here\u2019s how Investopedia describes it:<\/p>\n The dotcom bubble, also known as the Internet bubble, grew out of a combination of the presence of <\/em>speculative<\/em><\/span><\/a> or fad-based investing, the abundance of <\/em>venture capital<\/em><\/span><\/a> funding for <\/em>startups<\/em><\/span><\/a>, and the failure of dotcoms to turn a profit. Investors poured money into Internet startups during the 1990s hoping they would one day become profitable. Many investors and venture capitalists <\/em>abandoned a cautious approach for fear of not being able to cash in on the growing use of the Internet<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While there are key differences between cryptocurrency and what happened in the late 90s to tech stocks, I can see parallels.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Here\u2019s the NASDAQ from 1991 until today. That peak in the late 90s was the bubble \u2013 notice the steep incline leading up to it, followed by the precipitous drop. It took 15 years for it to regain its previous high, and now it\u2019s much higher.<\/p><\/div>\n This chart is a perfect explanation for why people look at the dotcom bubble as \u201cnot wrong<\/em>, just early.\u201d <\/p>\n Were those people wrong about the importance of the Internet in the future? Well, no. But the amount of capital that flowed in \u2013 quickly and speculatively with really no underlying technology that could turn a profit, at the time \u2013 caused it to come crashing back down to Earth.<\/p>\n Before I published this piece, I shared it with the reader and friend who sent a lot of resources my way when I was learning about it. He\u2019s a law student who\u2019s taken legitimately accredited academic courses on blockchain and Bitcoin, and his enthusiasm for sharing it all with me rivals my enthusiasm for sharing all my hot 401(k) takes with you. <\/p>\n He noted an interesting difference between the conditions that propped up the dotcom bubble and the ones that we\u2019re living in today: online forums like Reddit, Twitter, and even Robinhood<\/a> that tend to democratize this type of information and spread it more quickly. <\/p>\n He posed an interesting question I want to float for the rest of you: Would the dotcom bubble have concluded differently if Reddit were around in 2000?<\/em><\/p>\n You can\u2019t talk about Bitcoin without talking about blockchain, which is arguably the real shining star here \u2013 blockchain<\/em> is the fancy name for the technology that enables cryptocurrency to exist, and it\u2019s basically just a ledger (I think about it like a recordbook or journal, because of my #girlbrain) that records information. <\/p>\n When you or I send money to another person or place today, there\u2019s a middleman in the process: the bank. <\/p>\n If I want to access my money or send it somewhere else, I have to consult my old friend J.P. Morgan Chase. Really, he holds the purse strings. I can\u2019t really access it without him playing along nicely, and if he, for some reason, decides I\u2019m blocked from my own account, I can\u2019t really do anything about it besides beg and plead. <\/p>\n (It\u2019s worth noting here that, if you buy your Bitcoin on an exchange like Coinbase, Gemini, or even a bank that\u2019s beginning to offer the ability, you\u2019re using a middleman again<\/em>. The technology doesn\u2019t require<\/em> one, but if you\u2019re using a third-party service or exchange to get it, you are reintroducing the very middleman that blockchain set out to eliminate. But this is capitalism, so welcome to the marketplace.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The blockchain is special because it\u2019s \u201cdecentralized,\u201d which basically means there\u2019s no one person in control. Banks are for-profit businesses with operating hours, fees, and incentives that don\u2019t necessarily align with your own \u2013 by removing that step from the process of sending money between two individuals or places, you\u2019re creating efficiency that isn\u2019t bound by operating hours, bank fees, or other limitations that traditional banks have today.<\/p>\n The way I think about blockchain is like a record that can\u2019t be changed, manipulated, or defrauded. It\u2019s not instantaneous, though, which was an initial misconception I had. When you transact via the blockchain, that transaction is recorded chronologically in a block<\/em> amongst all the others, then locked in place in a chronological chain<\/em> that lists the transactions. And since it\u2019s \u201cdecentralized,\u201d meaning it doesn\u2019t live in any one place, no one person or institution can control it.<\/p>\n Instead, all the computers on the network have to agree that a transaction is a legitimate. It\u2019s like they all check their records simultaneously, say, \u201cYep, that one checks out,\u201d and then the transaction goes through.<\/p>\n The computers are all incentivized to get it right, because they\u2019re rewarded with more Bitcoin when they do.<\/p>\n (Does anyone else feel like they\u2019re living in a sequel to Smart House that they never consented to? Damn.)<\/p>\n That\u2019s why often times the blockchain is represented in pictures like tons of computers connected via dashed lines, with no hierarchy. No one machine\/person\/server controls the whole; the record-keeping happens simultaneously amongst them. <\/p>\n This decentralization is a huge selling point for the Bitcoin bull case, but in April, a flood in a remote part of China<\/a> exposed a potential shortcoming: A coal mine used to power some of these fancy shmancy computers flooded, and was shut down temporarily as a result:<\/p>\n \u201cPrior to the flood, most experts thought that Bitcoin miners operated in many parts of Xinjiang. But the shutdown exposed that almost all, if not 100% of production in the region, is flowing from Hutubi and three neighboring counties powered by coal from the Fengyuan mine.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The report stated that the blackout stopped about one-third (35%) of all of Bitcoin\u2019s global computing power<\/strong>. That\u2019s a pretty big deal \u2013 it suggests that one-third of the \u201cdecentralized network\u201d is in one place.<\/p>\n That aside, while conceptually I can grasp this blockchain concept, there are a few questions that came up for me:<\/p>\n Is a decentralized network inherently really valuable? Do we need<\/em> decentralized record-keeping? What are the use cases for this?<\/p>\n In my post-draft discussion with Andrew, he told me that hospital records are a pretty good use case for this \u2013 which makes me think it\u2019s beneficial in any sector or industry where record-keeping is fragmented, imperfect, or inefficient. So\u2026 all of them. <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n This seems like it has major implications for replacing the current financial system. Is that system too entrenched to be overthrown? Would the government ever allow<\/em> that to happen? Could they stop it? <\/p>\n The answer is probably more complicated than this, but from my research, it sounds like the prevailing opinion is no, they couldn\u2019t \u2013 they\u2019d have to shut down the Internet in order to fully block it, though it\u2019s possible they\u2019ll start to tax the shit out of it. Instead, it\u2019s more likely that they\u2019ll play nice and try to find a way to control it instead.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n How is this any different than cash? If I have $5, I can give it to someone else without any governing body in-between interfering. I can just hand it to them. <\/p>\n In thinking about this one further, I\u2019d argue that it just takes the requirement for \u201cphysical proximity\u201d out of the equation for a cash transaction. I can\u2019t hand cash to someone in Africa.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n For more about blockchain, <\/em>this Medium article<\/em><\/a> does a decent job of explaining it in greater depth.<\/em><\/p>\n Bitcoin, like other cryptocurrencies, is traded using this blockchain technology. <\/p>\n But instead of being produced by a central governing body (like the Federal Reserve creates U.S. dollars), Bitcoins are \u201ccreated\u201d by computers all over the world. I\u2019m putting \u201ccreated\u201d in quotation marks because they\u2019re technically \u201cmined,\u201d which is a confusing term since it connotes mining for gold. Was that intentional? Probably. <\/p>\n Once mined, a Bitcoin can be traded between two things called \u201cwallets.\u201d If you have a Bitcoin in your \u201cwallet\u201d and you send it to mine, I have a set of private \u201ckeys\u201d that allow me to access it. You can think about the \u201ckeys\u201d like a super long, complex, semi-anonymous username.<\/p>\n This is another place where the aforementioned tech-y coding piece comes in \u2013 but the important thing to note is that the entire network records every transaction.<\/p>\n If you send me a Bitcoin, you and I aren\u2019t the only two with that record. The entire network \u2013 and everyone on it \u2013 stores and \u201csees\u201d that transaction, too. When you go to send one, there\u2019s a mechanism in place that checks the previous transactions to make sure that you have the Bitcoin to send in the first place. (This part doesn\u2019t sound that different to me than traditional banking, except for the fact that it\u2019s \u201cdecentralized\u201d code doing the checking, vs. a bank or institution.)<\/p>\n This is, however, where the \u201csafety\u201d aspect comes in. The Bitcoin \u201cprotocol\u201d \u2013 that method of keeping track of transactions in an unchangeable, chronological way \u2013 can\u2019t be tampered with by coders (I don\u2019t know why or how, so don\u2019t ask \u2013 but that\u2019s a big selling point). <\/p>\n Fraud and hacking that does<\/em> occur tends to happen at the \u201cwallet\u201d level \u2013 as in, someone could \u201csteal your keys\u201d to that wallet, break in, and access your Bitcoin.<\/p>\n One of the key differences that jumped out to me is that it\u2019s irreversible \u2013 today, I could rack up a bunch of spending on a credit card, claim it wasn\u2019t me, ask for the money back, and get the purchases wiped out. The card company doesn\u2019t pay the vendor, and the vendor is left out to dry \u2013 having given me goods in exchange for the promise of money, only to be thwarted by my nefarious ways when I later decided, Nope, I\u2019m going to defraud this merchant.<\/em><\/p>\n You can\u2019t take a Bitcoin back. Once the transaction happens, it\u2019s gone and done. (And while, in this example, it\u2019s used as a good thing, it\u2019s a bit of a double-edged sword \u2013 Andrew pointed out that sketchy, offensive, or proprietary shit could also<\/em> be locked into the blockchain in an irreversible way, which is not good.)<\/p>\n While this might not seem like that big of a deal at the individual level, \u201cchargebacks\u201d (or people reversing payment) are a not-insignificant source of inefficiency in the marketplace. Think about that example at scale: If you have a lot of people leaving the merchant out to dry (taking goods, promising to pay for them via credit card transaction, then defrauding the company later), that becomes a cost to the merchant. At scale, this can drive up the price of goods.<\/p>\n That said, it seemed odd to me that you\u2019d ever pay for anything in Bitcoin \u2013 Bitcoin is theoretically an asset that\u2019s going up in value. Paying for something in Bitcoin felt like the same thing as saying, \u201cI\u2019m going to pay for this transaction with one share of an S&P 500 ETF.\u201d <\/p>\n Since the price of the asset is volatile and changing (unlike the value of $1 USD, which is the unit things like Bitcoin and an S&P 500 ETF are measured relative to), the price of any given object could then fluctuate day to day. <\/p>\n Why would I give you 1 Bitcoin for something today if I think in 6 months from now that same Bitcoin will be worth more? It would change the way I look at transactions. It\u2019s like the guy who spent 10,000 Bitcoin on two Papa John\u2019s pizzas in 2010<\/a>. While that\u2019s an extreme example, the same logic would apply in the future, I\u2019d think. <\/p>\n It would create a perpetual system of being afraid to transact for fear of trading an asset that\u2019s going up in value for something with a fixed value.<\/p>\n Think about it this way: <\/p>\n Pretend I can get a Tesla Model S for 1 Bitcoin. Today, a Bitcoin is worth $48,000.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s say tomorrow it\u2019s worth $50,000. <\/p>\n Does the price of the Model S vacillate between $48,000 and $50,000 from day to day? Or would Tesla charge slightly less than 1 Bitcoin the day it\u2019s worth $50,000 since the \u201coriginal\u201d price was $48,000?<\/p>\n In other words, is the price tied to the dollar, or to the Bitcoin? (In practice today, it\u2019s tied to the dollar \u2013 but if you believe Bitcoin will replace<\/em> the dollar and we\u2019ll no longer have dollars<\/em>, then what is Bitcoin\u2019s value measured relative to?)<\/p>\n And \u2013 more importantly \u2013 does anyone know where I can find a Model S for $48,000?<\/p>\n See why this gets weird?<\/p>\n That\u2019s why I can see the argument that Bitcoin is a \u201cstore of value<\/strong>\u201d \u2013 an asset that maintains or grows in value, assuming everyone continues to agree that it\u2019s valuable \u2013 instead of a replacement for currency. Since the Bitcoin\u2019s value is always related back to \u201chow many dollars\u201d it\u2019s worth, there\u2019s really no point that I can see in charging for things in Bitcoin instead of in USD. <\/p>\n The obvious big exception here is that some of the supposed biggest benefits of Bitcoin are for fraud and merchant protection (like the chargeback example), so in that case, I see this as a bit of an oddity that\u2019ll have to be worked out. <\/p>\n Anyone who\u2019s struggled through Economics 101 or seen one (1) Supreme drop<\/a> knows that scarcity drives demand.<\/p>\n The fact that there are only 21 million Bitcoin \u201cavailable\u201d to exist is a key point that comes up with respect to its inherent value \u2013 it\u2019s limited. You can\u2019t make more (theoretically, at least \u2013 I don\u2019t know why the inventor couldn\u2019t just\u2026 code more, but remember? This isn\u2019t a technical piece). <\/p>\n One concern I have about that structure stems from the massive wealth inequality we already see in the U.S. \u2013 in 2010, the top 0.1% of people in the United States controlled 20% of the country\u2019s wealth<\/a>. <\/p>\n The difference between traditional money and Bitcoin, though, is that Bitcoin is finite, and traditional money is not.<\/p>\n While there are critics who say the fact that they can always print more money is actually a shortcoming because it devalues the dollar, I guess I can see the counterpoint, too: If money were finite, the rich would continue to accumulate it at a rapid pace, and there wouldn\u2019t be any left over for anyone else. It would be a zero sum game.<\/p>\n It\u2019s intellectually sloppy of me to bring this up without a neat resolution, but I think the fact that we can create more dollars is actually a good thing (in moderation), not a bad one. <\/p>\n And while I don\u2019t necessarily think this is an argument that would truly detract from some of the benefits of blockchain technology and the cryptocurrency traded on it, the laws of supply and demand would dictate that as supply shrinks<\/strong> (read: rich people get more of it, leaving less for everyone else), the demand would increase<\/strong>. <\/p>\n The value of each coin would become higher and higher as less is available on the market, thereby ballooning the value of the coins that the evil uber-rich (in this hypothetical) already accumulated, as people fight over the scraps.<\/p>\n I realize that\u2019s a scary, post-apocalyptic picture, but it\u2019s something I haven\u2019t really heard anyone address or debunk yet.<\/p>\n While Bitcoin was originally intended to help address some of the inequality that was driven by the \u201ctoo big to fail\u201d banking system, now those very same banks <\/em>are investing in it. They\u2019re putting their big, bank-y weight into it, which\u2026 kind of defeats the purpose?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Regardless of whether or not I actually believe in the validity of this new technology, I\u2019m looking at it the same way I\u2019d approach any risk\/reward situation by assessing the possible upside and downside.<\/p>\n For example, \u201cregular\u201d stock market investing is still a bit of a gamble. You know over the long, long run you\u2019re likely to win the game, but you could take your fair share of Ls along the way. You won\u2019t win every hand. <\/p>\n To me, though, despite scary forecasts and the potential to lose a lot of hands in a row, I always ask myself: Well, what\u2019s the alternative? Not invest at all? <\/em>The data points to the fact that it\u2019s a good, easy, and cheap way to build wealth. I have yet to come across anything that brings more potential upside for less potential downside. The data is compelling enough to make me believe that I don\u2019t really have a better option<\/strong>, with the exception of adding some rental property investing to the mix \u2013 but even then, I wouldn\u2019t bet it all on real estate, either.<\/p>\n When it comes to Bitcoin, I have far fewer data points to work with. I have a conceptual understanding and a lot of smart people who swear it\u2019s the next big thing, as well as the basic laws of supply and demand. I have about 6 months\u2019 worth of rapid growth (November 2020 to May 2021). <\/p>\n But remember the takeaway about the dotcom bubble: <\/p>\n Many investors and venture capitalists <\/em>abandoned a cautious approach for fear of not being able to cash in on the growing use of the Internet<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cAbandoned a cautious approach.\u201d<\/p>\n Looking at this objectively, I would think that\u2019s the key here: Move forward cautiously. Groundbreaking, I know. <\/p>\n The headline here for me: While I think there\u2019s something to this technology, it\u2019s still unclear to me whether everyone is flooding in right now because they\u2019re<\/em> all simultaneously seeing the value and it\u2019s actually worth the price it\u2019s selling for, or if everyone is just scared<\/strong> of inflation and the uncertain future we face globally.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Because here\u2019s the thing: Even the most bullish Bitcoin investors aren\u2019t going all in and abandoning all other investments (and some of the most famous faces of Bitcoin, like the Winklevoss twins, are reported to have bought it for as little as $10 per coin<\/a> \u2013 that\u2019s .0002% of its current value).<\/p>\n
\n\nThe big picture reason I was confused about Bitcoin<\/h2>\n
Other reasons I was skeptical about cryptocurrency<\/h2>\n
Overly complicated explanations<\/h3>\n
No long-standing history<\/h3>\n
![\"](\"https:\/\/moneywithkatie.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/ScreenShot2021-05-15at101429AM.webp\")
\n\n
Distinct FOMO vibes<\/h3>\n
The key example that shifted my perspective<\/h2>\n
But here\u2019s the weird parallel between cryptocurrency and the Internet example<\/h3>\n
\n
![\"](\"https:\/\/moneywithkatie.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/ScreenShot2021-05-15at104904AM.webp\")
\nNow that that\u2019s out of the way, let\u2019s talk about blockchain<\/h2>\n
\n
How does the blockchain work?<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
So how does the blockchain relate to Bitcoin?<\/h2>\n
Where Bitcoin comes into the equation<\/h3>\n
Why Bitcoin is different from traditional \u201cmoney\u201d<\/h3>\n
\u201cThis store accepts Bitcoin\u201d<\/h3>\n
Supply & demand of Bitcoin<\/h3>\n
\n\nHow I\u2019m thinking about and making these decisions for myself<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Setting expectations realistically<\/h3>\n