Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

Mellor

Room1o1 wrote: »

If 50% of miners quite tomorrow not many would compare bitcoin to gold, actually they would start the tulip compassion.

I don't see how that's the slightest part relevant to my question. Which was entirely about the energy use.

But lets run with your answer. Why would 50% of the miners quitting (or beign wiped out in a flood ) turn it into tulips? Care to explain that one.

It appears the bitcoin = gold is coming from people invested in bitcoin
They will not consider that it can be replaced. As an example smart contract cryptos actually have much more uses (see programable money and IOT) they also use far less power, can be mined on cpu's not gpu's.

Bitcoin isn't mined in GPUs anymore. FWIT.

It's not right to compared bitcoin to an atom of gold with a unique structure which if recreated in that configuration is still gold and very useful.

The comparison with gold had nothing to do with its atomic structure.
As above, you appear to mistakenly believe that golds value is an intrinsic property. It isn't.

Bitcoin has a use but not an unique one! It can be copied and bettered which has already happened in terms to technology

FWIW Gold's use is not unique either.

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

If 50% of miners quite tomorrow not many would compare bitcoin to gold, actually they would start the tulip compassion.

I'm unsure where you are going with that. The algorithm is designed such that if miners drop out and the hash rate decreases, there is a difficulty adjustment - which in that instance would adjust downwards. There have been many miners who have gone bust and dropped out. Last March - when the price of bitcoin dropped below $4,000 - many miners went out of business.
I don't see what link you are making between miner activity and the consideration of bitcoin as digital gold (or a store of value in its own right)?

Room1o1 wrote: »

It appears the bitcoin = gold is coming from people invested in bitcoin

I don't think there is anything unusual here. Surely if someone is invested in bitcoin, then they believe that it has value - as a store of value? Just because you don't doesn't mean that it isn't.

Room1o1 wrote: »

they also use far less power, can be mined on cpu's not gpu's.

They don't have the same level of network security or decentralisation.

Room1o1 wrote: »

It's not right to compared bitcoin to an atom of gold with a unique structure which if recreated in that configuration is still gold and very useful.

If store of value is the use case, then gold/btc/tulips should be compared against the recognised characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value and scrutinised on that basis. When you make that comparison, you will see that btc improves upon gold in many instances.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Bitcoin has a use but not an unique one! It can be copied and bettered which has already happened in terms to technology, finance hasn't caught up yet due to people been heavily invested in bitcoin that's the main reason for its price right now. Not it's properties or uniqueness but it's buy in value by investors like tulips once.

Facebook, google and amazon are not unique but you don't see their shareholders bailing out. Why? It's because of network effect.

Room1o1 wrote: »

They will not consider that it can be replaced. As an example smart contract cryptos actually have much more uses (see programable money and IOT) they also use far less power, can be mined on cpu's not gpu's.

Over the last few years, I've done nothing else but consider if btc can be replaced as a store of value. The answer remains that it can't right now. You are not taking into account network effect - and the power of network effect. To usurp btc in its store of value role, another crypto will have to be 10x better than it as a store of value or closely related to its role as a store of value.
Yes, the btc code is open source. You can start a btc clone tomorrow - but without clear advantages as a store of value, your project is not going to erode btc use/market cap.
Lets say that there is a project that aims to usurp bitcoin on the basis of energy use. Firstly, are we comparing like with like? Is it as secure as the bitcoin blockchain? I bet its not. Secondly, is that enough for said project to succeed over btc? I would suggest its not.
As regards programmable money, bitcoin is deliberately limited as programmable money - that's a security feature. Ethereum centres on smart contracts - but that's a completely different category. You mention IoT - projects like IOTA centre on that use case. Not on a store of value use case. That doesn't stop some associated with both of those communities claiming they're going to eat bitcoin's lunch. I think that's a mistake and all it does is damage the narrative and identity of each of those projects.

pioneerpro

TBH the Bitcoin thing is down to first mover advantage and a bit of Gresham's law. Asides from that, comparisons to fiat-pegged stuff become a little strained when you're trying to compare like with like. What BTC does is done better by almost every other coin you could hope to name - from a technical perspective. From a societal perspective none of that matters - its an agreed upon value store based on a consensus agreement regarding inherent qualities at this time. Just like any other value store in history.

Given the massive media focus on power consumption going forward, the recent rolling brownouts caused by government seized mining in Iran, and the capital flight from developing countries to hedge against hyper-inflation, I'd see some regulatory blockers coming into play to put up barriers to entry or otherwise 'license' mining and DeFi in general. Recent developments in India are probably a taste of whats to come:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-19/bitcoin-ban-proposed-in-india-is-a-bad-idea

https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/govt-mulls-blocking-ip-addresses-of-cryptocurrency-exchanges-report-1782207-2021-03-22

That said, the whole proof-of-work and other similar arguments for Bitcoin are kind of rendered null and void in the medium-term if regulation doesn't rear its ugly head -> Bitcoin using more power than the country of Sweden currently is a pretty scathing indictment of the long-term viability.





https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons


The 'last block mined' is in the region of 2140 at current viability projections, but in the next ~15 years one of the following is likely to happen imo:

* Quantum Computer based Integer factorisation will be viable and Shor's Algorithm will be implementable - meaning that everything from RSA to proof-of-work in hash-cash style implementations are trivially solved.
* Some derivative of parallel processing of relevant workloads will be viable using Digital Annelears; massively speeding up the process and reducing block complexity
* Some other novel way of bruteforcing the nonce will be discovered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-can-quantum-computer-destroy-bitcoin-anastasia-marchenkova/

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1711/1711.04235.pdf

Room1o1

Mellor wrote: »

I don't see how that's the slightest part relevant to my question. Which was entirely about the energy use.

It's relevant to my questions about bitcoin been compared to gold. That's what my point is. It's not comparable to gold. It's a bad comparison

But lets run with your answer. Why would 50% of the miners quitting (or beign wiped out in a flood ) turn it into tulips? Care to explain that one.

If 50% of miners left the market tomorrow I don't think that would have a good effect of the price or confidence in bitcoin. People will panic and move their money


Bitcoin isn't mined in GPUs anymore. FWIT.

Bitcoin is only mined in gpu's other cryptos can be mined on cpu's. Look it up and also read my post. I said other cryptos


The comparison with gold had nothing to do with its atomic structure.
As above, you appear to mistakenly believe that golds value is an intrinsic property. It isn't.

This was in relation to the point on gold been superseded with something else. It can be replaced an application (cheap material but at a compromise. No other element can copy it without becoming it (we know all the stable elements already)


FWIW Gold's use is not unique either.

It is in certain applications

Room1o1

pioneerpro wrote: »

TBH the Bitcoin thing is down to first mover advantage and a bit of Gresham's law. Asides from that, comparisons to fiat-pegged stuff become a little strained when you're trying to compare like with like.

Given the massive media focus on power consumption going forward, the recent rolling brownouts caused by government seized mining in Iran, and the capital flight from developing countries to hedge against hyper-inflation, I'd see some regulatory blockers coming into play to put up barriers to entry or otherwise 'license' mining and DeFi in general. Recent developments in India are probably a taste of whats to come:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-19/bitcoin-ban-proposed-in-india-is-a-bad-idea

https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/govt-mulls-blocking-ip-addresses-of-cryptocurrency-exchanges-report-1782207-2021-03-22

That said, the whole proof-of-work and other similar arguments for Bitcoin are kind of rendered null and void in the medium-term if regulation doesn't rear its ugly head -> Bitcoin using more

The 'last block mined' is in the region of 2140 at current viability projections, but in the next ~15 years one of the following is likely to happen imo:

* Quantum Computer based Integer factorisation will be viable and Shor's Algorithm will be implementable - meaning that everything from RSA to proof-of-work in hash-cash style implementations are trivially solved.
* Some derivative of parallel processing of relevant workloads will be viable using Digital Annelears; massively speeding up the process and reducing block complexity
* Some other novel way of bruteforcing the nonce will be discovered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-can-quantum-computer-destroy-bitcoin-anastasia-marchenkova/

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1711/1711.04235.pdf

On the above, very clear points on the future of this crypto. This is why I'm concerned with people comparing bitcoin to gold (that's fine for investors but lay people think it's really safe due to this comparison). They should be careful with this comparison and only speculate if you can afford to. People are betting on it going up and up which is fine they know it's a gamble. Buying gold won't increase in value like bitcoin can.

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

If 50% of miners quite tomorrow not many would compare bitcoin to gold, actually they would start the tulip compassion.

It appears the bitcoin = gold is coming from people invested in bitcoin
They will not consider that it can be replaced. As an example smart contract cryptos actually have much more uses (see programable money and IOT) they also use far less power, can be mined on cpu's not gpu's.

It's not right to compared bitcoin to an atom of gold with a unique structure which if recreated in that configuration is still gold and very useful.

Bitcoin has a use but not an unique one! It can be copied and bettered which has already happened in terms to technology, finance hasn't caught up yet due to people been heavily invested in bitcoin that's the main reason for its price right now. Not it's properties or uniqueness but it's buy in value by investors like tulips once.

Do you think all the money supply of the world exists as physical paper notes and coins and is held in vast vaults?

Most of the worlds money is in the form of made up ones and zeros on bank hard drives and has never been in physical form and never will be.

Harari describes money as a “collective fiction.” He notes that the total value of money worldwide is $60 trillion dollars, of which a mere $6 trillion is in cash or coins. This means 90 percent of all money is nothing more than entries in a computer server. Money, says Harari, is a “faith based object,” whose value is derived by the shared narrative about its worth.

https://www.ngpf.org/blog/uncategorized/question-percentage-money-supply-physical-coins-currency/

Bitcoin is as good as physical gold compared to that nonsense. It's more secure, it's verifiable and traceable, the knowledge is always public and it is rigidly constrained in quantity.

You heard of the Emperor's new clothes tale - well that's fiat currency for you.

Have you ever heard of Citi Bank? It's the 13th largest bank in the world with well over a trillion in assets. Here's what they had to say very recently:

Where could Bitcoin be in another seven or so years? The report notes the advantage of Bitcoin in global payments, including its decentralized design, lack of foreign exchange exposure, fast (and potentially cheaper) money movements, secure payment channels, and traceability. These attributes combined with Bitcoin's global reach and neutrality could spur it to become the currency of choice for international trade.

There are a host of risks and obstacles that stand in the way of Bitcoin progress. But weighing these potential hurdles against the opportunities leads to the conclusion that Bitcoin is at a tipping point and we could be at the start of massive transformation of cryptocurrency into the mainstream.

https://ir.citi.com/_tpHpW8MfaZ1QXwGmP1JGMGXXI95qXm3IMJzUJScLMb6XIjtOls6EbDehXMR3B_o9Opi7mdc5tQ%3D

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

On the above, very clear points on the future of this crypto. This is why I'm concerned with people comparing bitcoin to gold (that's fine for investors but lay people think it's really safe due to this comparison). They should be careful with this comparison and only speculate if you can afford to. People are betting on it going up and up which is fine they know it's a gamble. Buying gold won't increase in value like bitcoin can.

Name the crypto that is less of a gamble?

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

On the above, very clear points on the future of this crypto.

On quantum computing, its something that won't just affect bitcoin. Secondly, there's nothing stopping the bitcoin network changing as cryptography itself changes.
On the energy use debate, If this is framed along the lines of how regulation can be sympathetic towards greater stranded/renewable use rather than outrage/lets ban it - then that's a far more progressive debate. BTC mining is moving itself consistently in that direction in any event - without any such attempts at regulatory intervention. And once more I'll remind folks that of those that claim outrage about btc energy use, not one of them demonstrates the same outrage for gaming energy use (or other sectors that use more energy).

Room1o1 wrote: »

This is why I'm concerned with people comparing bitcoin to gold (that's fine for investors but lay people think it's really safe due to this comparison).

It goes back to gresham's law, metcalfe's law and network effect and the traits of bitcoin as a store of value (benchmarked against the recognised characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value).

Room1o1 wrote: »

. People are betting on it going up and up which is fine they know it's a gamble. Buying gold won't increase in value like bitcoin can.

Bitcoin is more finite than gold. Secondly, bitcoin is an immature asset right now - and that's where the opportunity lies. When it matures, it will be just as boring as gold. Be aware also that gold has had major price appreciation in the past (in the 70s).

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

It is in certain applications

Had it established itself as a store of value long before said applications became a reality?

Room1o1

cnocbui wrote: »

Do you think all the money supply of the world exists as physical paper notes and coins and is held in vast vaults?

No that goes back to the gold standard. That became possible with fiat money and factional reserve banking.

Most of the worlds money is in the form of made up ones and zeros on bank hard drives and has never been in physical form and never will be.

never? What about the gold standard before fiat. Who changed the us dolar to fiat and when?

https://www.ngpf.org/blog/uncategorized/question-percentage-money-supply-physical-coins-currency/

Bitcoin is as good as physical gold compared to that nonsense. It's more secure, it's verifiable and traceable, the knowledge is always public and it is rigidly constrained in quantity.

You heard of the Emperor's new clothes tale - well that's fiat currency for you.

Have you ever heard of Citi Bank? It's the 13th largest bank in the world with well over a trillion in assets. Here's what they had to say very recently:

https://ir.citi.com/_tpHpW8MfaZ1QXwGmP1JGMGXXI95qXm3IMJzUJScLMb6XIjtOls6EbDehXMR3B_o9Opi7mdc5tQ%3D

Ok it's doing really well. Issues have been pointed out and it has its challengers and costs to maintain. What happens to this new gold in a carrington event which does happen from time to time.

pioneerpro

Room1o1 wrote: »

What happens to this new gold in a carrington event which does happen from time to time.

It joins all other redundant value stores like the US Dollar and Gold as shotgun shells and bottled water become the new currency of this postulated dystopian wasteland.

Room1o1

cnocbui wrote: »

Name the crypto that is less of a gamble?

That's my point they all are a gamble and none not even bitcoin the most brought into one can replace gold for security.

Of courses if people put their money in it and believe in it they will defend it just as much as if they were defending the favourite football club in a debate of who is the best bias kick in.

djan

Room1o1 wrote: »

Ok it's doing really well. Issues have been pointed out and it has its challengers and costs to maintain. What happens to this new gold in a carrington event which does happen from time to time.

It would fare much better than current centralised fiat-based systems as miners/validators of transactions would pick up gradually all across the world to restore functionality.

Having said that, if such an event happens again, money will be the very least of our worries as there will be utter chaos of an existential scale as heavy chemical industry, energy providers go kaput.

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

That's my point they all are a gamble and none not even bitcoin the most brought into one can replace gold for security.

It depends on what you mean by security. If you are passing through a border carrying gold or carrying bitcoin, which one presents the greater security threat relative to the potential for confiscation?

Room1o1 wrote: »

Of courses if people put their money in it and believe in it they will defend it just as much as if they were defending the favourite football club in a debate of who is the best bias kick in.

There's an element of that for sure. On that, I'd just like to say that I've maintained the same view on the subject over a number of years - during periods when I held btc and equally during extended periods when I didn't. At the end of the day, it should be benchmarked against the recognised characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value....as should gold and whatever else.

Room1o1

pioneerpro wrote: »

It joins all other redundant value stores like the US Dollar and Gold as shotgun shells and bottled water become the new currency of this postulated dystopian wasteland.

Yeah but people could still barter gold it might not be worth as much as food but certainly more than digital calculations stored on coinbase revolut.
My point still stands is irresponsible to compare bitcoin to gold. I think it will continue to go up in the short term it's good for protecting against inflation in the short term just like tulips did too

pioneerpro

Room1o1 wrote: »

Yeah but people could still barter gold it might not be worth as much as food but certainly more than digital calculations stored on coinbase revolut.
My point still stands is irresponsible to compare bitcoin to gold. I think it will continue to go up in the short term it's good for protecting against inflation in the short term just like tulips did too

~20% of all US Dollars in existence were printed in 2020.

By the same reasoning it's irresponsible to compare fiat currency to fiat-pegs like eh... Gold.

The world economic marketplace has been a consensus fantasy ever since the introduction of fractional-reserve banking. Cryptocurrency as a societal entity is only a natural and organic response to this in a world where fungible currency is a rapidly digitised entity.

A dollar is Fungible. A cryptocoin is Fungible. A weight of a given precious metal is fungible.

That gold is physically tangible is of negligible benefit in a digital world. It can even be viewed as an inconvenience outside of the most apocalyptic, macro-level extinction event style scenarios due to its inherent problems regarding storage and transport.

Some goods are more directly fungible than others. Try selling a diamond back for what you sold it in a retail context and you'll quickly find that out. Or indeed, selling one territory's diamond in another territory. Or getting into how a 'utility comparable' lab-grown diamond is distinguished and valued differently from a mined one.

You start making apples with oranges comparisons regarding non-fungible assets like minted Gold coins (vs a troy ounce of gold powder of a given purity) or say... Baseball cards, then you end up dragging NFTs into the debate and going in circles.

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

Ok it's doing really well. Issues have been pointed out and it has its challengers and costs to maintain. What happens to this new gold in a carrington event which does happen from time to time.

I managed to survive the far worse year 2000 meltdown, i'm not particularly worried.

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

Yeah but people could still barter gold it might not be worth as much as food but certainly more than digital calculations stored on coinbase revolut.

You're talking about complete societal breakdown over an extended period. The only currency in that situation is weaponry - not gold/btc, etc.

Room1o1 wrote: »

My point still stands is irresponsible to compare bitcoin to gold.

They (and anything else anyone thinks is worthy as a store of value) should be compared against the characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value ->
Durability
Portability
Fungability
Verifiability
Divisibility
Scarcity
Established history
Censorship resistance

Room1o1 wrote: »

it's good for protecting against inflation in the short term just like tulips did too

Hardly anyone maintains the whole tulip comparison anymore. What characteristics do tulips have as a store of value? How many months did tulipmania last?

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

Yeah but people could still barter gold it might not be worth as much as food but certainly more than digital calculations stored on coinbase revolut.
My point still stands is irresponsible to compare bitcoin to gold. I think it will continue to go up in the short term it's good for protecting against inflation in the short term just like tulips did too

Survivalist mentalities are a mental illness. I can trace my family tree and history back more than 200 years. At no point have any of my ancestors had to survive by bartering gold or reverted to a tooth-and claw fight for survival.

Room1o1

pioneerpro wrote: »

~20% of all US Dollars in existence were printed in 2020.

This is worrying for sure.

By the same reasoning it's irresponsible to compare fiat currency to fiat-pegs like eh... Gold.

Who compares fait to gold. The perto dolar wasnt that how it was pegged?

The world economic marketplace has been a consensus fantasy ever since the introduction of fractional-reserve banking. Cyrptocurrency as a societal entity is only a natural and organic response to this in a world where fungible currency is a rapidly digitised entity.

It definitely beats fiat and definitely I see bitcoin as a response to this. Remember the first adopters to bitcoin were the anti fed bank and central bank movement. Since then speculators have driven the price. Is bitcoin an investment - yes. It is comparable to other investments and will go down in history and its history still in the making. Personally I see it lasting a long time and could be adopted as the gold standard of digital currency but it hasn't yet so it's not comparable to gold yet.

Mellor

Room1o1 wrote: »

It is in certain applications

Name one that's related to its storage of wealth.

Also, I notice you ignored every other question or point. Not a good reflection on the strength of your argument if it's swept away so easily.

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

It definitely beats fiat and definitely I see bitcoin as a response to this. Remember the first adopters to bitcoin were the anti fed bank and central bank movement. Since then speculators have driven the price. Is bitcoin an investment - yes. It is comparable to other investments and will go down in history and its history still in the making. Personally I see it lasting a long time and could be adopted as the gold standard of digital currency but it hasn't yet so it's not comparable to gold yet.

Even more reason to get in on the ground floor before the only entities that can afford a whole bitcoin are nation states.

Room1o1

cnocbui wrote: »

Survivalist mentalities are a mental illness. I can trace my family tree and history back more than 200 years. At no point have any of my ancestors had to survive by bartering gold or reverted to a tooth-and claw fight for survival.

This someone else mentioned the gun Vs gold. I my point is bitcoin is not comparable to gold. If you ancestors pass on their gold to you I'm sure you wouldn't complain.
Would your ancestors in 200 years prefer your gold or bitcoin? Gold will definitely still be a good store of value then maybe bitcoin will too but maybe not

Room1o1

Mellor wrote: »

Name one that's related to its storage of wealth.

Also, I notice you ignored every other question or point. Not a good reflection on the strength of your argument if it's swept away so easily.

Sorry I can't reply to everyone at once.

Is this a good reflection of my time management. Which points are do you want me to look back over?

Mellor

Room1o1 wrote: »

Sorry I can't reply to everyone at once.

Is this a good reflection of my time management?

You reply to the post.
Avoid the question.

Still don't appear to grasp why gold is a store of wealth.
(nothing to do with it's atomic structure).

Room1o1

cnocbui wrote: »

Even more reason to get in on the ground floor before the only entities that can afford a whole bitcoin are nation states.

This is true but is a gamble

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

Personally I see it lasting a long time and could be adopted as the gold standard of digital currency but it hasn't yet so it's not comparable to gold yet.

It's still formative in that role - but that is also why there is greater upside potential right now. In the future - once mature - I expect bitcoin to be a really boring asset (but one in which people can park up their wealth without having it eroded via inflation or confiscated by banks, governments, etc.).

Room1o1 wrote: »

If you ancestors pass on their gold to you I'm sure you wouldn't complain.

I hold gold as well as bitcoin - so I wouldn't complain. That said, no more than bitcoin, gold should be continually assessed as we go forward. Past performance may provide some guidance re. future performance but it's not a guarantee.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Would your ancestors in 200 years prefer your gold or bitcoin? Gold will definitely still be a good store of value then maybe bitcoin will too but maybe not

I'm not so sure - gold will probably be a good store of value then but there's no guarantee per se.

Room1o1

Mellor wrote: »

You reply to the post.
Avoid the question.

Still don't appear to grasp why gold is a store of wealth.
(nothing to do with it's atomic structure).

My point is at a tangent you'll have to think about it. Plus I think your post is abit about me rather the the discussion which isn't appreciated.

You could ask for a reply rather than accuse me who ignoring you. I'm replying to alot of queries.

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

This is true but is a gamble

The bet on its further progression in the role is assymetric. For that reason, I believe its irresponsible for anyone not to have 1-2% exposure to bitcoin.

cnocbui

Room1o1 wrote: »

This is true but is a gamble

It was even more of a gamble when I took a punt in 2016. It's worked out quite well, so far.

Investing that's not a gamble probably isn't investing.

Mellor

Room1o1 wrote: »

My point is at a tangent you'll have to think about it. Plus I think your post is abit about me rather the the discussion which isn't appreciated.

You could ask for a reply rather than accuse me who ignoring you. I'm replying to alot of queries.

It's ok. You don't need to reply.
The fact you can't back up what you said, or provide examples is proving the case for those of us pointing out your mistakes.

Room1o1

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's still formative in that role - but that is also why there is greater upside potential right now. In the future - once mature - I expect bitcoin to be a really boring asset (but one in which people can park up their wealth without having it eroded via inflation or confiscated by banks, governments, etc.).

So you agree it's not comparable to gold. At least not right now



I hold gold as well as bitcoin - so I wouldn't complain. That said, no more than bitcoin, gold should be continually assessed as we go forward. Past performance may provide some guidance re. future performance but it's not a guarantee.

I never said don't buy bitcoin only gold. By point from the start is wondering why people compare it to gold. Is it wishful thinking or trying to convince others. As I said it has potential but potential is just that

I'm not so sure - gold will probably be a good store of value then but there's no guarantee per se.

Yeah no guarantee in life expext death and taxes. 6000 years is a good tract record though

Room1o1

Mellor wrote: »

It's ok. You don't need to reply.
The fact you can't back up what you said, or provide examples is proving the case for those of us pointing out your mistakes.

No mistake here thank you. Gold is created by supernovas not one but many. Takes its form due to the electron configuration. If copied your creating gold not a copy. It's rare, it's stable, its conductive and expensive for these reasons

Room1o1

makeorbrake wrote: »

The bet on its further progression in the role is assymetric. For that reason, I believe its irresponsible for anyone not to have 1-2% exposure to bitcoin.

I can agree with this. Not at you but some think I'm saying to abandon bitcoin I'm saying to be weary of its description as the new gold

Mellor

Deflated Gold chart. Last 250 years. No exactly stable.
Non linear y-axis too, so it's worse than it looks.

Some body using Gold to store their wealth in 1980, lost almost 90% or it's real world value by 2000.
They've managed to claw it back to 66% though. Woo-hoo.

djan

I'd like to add that the value of gold is only so because people believe in it. In terms of being a raw material for manufacturing etc. it is not all that valuable. It also has a fluctuating and non-finite supply.

End of the day, the value of something is just what somebody else is willing to pay/trade for it. There is no way to measure or forecast that. Humans have quite a strong herd mentality due to being largely social creatures and therefore it's not wise to assume that giving something value has to be strictly "rational". Just look at the belief of the majority of citizens in their nations currency, as their savings and purchasing power are being destroyed by inflation.

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

Yeah no guarantee in life expext death and taxes. 6000 years is a good tract record though

In terms of the 'established history' characteristic of a store of value, gold leads - no contest. In other respects, bitcoin is ahead.

Room1o1 wrote: »

So you agree its not comparable to gold, at least not right now?

It's formative in the role. There is no complete certainty that it makes it - but it certainly seems to be doing so. I take the view that everything needs to be under constant review.

Room1o1 wrote: »

I can agree with this. Not at you but some think I'm saying to abandon bitcoin I'm saying to be weary of its description as the new gold

That's reasonable. I'd also add that it's not unreasonable to keep gold under review. It's not a crazy thought to believe that btc could canabalise its market cap. That doesn't mean gold disappears but its price could suffer over the next few years. It's just something to bear in mind.

Mellor

Room1o1 wrote: »

No mistake here thank you. Gold is created by supernovas not one but many. Takes its form due to the electron configuration. If copied your creating gold not a copy. It's rare, it's stable, its conductive and expensive for these reasons

All elements take their form due to electron configuration. Like oxygen, the most abundant element on earth.
A conductive metal is hardly unique.
There are plenty of rare metals. More rare than gold. Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Rhodium.

Rhodium is about 15 times as expensive as gold.



As pointed about previous. Gold status as the Gold Standard, stems from historical tradition. It was rare, but not so rare so as to be unknown in 1000 years ago.

djan wrote:

I'd like to add that the value of gold is only so because people believe in it.

Exactly. Which is essentially the value any system of currency.

Room1o1

Mellor wrote: »

Deflated Gold chart. Last 250 years. No exactly stable.
Non linear y-axis too, so it's worse than it looks.

Some body using Gold to store their wealth in 1980, lost almost 90% or it's real world value by 2000.
They've managed to claw it back to 66% though. Woo-hoo.

Looks like I was thinking about it the wrong way. Bitcoin is comparable to gold 😜 but honestly your making my point better than me just I was giving gold too much credit just as some are giving bitcoin to much too

makeorbrake

Room1o1 wrote: »

Looks like I was thinking about it the wrong way. Bitcoin is comparable to gold �� but honestly your making my point better than me just I was giving gold too much credit just as some are giving bitcoin to much too

Hmm...I'm not so sure. You can correct me if I'm wrong but you've been tending to look at how bitcoin matches gold up until now. You also have to take into account that bitcoin has its own tricks up its sleeve. Gold fails in terms of divisibility - so it can never been an optimal means of exchange. Bitcoin is also formative as a base settlement layer. It can be moved at will and with ease. When it comes to micro-transactions, its not at the races but that may come back into play through layer two solutions built on top of it.

The gold market has also been highly manipulated largely due to its centralisation. You may be able to store physical gold but the reality is that the majority is stored centrally. Bitcoin could be similarly challenged but it stands a much better chance of not being under the thumb in this respect.

It's supply is completely finite - nothing matches it in that respect. The point is that there are other facets in play here which means that it may well be a much more powerful force than gold going forward.

Bob24

J Powell actually joined the BTC/gold debate today :-) Talking about Bitcoin he just said “It is essentially a substitute for gold rather than the dollar”.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-powell-says-bitcoin-is-more-of-a-substitute-for-gold-than-the-dollar-11616424786

Room1o1

Bob24 wrote: »

J Powell actually join the BTC/gold debate today :-) Talking about Bitcoin he just said “It is essentially a substitute for gold rather than the dollar”.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-powell-says-bitcoin-is-more-of-a-substitute-for-gold-than-the-dollar-11616424786

Thanks, he also quoted "Crypto assets are highly volatile — see Bitcoin — and therefore not really useful as a store of value. They’re not backed by anything. They’re more of an asset for speculation,” Powell said


It is backed by the proof of work though

BrandonBay86

Another 500,000 Satoshis thrown into cold storage for a few years.

EagererBeaver

BrandonBay86 wrote: »

Another 500,000 Satoshis thrown into cold storage for a few years.

Are you going to announce it every week?

Crush On You

Looking to diversify my portfolio (from BTC). Would people throw a bit of money on Chainlink, Cardano or Ethereum? Or have I missed the boat on these?

bfa1509

What's causing this correction?

cnocbui

Volumes aren't very high so it's possibly some silly reaction to Powel blowing air. It's hardly a correction, just an ordinary day for BTC.

cnocbui

Give it a day or two for a decen't number of Turks to get registered on exchanges and I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of a spike as they seek protection from their mad leader and his economic follies.

makeorbrake

bfa1509 wrote: »

What's causing this correction?

All of these gamblers with their leveraged up positions need to be cleared out periodically....and that's a good thing.

Irish_rat

bfa1509 wrote: »

What's causing this correction?

What correction? Theta in the top 10