Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

Str8outtaWuhan · 21-03-2021 06:56PM

My portfolio is up 90% since I began last summer . mainly due to the tips and advice on here. All the genuine lad and ladies here will tell you to DYOR and you have to, my biggest gainers are from coins that have real life applications and have strong support across lots of online communities. I got into Theta, siacoin and Vet from posts here and they have made me a happy bunny.

My kids college fund thanks you.

Lex Luthor · 21-03-2021 07:07PM

$THETA is having an average day

Irish_rat · 21-03-2021 07:36PM

Surprised no one is talking about UNI, top 8 now.

I bet many cursing themselves selling that airdrop :pac:

FFVII · 21-03-2021 08:56PM

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704

Raoul · 21-03-2021 11:17PM

Irish_rat wrote: »

Surprised no one is talking about UNI, top 8 now.

I bet many cursing themselves selling that airdrop :pac:

Yep. One of those guys here. Sold at 5 dollars. Bought back in a small bit. It sickens my stomach every time I look at it.

:(

Room1o1 · 21-03-2021 11:31PM

I can't understand how bitcoin is compared to gold constantly. I understand it's a store of value based on proof of work and is limited so protected against inflation but to me it's still more similar to a fiat currency in that it requires peoples confidence in it to hold its value.
Maybe for investors and speculators it's similar to gold in the short term but gold will still be gold in a couple hunder years where's I doubt bitcoin will be around in 500 years.
I'm I thinking about this the wrong way. Why are alot of people thinking it will hold its value forever or are they just speculators in it for the ride to the top before jumping out which could next week or next decade or longer.

Timmaay · 21-03-2021 11:48PM

Room1o1 wrote: »

I can't understand how bitcoin is compared to gold constantly. I understand it's a store of value based on proof of work and is limited so protected against inflation but to me it's still more similar to a fiat currency in that it requires peoples confidence in it to hold its value.
Maybe for investors and speculators it's similar to gold in the short term but gold will still be gold in a couple hunder years where's I doubt bitcoin will be around in 500 years.
I'm I thinking about this the wrong way. Why are alot of people thinking it will hold its value forever or are they just speculators in it for the ride to the top before jumping out which could next week or next decade or longer.

Surely you can say the very same about gold, to me anyways a gold billet is nothing more than a heavy shiny lump of metal that I cannot really do much at all with, other than hope that everyone's belief in it is higher the day I sell against the day I bought it. Bitcoin certainly has a much shorter and more volatile history than gold, but otherwise it's not much different, it's simple a digital version of gold, limited supply and it certainly cannot be manipulated in the same manner a central bank can print fiat currencies if they want. Do I believe that it will hold its value forever, unlikely, however I know for a fact that a fiat currency in 20years time will be guaranteed to be worth less than it is today. Does that mean I want to put all my cash into BTC, hell no, however I will happily use it as a store of part my wealth in a well diversified portfolio of mine, that will also include fiat, shares and property alongside other assets.

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 12:24AM

Timmaay wrote: »

Surely you can say the very same about gold, to me anyways a gold billet is nothing more than a heavy shiny lump of metal that I cannot really do much at all with, other than hope that everyone's belief in it is higher the day I sell against the day I bought it. Bitcoin certainly has a much shorter and more volatile history than gold, but otherwise it's not much different, it's simple a digital version of gold, limited supply and it certainly cannot be manipulated in the same manner a central bank can print fiat currencies if they want. Do I believe that it will hold its value forever, unlikely, however I know for a fact that a fiat currency in 20years time will be guaranteed to be worth less than it is today. Does that mean I want to put all my cash into BTC, hell no, however I will happily use it as a store of part my wealth in a well diversified portfolio of mine, that will also include fiat, shares and property alongside other assets.

Fiat will definitely suffer inflation over the years (bring back the gold standard lol joking I know it's limitations in creating wealth).

Gold is a physical element (Au) with great properties and uses including as a store of value which is also why it's worth so much through history.
geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml

Bitcoin is proof that a very hard calculation was done and the answer is put on a Blockchain and sold based on what people believe it to be worth similar to fiat.

Using bitcoin in a diversified portfolio is good right now but is it actually worth anything to anyone other than speculators/investors?

Personally I think bitcoin has quite a high cost to the environment and will eventually become too costly to keep the network running plus will receive very bad press soon from the eco crowd.

When the 24 million calculations are completed where's the incentive to keep turning on the computers than run the network? Transaction fees will need to be quite high to cover the electricity and equipment cost. Gold just sits there not rusting or polluting.

Other cryptos have improved on these issues where bitcoin can't. Smart contracts will be so useful very soon. This is why I'm concerned for some who compared it to gold I would compare them to tulips.

cnocbui · 22-03-2021 12:36AM

Gold mining is potentially highly toxic, often involving considerable quantities of arsenic and it's not remotely CO2 neutral to mine and purify. After that it's ok.

I'm very happy with my share of tulips. That's the thing with etherium and it's ilk - very soon now someone is bound to want some for something.

Jeff2 · 22-03-2021 12:41AM

connie147 wrote: »

As a newcomer to the crypto game, (2 months actually is a complete newbie), I just want to say that I love seeing a post by an experienced player recommending a specific coin along with a few lines about why its worth considering. (I presume a brief explanation of why a coin looks a good investment means more to the likes of me than it does to the experienced poster).

I've been learning as much as I can about doing DD, so I use that info to start me off on a search of a project. Somebody came on here and called Boards a "cess-pit". i don't agree at all. I have learned so much from the various posters here its hard to explain.

We are all in here for the same reason i guess, and that is to make some €s from investing in cryptos. (well the likes of me are also in here to learn). If we can help each other, that's great for the boards crypto community. And I speak for all the newbies when I express my gratitude for the free advice and helpful posts that appear on the forum.

basically, I just want to say that not everyone thinks its a cesspit round here.

If you're name was John Doe you might have gotten less help but it was all good information.

Remember everyone here is here to make money and not necessarily to help you.
You could lose a load of money just because you took information online.

2000s buy bank shares and houses..

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 01:03AM

cnocbui wrote: »

Gold mining is potentially highly toxic, often involving considerable quantities of arsenic and it's not remotely CO2 neutral to mine and purify. After that it's ok.

I'm very happy with my share of tulips. That's the thing with etherium and it's ilk - very soon now someone is bound to want some for something.

Bitcoin does has its place and popularised the Blockchain which with smart contracts will change our world.

However the gold compassion seems to me to be wishful and part of me feels it's people who are invested in it who want it to be like gold rather than it bing like gold. Hope it keeps its value but it does have its issues to overcome

Mellor · 22-03-2021 01:12AM

Room1o1 wrote: »

I can't understand how bitcoin is compared to gold constantly. I understand it's a store of value based on proof of work and is limited so protected against inflation but to me it's still more similar to a fiat currency in that it requires peoples confidence in it to hold its value.

Pretty much every store of wealth requires confidence.
If there's no confidence, there's no trade, if there's no trade there's no value.

Maybe for investors and speculators it's similar to gold in the short term but gold will still be gold in a couple hunder years where's I doubt bitcoin will be around in 500 years.

BTC and Gold could both exist in 500. BTC can exist in hardcopy.
Existence has nothing to do with value.

Why are alot of people thinking it will hold its value forever or are they just speculators in it for the ride to the top before jumping out which could next week or next decade or longer.

Who mentioned holding value forever?

Room1o1 wrote: »

Gold is a physical element (Au) with great properties and uses including as a store of value

A rock in a field is a physical and is worthless. We are surrounded by elements that hold no value.
Gold had physical properties. As do all elements. Being a store of value is not a physical property. It's a decision that people made centuries ago. It's stable, as it's been a standard for a long time. But it there is no real reason for it.

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 01:43AM

Mellor wrote: »

Pretty much every store of wealth requires confidence.
If there's no confidence, there's no trade, if there's no trade there's no value.

BTC and Gold could both exist in 500. BTC can exist in hardcopy.
Existence has nothing to do with value.

Who mentioned holding value forever?

A rock in a field is a physical and is worthless. We are surrounded by elements that hold no value.
Gold had physical properties. As do all elements. Being a store of value is not a physical property. It's a decision that people made centuries ago. It's stable, as it's been a standard for a long time. But it there is no real reason for it.

Ture the proof of work can be in a hard copy but then it's not on a Blockchain and could be copied. The Blockchain declares the owner.

Maybe I am looking at its comparison with gold it the wrong way as gold isn't really brought either but certifcates of gold which could be compared to certificate of proof of work.

Both require lots of effort to create in gold's case it needs a couple of supernovas. There are reasons gold is stable and a stardard for so long. However this does not mean bitcoin won't either hold its value as long as gold has. Gold though can't be superseded unless material science has some kind of breakthrough or if a famine happend then you would happily give up gold for a few seeds.

But gold and bitcoin differ as other cryptos are already competing with it which have greater potential. Bitcoin has a lead on all of them and it seems that lead is due to it been first and more brought into than the others kinda like how a fiat currency has a buy in to value rather than a physical one.

I do think bitcoin could one day become the gold standard of digital currencies as in not the one used by the people on a day to day badis but as store of value to base other cryptos off. But that's not where it is right now and might not get there either. That's why I feels the gold compassion are speculators hoping it gets there. Maybe comparing it to tulips is harsh but comparing it to gold is then optimistic.

Rob2D · 22-03-2021 02:20AM

The whole "Bitcoin is harming the environment" thing is a pretty weak argument IMO. You can mine Bitcoin solely on renewable energy. In fact, it will have no choice but to go that way. Which actually opens the door to many developing countries or remote places to have a go at it. It's one of those rare cases where you can actually bring the work to the energy.

Can't do that with Gold.

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 02:30AM

Rob2D wrote: »

The whole "Bitcoin is harming the environment" thing is a pretty weak argument IMO. You can mine Bitcoin solely on renewable energy. In fact, it will have no choice but to go that way. Which actually opens the door to many developing countries or remote places to have a go at it. It's one of those rare cases where you can actually bring the work to the energy.

Can't do that with Gold.

It's not my argument though just saw news articles in the last few weeks about the network using as much power as the Netherlands and one miner in Iran uses the power generated from a single power station. Once the noise on this type of thing starts it doesn't go away. Other crypto use far less energy and bitcoin could be considered the fossil fuel of crypto not the renewable of cryptos.

Also bitcoin requires very expensive hardware which others don't. For these reasons once all coins are mined the only way to keep the network running is big transaction fees or subscription fees. Kind of like bank charges.

Btw renewable engery costs money too

Mellor · 22-03-2021 03:32AM

Room1o1 wrote: »

Ture the proof of work can be in a hard copy but then it's not on a Blockchain and could be copied. The Blockchain declares the owner.

I was referring to a hardcopy wallet. It wouldn't be hard to preserve and address pair for centuries. tHe arguement hat it won't last 500 years doesn't seam to hold water.

Maybe I am looking at its comparison with gold it the wrong way as gold isn't really brought either but certifcates of gold which could be compared to certificate of proof of work.

I think you are look at gold the wrong way it's self. The value of gold is not an inherent property of god. Just something we decided.

Gold though can't be superseded unless material science has some kind of breakthrough or if a famine happend then you would happily give up gold for a few seeds.

Why can't it be superseded. What is stopping that happening?

Rob2D wrote: »

The whole "Bitcoin is harming the environment" thing is a pretty weak argument IMO. You can mine Bitcoin solely on renewable energy.

That's a pretty weak defence. Even if BYC was mined 100% with renewables. The energy is consumed, and not available for something else that is using fossil fuels.
Until the worlds energy supply is 100% renewable and unlimited, energy use is an issue.

Room1o1 wrote: »

It's not my argument though just saw news articles in the last few weeks about the network using as much power as the Netherlands

There's a question that I'm not sure of the answer to. But I think it's pretty critical.
Does mining BTC use so much energy because;

It's fundamentally required to use exactly as much as it does, or
It is so lucrative to mine BTC that, there are many people competing in the space.

I've never looked into it. But it's something I've thought of when people are wheeling out the energy argument. But I imagine it's closer to B than A. If 50% of the worlds miners quit tomorrow, the block chain would continue, and the energy drops dramatically.

makeorbrake · 22-03-2021 06:19AM

Room1o1 wrote: »

I can't understand how bitcoin is compared to gold constantly.

Have a read of Vijay Boyapati's 'The Bullish Case for Bitcoin'. He discusses the characteristics of a store of value and a means of exchange (currency) relative to gold, fiat and bitcoin. You'll see that bitcoin scores well in both categories. Gold is stronger in some characteristics and weaker in others.

Room1o1 wrote: »

I understand it's a store of value based on proof of work and is limited so protected against inflation but to me it's still more similar to a fiat currency in that it requires peoples confidence in it to hold its value.

Hmm...no...in the previous sentence you acknowledge that it's very different to fiat currency. Fiat currency implicates inflation and money printing. It's centralised with stakeholders who will always (by and large) resort to money printing. The only thing that fiat is backed by is a gun to your head (in that the powers that be force you to use it). Bitcoin doesn't hold a gun to your head - yet it is slowly increasing in network effect. That should indicate to you that there must be something more to this.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Maybe for investors and speculators it's similar to gold in the short term but gold will still be gold in a couple hunder years where's I doubt bitcoin will be around in 500 years.

I can't speak to 500 years - but lets deal with the next few decades - both will be around insofar as I can see.

Room1o1 wrote: »

I'm I thinking about this the wrong way. Why are alot of people thinking it will hold its value forever or are they just speculators in it for the ride to the top before jumping out which could next week or next decade or longer.

The speculator accusation has been around for an age. Of course there are speculators - but it hasn't proven to be a one hit wonder. BTC has been through a number of cycles already. If it's a speculative bubble, can you name a similar speculative bubble that inflates and deflates cyclically? I guess property - but if we use that as the comparison, property doesn't go away, right?

Room1o1 wrote: »

Fiat will definitely suffer inflation over the years

Now that's understating things! I can't recall them all but there are some shocking statistical gems which have emerged in the past year. The current Canadian government has overseen more money printing than ALL previous Canadian governments put together. There's one. There are similar stats for the USD, Euro, etc.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Gold is a physical element (Au) with great properties and uses including as a store of value which is also why it's worth so much through history.
geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml

Gold gets its value because its finite. So back in the day (and today), gold was/is used for jewelry. There are plenty of ornate rocks in the world - they are equally ornate as jewelry. The only reason there's greater draw re. gold is because its finite...ergo - its a store of wealth and a display of wealth as jewelry.
Other use cases (industrial use) only came around in more recent years.
Over and above all that, bear in mind that gold also has comparative shortcomings as a store of value/means of exchange also...relative to bitcoin.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Bitcoin is proof that a very hard calculation was done and the answer is put on a Blockchain and sold based on what people believe it to be worth similar to fiat.

Your pet rock is no different. If it was valued as jewelry - then its price would reflect that. It's price is far, far in excess of that use case and reflects its use case gathering dust in vaults around the world (as a store of value).
Bitcoin has utility in its own right - such as the ability to transact it digitally, the ability to cross borders with limited risk of confiscation, the ability to act as a decentralised store of value (the gold market as a whole is centralised even if in principal, gold can be self custodied). I said that gold gets its value as its finite yet there is no financial asset on the planet that is more finite than bitcoin. If the gold price increases, then greater resources are thrown into extracting gold. That can't happen with bitcoin.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Using bitcoin in a diversified portfolio is good right now but is it actually worth anything to anyone other than speculators/investors?

See above. Of course theres a speculation involved there. The charge has been that this is a fickle speculation and that btc would fall away by the wayside. Maybe that will still happen but remember it's not without utility. It offers greater utility in many respects than gold. Gold can't act as a means of exchange. Whilst btc cant be used right now for microtransactions, it can be used as a settlement layer (think Fedwire) for real time settlement of large amounts. It's a base layer - on top of which other layers can and are being built. eg. lightning network.
How long does btc need to be around until you discard that notion of it being a fickle speculation? What does it's market cap need to be? Are you aware that its network effect has been growing each and every year of its existence?

Room1o1 wrote: »

Personally I think bitcoin has quite a high cost to the environment

A curse on the lazy, unprofessional journo's who have convinced you of this based on their tabloid/clickbait 'bitcoin uses more energy than country X' articles.
You realise that gaming accounts for more energy use than bitcoin? If so, where is the faux outrage? To my mind, there's far more utility for society in a decentralised global, permissionless, uncensorable, real-time final settlement system by comparison with gaming (if we have to go down the road of playing God as regards what people are entitled to use energy for). The current banking system uses far more energy. The US xmas lighting bill costs more than a central american country's energy spend (I think it's El Salvador).

Room1o1 wrote: »

and will eventually become too costly to keep the network running

The earth might also get hit by a meteorite a 100 years from now - should we give up and commit suicide now? Maybe you're right but that's quite a distance off. Secondly, maybe big ass transaction fees can be justified as it will be a base layer - on top of which other payment/settlement layers will be built out (including those that facilitate micro-payments).

Room1o1 wrote: »

plus will receive very bad press soon from the eco crowd.

Let's resume our energy discussion then. So back to bitcoin vs. gaming (and all other energy intensive activities). You realise that bitcoin mining has a far higher renewable energy input in its energy mix than gaming or other activities? That's because that unlike those other activities, if a segment of miners tap into the cheapest of energy then, the rest of them are uncompetitive and will probably go bust. That's not the case with those other activities. Bitcoin mining is driving innovation as regards the pursuit of the cheapest energy on the planet.

Room1o1 wrote: »

When the 24 million calculations are completed where's the incentive to keep turning on the computers than run the network?

See above.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Gold just sits there not rusting or polluting.

You're joking right? Have you any idea of the horrendous environmental damage that is caused via gold mining? Lets think about the process in first principles. If aliens arrived and we explained to them that we expend immense resources and environmental damage in extracting a pet rock from the earth which for the most part sits in a vault gathering dust, do you think these visitors would get the impression that they had discovered intelligent life!?

Do you know how much it costs to transport gold and to custody gold? Please factor all of those costs in. I won't even get started on the counterfeiting issue that gold has (google counterfeit gold - and particularly an incident in China last year when millions of $ worth of fraudulent shiny rock was found to be the backing for a plethora of loans).

Room1o1 wrote: »

Other cryptos have improved on these issues where bitcoin can't.

Ok, so which crypto is ready to assume the role of bitcoin? BTC has a trillion dollar market cap right now. What market cap does it need to reach escape velocity?
Maybe you're right but I think that it has already won out through network effect. If ETH is successful in its move to proof of stake, maybe bitcoin will adopt proof of stake - but they shouldn't (and won't) look to do that until it has been used successfully for a decade.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Smart contracts will be so useful very soon.

I have no doubt. I think there's far greater potential in that space. To me, it's not quite in the bag yet but probably ethereum is the category winner in this regard. However, bear in mind that btc is limited by design in what it can achieve. This is deliberate. It has one job and it's already doing it.
I can well believe that ETH will be far more disruptive (goodbye wallstreet) than bitcoin - but to me they don't compete (and I hate that there's this perennial sniping between projects).

Room1o1 wrote: »

I would compare them to tulips.

Then you need to go back and look at the history of that episode. Two questions...
1. How long did Tulipmania go on for?
2. Compare bitcoin and tulips against the characteristics of what makes for a decent store of value or means of exchange. There's NO comparison.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Once the noise on this type of thing starts it doesn't go away.

You mean that misinformation can continue? Of that we are in agreement. The whole energy debate had disappeared but has re-emerged once again with the lazy uninformed narrative that goes with that.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Other crypto use far less energy and bitcoin could be considered the fossil fuel of crypto not the renewable of cryptos.

Other crypto projects emerged that claimed to solve certain shortcomings of btc. In doing so, they had various shortcomings of their own. We should never get complacent but the btc network is the most robust blockchain network that exists. If another network can prove itself over a decade, maybe it will take bitcoins place or maybe bitcoin will implement its algo.
As regards your reference to renewables, I think you're getting a bit confused. Bitcoin mining continues to utilise a greater proportion of renewable energy year on year.....driven by the pursuit of the cheapest energy on the planet...which is more likely to be unwanted/unused green energy.

Room1o1 wrote: »

Btw renewable engery costs money too

Ergo, bitcoin has considerable imputs and this energy input is converted into monetary energy. I guess it's not backed by nothing afterall then?

makeorbrake · 22-03-2021 07:07AM

Mellor wrote: »

That's a pretty weak defence. Even if BYC was mined 100% with renewables. The energy is consumed, and not available for something else that is using fossil fuels.
Until the worlds energy supply is 100% renewable and unlimited, energy use is an issue.

Firstly, this critique for the most part stems from folk who can't see any tangible utility in bitcoin. If that is how someone sets out in their consideration of bitcoin energy use, then it is no surprise of the conclusion they arrrive at - ultimately.
I have no time for anyone who singles out btc mining and never has a word to say about gaming or activities they themselves engage in which are non-essential yet damaging to the planet.
Finally, if btc used both stranded and renewable energy that couldn't be repurposed (because its harnessed in the back of beyond where there is no other use case for it), would you still have an issue with btc mining?

Mellor · 22-03-2021 09:06AM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, this critique for the most part stems from folk who can't see any tangible utility in bitcoin. If that is how someone sets out in their consideration of bitcoin energy use, then it is no surprise of the conclusion they arrrive at - ultimately.

That’s exactly my point. It’s a flawed argument, and a flawed defence.
If I’m going to criticise the first, which I did above, then I should also criti

Finally, if btc used both stranded and renewable energy that couldn't be repurposed (because its harnessed in the back of beyond where there is no other use case for it), would you still have an issue with btc mining?

I never said I had an issue with BTC mining.

I have in the past pointed out the localised volume of hydro energy in China, the dams at capacity and the fact btc mining is dominant in those areas.

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 10:09AM

Mellor wrote: »

I was referring to a hardcopy wallet. It wouldn't be hard to preserve and address pair for centuries. tHe arguement hat it won't last 500 years doesn't seam to hold water.

If locked away in a wallet somewhere yeah it does still exists but it wouldn't be used so couldn't see a demand for it in that case.

I think you are look at gold the wrong way it's self. The value of gold is not an inherent property of god. Just something we decided.

I can't agree, gold is very important for lots of applications.

Why can't it be superseded. What is stopping that happening?

What other element has exactly 79 electtons and hence the properties that go with that election configuration?........

There's a question that I'm not sure of the answer to. But I think it's pretty critical.
Does mining BTC use so much energy because;
It's fundamentally required to use exactly as much as it does, or

It is so lucrative to mine BTC that, there are many people competing in the space.

I've never looked into it. But it's something I've thought of when people are wheeling out the energy argument. But I imagine it's closer to B than A. If 50% of the worlds miners quit tomorrow, the block chain would continue, and the energy drops dramatically.

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.

Mellor · 22-03-2021 12:37PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:24PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:37PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:39PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:48PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:57PM

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 · 22-03-2021 01:58PM

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 · 22-03-2021 02:03PM

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 · 22-03-2021 02:05PM

Room1o1 wrote: »

It is in certain applications

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

Room1o1 · 22-03-2021 02:06PM

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.

Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

Comments