Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.