I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
The highlighted quote was not made by me. It is an unethical attempt by brg444 at besmirching my character by using falsified and fraudulent quotes which I am not responsible for. He knows. He's laughing because the content quite fits your persona. |
|
|
|
5 years later: I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.
The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here. It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin. Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin. Don't you have any pride  Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position? |
|
|
|
You should think very carefully why it is wrong to quote me saying something that I have never said, I do take offense to this. You should seriously consider apologizing to me for what you are doing. It is fraud, libel and slander. It also makes you a liar, putting your words into quotation marks under my name is wrong and highly deceptive. You also do not know me, and what kind of a person I am. I care very much for the third world, it is part of the reason why i devoted such a large part of my life studying political philosophy, since many of the problems of the third world are caused by the first. I believe that Bitcoin can solve many of these problems as well. People in the third world do not need to run full nodes in order to be included in the Bitcoin economy, thinking that poor African people for instance need to be able to run full nodes is unrealistic as well. Solve politics plagued third-world with more politics  Your sick parody of who lives in the third-world, as if it consists only of poor African kids shows how intellectually shallow of an individual you are. You deserve none of my respect, and certainly no apology.  |
|
|
|
5 years later: I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.
PS: The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here. |
|
|
|
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened. Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised. Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now. I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree. Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom. It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact. We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit. Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop. These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin. I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
Boy you are something else ! |
|
|
|
Can you destroy a Bitcoin private key?
Without a blockchain a Bitcoin private key is just a random number (and you can create those very easily). So the value of not being able to "destroy" a random number is exactly what? Blockchain can not be destroyed either, just temporarily out of service  |
|
|
|
Even if we are to ignore durability there are still numerous aspects of Bitcoin which make it more desirable to hold than gold. While you might argue that the physical nature of gold make it more resilient to certain attacks it certainly renders it vulnerable to a whole range of issues (theft, seizure).
So I think you are admitting that your argument about durability is not a strong one. For sure I think Bitcoin is a great investment but I wouldn't put it above gold now (let's see how things pan out in the next ten years). Not quite. Conceptually, Bitcoin private keys being an idea (maths) it is irrefutable that they are more durable than a physical asset which can deteriorate, be transformed, hell even vaporized. Can you destroy a Bitcoin private key? |
|
|
|
We are getting away from the original argument though which is that Bitcoin is more durable than gold. Now the Bitcoin network might be compromised or inaccessible temporarily yet private keys remain.
So let's get back to that (and forget about silly asteroids of gold). Again - gold has survived since the earth was formed but Bitcoin has only been here since 2009. If the governments of the world decide that they don't want an "internet' as we have had so far (which is looking very likely) then Bitcoin might be dead in only a few years (but gold will still be here). My advice to any investors would be to diversify between gold, property and Bitcoin (and in that order - and notice I did not list *fiat* at all). What if the governments of the world decide that they don't want gold circulating either? To be quite honest I'm not buying the premise of the internet somehow getting closed down or made inaccessible. Provided Bitcoin the blockchain remains small enough (another important reason to keep the block size small) it will be able to operate on low latency network and as it propagates and gains adoption will create even more incentives to make the internet more resilient to government attacks (mesh networks, etc.). Even if we are to ignore durability there are still numerous aspects of Bitcoin which make it more desirable to hold than gold. While you might argue that the physical nature of gold make it more resilient to certain attacks it certainly renders it vulnerable to a whole range of issues (theft, seizure). |
|
|
|
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened. Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised. Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now. I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
Wow brb444 I never thought you would stoop so low. To quote me saying something that I have never said. For everyone reading this you should know that brb444 is lying, he quoted me saying something which I have never said. That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about. "I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy" No it is not, you quoted me saying something I never said or would say. It is fraud, libel and slander. You can spin this anyway you want, but it does not change what you just did. You could apologize and acknowledge that what you did is wrong or allow this to reflect badly on your character. I could've posted it without using the post header, but thought it would be funnier with it. Apologize? For what? A joke? I thought it was pretty spot on I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened. Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised. Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now. I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
Wow brb444 I never thought you would stoop so low. To quote me saying something that I have never said. For everyone reading this you should know that brb444 is lying, he quoted me saying something which I have never said. That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about. "I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy" |
|
|
|
There are in facts plans to do it in the near future.
So what is their budget and how exactly are they going to achieve this feat? Mankind has only been able to even land a spacecraft on an asteroid recently - but to drag one from the asteroid belt back to earth would be an engineering feat that would be bigger than any other ever accomplished (so if their budget isn't in the trillions then they have no chance of success IMO). By comparison to shut down the internet would simply require a few EMP nukes (a few million budget at most). The point is it is possible and quite likely to happen hence the days of gold as a limited supply asset are counted. Shutting down the internet grid to me is the equivalent of nuclear MAD. Doing so would likely return the world into a dark age. We are getting away from the original argument though which is that Bitcoin is more durable than gold. Now the Bitcoin network might be compromised or inaccessible temporarily yet private keys remain. |
|
|
|
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened. Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised. Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now. I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
|
|
|
|
I can't easily watch YouTube here (I live in China) so could you just explain the point (and I'm not talking about changing the comms to a mesh network or something like that - my point is that Bitcoin needs a network). Let me ask you another question:
What scenario is more likely within our lifetime? A permanent, international shutdown of the internet grid or increasing development of asteroid mining technology which would make gold plentiful and not scarce anymore.
We are seeing an international shutdown of the global internet already (I am in China so I know this very well). Thailand has recently stated they are going to introduce the same sort of internet controls that China does (and even countries like Australia are trying to introduce internet censorship). Now there might be an asteroid made of gold but I don't see any real plans to bring that back to earth in the next 100 years.
There are in facts plans to do it in the near future. Tyler Winklevoss, Co-Founder & CEO, Gemini: In 10 or 20 years from now, bitcoin will replace gold. In the scheme of the universe, gold and other precious metals are not even remotely finite. In fact, there are asteroid databases that estimate the composition and profit of mining over 600,000 asteroids in our solar system and it turns out that earth’s chemical elements are quite abundant when you look at the larger picture. Once we achieve cheap access to space, which seems like a real possibility in the next decade or two, gold will no longer be scarce. The only fixed, commodity-like asset with money-like qualities left will be bitcoin. https://sumzero.com/headlines/financials_and_insurance/V/291-tyler-winklevoss-what-the-buyside-should-know-about-bitcoinNow what you describe about government crackdown on internet is indeed a source of concern but one should not forget that gold is also subject to arbitrary state intervention ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102). |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. Here we are making an attempt at comparing two forms of money by their inherent property, not how the market values them. Of course Bitcoin is not yet valued as much as gold is. Here are the characteristics we should be concerned about: Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more divisible than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more portable? Yes Is Bitcoin more easily verifiable? Yes Gold is certainly more durable than Bitcoin. I don't see why divisibility and portability are relevant properties in regards to a store of long term investment. All I know is if I thought my fiat was going to crumble, I would buy gold, not Bitcoin. Physical assets are subject to seizure. You may not find them relevant but this is pretty much how every form of money was judged historically. You don't find it relevant that Bitcoin can be divided into micro-transactions and sent all over the world while gold is hardly convenient for casual transactions and quite a hassle to store and transport in large quantity? Bitcoin can, and has been, seized in the past. If you want to look at Bitcoin as solely a replacement to gold then being divisible to the millionths doesn't provide much benefit. Now, overall, I think divisibility is a very important component to Bitcoin, but we are speaking just in regards to it as a store of wealth. Anyways, as I stated earlier, Bitcoin can't go big (replace gold) and still be used for "casual transactions". Divisible or not, the block size would be too large of a constraint, and the fees would be so exorbitant that using Bitcoin for casual transactions wouldn't be a viable option. Yes it does because Bitcoin's monetary value is not limited to its blockchain. It can and will spawn superficial, open-source, payment layers that will provide the necessary transaction throughput. |
|
|
|
You don't find it relevant that Bitcoin can be divided into micro-transactions and sent all over the world while gold is hardly convenient for casual transactions and quite a hassle to store and transport in large quantity?
Bitcoin is not suited to "micro-transactions" at all (hence all the arguments about fees and block sizes).
It is suitable for sending all over the world very quickly though (the remittance market being one that I've mentioned before it should already be playing a leading role in but unfortunately isn't). Correction: Bitcoin's blockchain is not suited to micro-transactions. Bitcoin can very well serve as a monetary base that enables previously impossible types of transactions. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is math. Gold being physical it is without doubt less durable.
If it was just math then it wouldn't need an internet (maybe you have fundamentally misunderstood it). Does it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dqhixzGVoLet me ask you another question: What scenario is more likely within our lifetime? A permanent, international shutdown of the internet grid or increasing development of asteroid mining technology which would make gold plentiful and not scarce anymore. |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. Here we are making an attempt at comparing two forms of money by their inherent property, not how the market values them. Of course Bitcoin is not yet valued as much as gold is. Here are the characteristics we should be concerned about: Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more divisible than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more portable? Yes Is Bitcoin more easily verifiable? Yes Gold is certainly more durable than Bitcoin. I don't see why divisibility and portability are relevant properties in regards to a store of long term investment. All I know is if I thought my fiat was going to crumble, I would buy gold, not Bitcoin. Physical assets are subject to seizure. You may not find them relevant but this is pretty much how every form of money was judged historically. You don't find it relevant that Bitcoin can be divided into micro-transactions and sent all over the world while gold is hardly convenient for casual transactions and quite a hassle to store and transport in large quantity? |
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes
I don't think so - gold will still be there when the internet is not (in fact gold will still be there when we cease to exist as a species). Bitcoin is math. Gold being physical it is without doubt less durable. |
|
|
|
VISA 100%.
If Bitcoin is used universally in day to day life, it would make a huge impact on the global standard of living. There are so many life changing applications that Bitcoin can accomplish when used in such high volume, and the outcome would be phenomenal.
And either way, we would all be filthy rich. If Bitcoin was so overwhelmingly successful as to replace VISA or gold, it doesn't really matter which is worth more at that point.
...I guess this is where we'll agree to disagree. The prospects offered by Bitcoin's payment network do not come close to the paradigm change introduced by the worldwide adoption of a sound money reserve currency. The #1 attraction of Bitcoin is its monetary sovereignty. This is how it proposes to change people's life. Not because of free & instant transactions. Of course there is an immense difference in the value of replacing VISA and gold... One is a billion dollar industry, the other is several trillions.... |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.
Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain. The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions. As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential. Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys. How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things. Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light.. Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value. You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin! You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed. The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy. You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101.... Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes. However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world. That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently? Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases. Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list. It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing. It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years. Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck. No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided. Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0. Here we are making an attempt at comparing two forms of money by their inherent property, not how the market values them. Of course Bitcoin is not yet valued as much as gold is. Here are the characteristics we should be concerned about: Is Bitcoin more durable than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more divisible than gold? Yes Is Bitcoin more portable? Yes Is Bitcoin more easily verifiable? Yes |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
