What ever happened to goldy man, I would mention the name but we don't need that beetlejuice shit happening.
After nearly 7 years silver finally doubled and gold up 50%.
As a Bitcoiner who has also
always been a goldbug at heart, I never understood why
some Bitcoiners feel a need to bash gold. It is understandable that
some goldbugs may be
reasonably (i.e., unlike r0ach) skeptical about Bitcoin, given that gold has a millennia-long proved record, and will survive the demise of yet another civilization (= no electricity, no Internet, no billion-dollar fabs making chips...); Bitcoin is a radical leap into uncharted territory, not the comfortable, conservative, non-risky
(except for risk of theft, especially government seizures) asset. But why is there any Bitcoiner antipathy toward gold?
I see the two as complementary. Each has valuable properties that the other lacks.
For those looking for a store of value and not a get-rich-quick Ponzi, who cares if gold is “only” up 50% in 7 years? That is not the point. In a finite universe, no asset can infinitely increase in value forever. In a high-entropy world, the greater problem is to
keep value. Gold will do that. Indeed, gold and its lesser brethren in the precious metals asset class are the only non-immovable, major market assets which are guaranteed to never go to zero.
Gold is the supreme hedge against the total collapse of all industry and technology. It is an asset that will assuredly retain its value a thousand years from now, or in ten thousand years, or longer—if humans still exist. Civilizations come and go; gold stays valuable. Are you
really a long-term thinker? Buy gold. Take delivery.
And have heirs.Whereas gold is just not very
useful in the present. Not in the daily “I need to buy and sell things” sense. Maybe it could be, if society were different—but then, this whole discussion would be otiose. If society were different, then children would obey their parents, marriage would not be a sham, governments in so-called “free” countries would not be extractive gangs of armed robbers and mass-murderers, people would
ordinarily use gold as money... What was I saying?
With considerable effort, but much less effort than would be necessary with gold, I obtained Bitcoin with total anonymity. I can and do send bitcoins around the world at the press of a button, and receive bitcoins from anyone, anywhere just as easily. Bitcoin is incomparably more portable than gold, more divisible than gold (unless you have the facilities to melt and reform a metal with a high melting point), and, all things considered, so very much easier to secure (if you know what you are doing).
Bitcoin makes life better today, and promises to make life even better tomorrow.
Therefore, people want it—therefore, it is valuable. I could explain further, but that would be preaching to the choir here...
The two are so different, and both valuable—
why not have both?
P.S., characterizing r0ach as “goldy man” is like characterizing a “WHEN MOON???” Ponzi-loving get-rich-quick forum sigspammer as “Bitcoin man”. Picking the worst, lowest-credibility person purportedly connected with something as a
representative of that thing is a pretty good broadbrush smear tactic—often used against Bitcoin, too.
P.P.S., in a matter with real impact on my life and the lives of others here:
Go, Bitcoin, go!
Poll
