Very good. These data are very known by everyone which follow bitcoin. No one can deny that bitcoin is volatile. But with my charts and with my words i wanted to tell that this year bitcoin was almost stable (new thing for it) while the price of gold (not only for the last year but for about four year and half) is decreasing.
Gold has lost some 30% of its value in the last 5 years, and on the other hand Bitcoin has lost 85% of its value in less than 24 months time. You can't compare a 6% per year decline with a 45% per year decline. And also, the prices might be stable but the trade volume is still declining steeply. The adoption has stagnated as well.
I have not take over the duty to make the story of prices for gold and bitcoin.
Because if will do this I can tell that in 6 years of its life the price of bitcoin is increased in infinite% while the price of gold in the last 6 years has 4 years and half the decrease as tendency. The price of bitcoin was 0 and now is about 260 us dollar. This is the most right data about bitcoin These data are enough to show the value of bitcoin compared to the gold and are much more significant than yours 5 years, yours 30%, yours 85% yours 24 months, yours 6% per year, yours 45% per year, yours "declining steeply" and yours "stagnated as well" given in the post which you have quoted
(and not the post to which I am answered). And are much more accurate than any other kinds of data you can find, calculate, invent or give.
Now needed to tell all the story.
If someone want to tell something can find any kind of data to do comparisons. The problem is to understand which data are important and give something that can help the interested person to understand something about which he has expressed wrong knowledge.
My first answer (given to an post about one row) wanted to give explanations which wanted to show only that the overall tendency for the price of gold is the decrease (lasted for more than 4 years), the price of bitcoin was stable (for the last ten months) and to tell to the author of the primary quoted post by me that his perception or knowledge about what he write in his post was not correct.
This my post was interpreted by another poster which have seen my answer as not correct; giving the price of bitcoin in time which is clearly in decrease. I tried to give this poster my point of view and the explanation of the why of my first answer.
Then come the third poster. He do the opposite of the second one but quoting my comments. Part of those. Which are "interesting" and "wrong" according to him. This third draws my attention (always doing the opposite of the second idea expressed by the second poster) giving "intellectual" and "deep data" and "thoughts".
So we have firstly this simple post: "Gold has stability value, bitcoin its more volatile. Bitcoin needs more stability if it wants to become as popular as gold."
My answer was aimed to give them only the data regarding its post. Not more and not less. So to give him the "news" that the gold has not stability value and that bitcoin was stable for about ten months. My answer was about two row and two charts. Giving the price of gold in four years and half in decrease and the price of bitcoin in the last ten months. That's all. After this come another chart and another comment. Then the third. Every post in opposite to the previous. So need to give explanations to everyone about the why of my two rows answer to the primary post.
So no one was interested for the first post but to ask my the why of my answer and to show me that I'm wrong.
If someone wanted to help someone, first needed to quote its post and not mine (which was an answer to the first poster which needed clarifications) and give other data like the amount of the trading, the period which show better the tendency of the price, the amounts of decrease or the increase of price in different periods, the chose of the best period which can give better the tendency of price, the factors which affect the price, the factors which affect the trading, the other factors which hasn't happen but can happen in the future, the probably future price of the bitcoin and the gold, the probability of verification of every future given price for each of the above subjects and other things that I don't know which are but know that will bother to much the interested.
While for everyone which quoted my post (or my posts) is not important this but another thing. They are not interested to clarify the first poster or to see to what post was aimed my answer. They wanted to show that them are more capable in doing calculations and giving "excellent" and "deep thoughts". So them don't give or even remove the first (primary) post, quote only my post (with my "poor" answer and, at least, incapable and not with "deep thoughts"), and make the "needed" corrections giving to me in the same time even the right lesson about the big error made from me in giving such wrong knowledges in my posts to the others.
As for me this kind of data (given by the posters who quoted my posts) and all the other conjunctural data as well even those used to tell necessarily something or to do opposite for every thing, serve only to they which have nothing to do and find way to oppose, to them which have the need to write something "special" in order to show this to the others or to the maniacs of data. I don't know in which category are the authors of my quoted posts but invite them to show all their capacity in creating "deep thoughts", in doing "right calculations", "predictions", "inventions", "comparisons", "comments", "interventions", "corrections", "lecturers" etc. etc. to write a book with all their pearls. Lets go in the market to see the number of theirs books sold. In this way will convince themselves that their's "deep" and always "right" "thoughts" have not even the value of the paper spent to do the book.
