Bitcoin or gold?

[prodigy8]

ofcourse i chose gold

why ?
because bitcoin will bankrupt / smthing

and gold u can keep it until u die xD

This is what I like about it. It is a physical object you can keep safe for a rainy day when times are tough, you know it will hold some of it's value for a long time.

Well I would not completely underestimate bitcoin if I was you guys. Keep your gold, but also don't forget to keep a small part of that gold in Bitcoin as well.

Keeping the gold was always a good thing, and has it's own value that doesnt change too much like bitcoin

Exactly. I bet on Gold over the bitcoin. Gold is more stable as compared to bitcoins and that is the reason why people trust Gold more and are attracted towards it.

On the other hand, Bitcoin is very new to the most of the people and they really don't trust it as a investment product due to its volatility.

To make it easier for us that we stay most of the time on the internet we can buy virtual coin like bitgold (don't know if it works still).
But gold has perspective, but bitcoin is good to does not matter if it is new or not, you can make money by investing there.

[RealBitcoin]

Since higher prices contribute to the accumulation of wealth in fewer hands (that is, to more uneven wealth distribution), not the other way round, which is what my question is essentially about. Gold is no exception to this, but its value (which you like to disconnect with price so much), unlike Bitcoin's, is not tied to its application or adoption. It will be absolutely the same gold whether someone holds 9% of its reserves or 99, on the account of its uniqueness (that is, nothing can fully substitute it). Bitcoin, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense if accumulated in few hands (no pun), and its place will soon be taken, without an opportunity of a come-back...

And last but not least, you should first be more concerned how your so-called arguments pertain to my assumption

I dont think the higher price makes accumulation in few hands, and even if that were true, i dont see a problem with it.

You have to realize that oligarchy is natural, it's always the risk taker wolfs that jump first on the train, while the sheeple is always in the last cart.

Gold got first hoarded by the renessaince traders that made massive fortunes by trading all stuff around the world. Was it a sin? No.

So why do you think the first opportunist bitcoin miners did anything wrong. They found a  big opportunity and profited from it.

___________

You are also wrong on the 2nd part, if you say that bitcoin oligarchy is bad but gold oligarchy isnt, then you are not consistent. It is either wrong in all cases or right in all cases,there are no exceptions.

[Sir_lagsalot]

I'd say bitcoin, as gold has had years for its price to balance out. Bitcoin had only been here for about five years, as you said, and as more and more services accept bitcoin, the price will go up.

[SerenaL]

I would rather keep bitcoins because it is easier to hide than gold.

[coinplus]

I would rather keep bitcoins because it is easier to hide than gold.

Yes. That the advantage of digital gold. Bitcoin is easy to trade than traditional gold. Border-less, you can carry bitcoin anywhere in the world. But gold needs a lot of formalities. Some people argue diamonds are border-less. But it can not be traded in minutes. So, bitcoin is greater than anything else.

[Everybitbit]

i rather keep gold, who know bitcoin in future is like $10 for 1btc  just maybe

[deisik]

Since higher prices contribute to the accumulation of wealth in fewer hands (that is, to more uneven wealth distribution), not the other way round, which is what my question is essentially about. Gold is no exception to this, but its value (which you like to disconnect with price so much), unlike Bitcoin's, is not tied to its application or adoption. It will be absolutely the same gold whether someone holds 9% of its reserves or 99, on the account of its uniqueness (that is, nothing can fully substitute it). Bitcoin, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense if accumulated in few hands (no pun), and its place will soon be taken, without an opportunity of a come-back...

And last but not least, you should first be more concerned how your so-called arguments pertain to my assumption

I dont think the higher price makes accumulation in few hands, and even if that were true, i dont see a problem with it.

You have to realize that oligarchy is natural, it's always the risk taker wolfs that jump first on the train, while the sheeple is always in the last cart.

Gold got first hoarded by the renessaince traders that made massive fortunes by trading all stuff around the world. Was it a sin? No.

So why do you think the first opportunist bitcoin miners did anything wrong. They found a  big opportunity and profited from it.

___________

You are also wrong on the 2nd part, if you say that bitcoin oligarchy is bad but gold oligarchy isnt, then you are not consistent. It is either wrong in all cases or right in all cases,there are no exceptions.

It is not a question of what is good and what is bad, or what is sin and what is virtue. I'm considering this issue exclusively from an economic standpoint (that is void of any ethical judgment). Higher prices don't allow more people to enter the market and substantially level off wealth distribution. As I said, the number of decimal places doesn't change a thing in this, since 100,000 people holding just 1% of bitcoins don't affect the wealth distribution in any meaningful way (even if 1 satoshi is worth $1,000)...

Somehow I thought you were smarter

[n2004al]

First: If you are not an expert in valuation you must not know the matter about you speak. I this cases no one which think a little don't speak. Because must tell bullshits. Like those you wrote above.

Second: I have not asked you the entire value of bitcoin but your value of bitcoin. In other words the value of things you give above and speak in your reply.

Third: Where is based your estimate? Which argument can give you that the value of bitcoin is that value you give? Give me only one. Or you answer is only because you have the need to speak about everything and answer to every post.

Its just pure chart analysis, i actually saw the value of bitcoin as an uptrend, since 2009, while the price of it swinged madly because of lack of liquidity.

See for a market to be efficient, there needs to be tons of traders to reach that consensus. If you know the market is ineficient then you can exploit it by trading in the direction of efficiency. Thats how speculation works in a nutshell.

My valuation is based on the logic that the price probably reached the real value this spring. And since the value is in uptrend, by now it should be much higher than the price.

So if we can achieve 1000$ just by pure speculation, then with all the atm's and adoption since, we could expect at least 2000$ for bitcoin now.

I also expect the price to reach that level very soon. The market's can stay irrational long time, but eventually they become efficient you know.

You have your your logic in telling things. This time your reasoning is without epithets and evaluations for the others (like other time with my posts): I like this because we are there to discuss about the matters and not about each other. So I will answer in the same way. I will speak only about those you have wrote.

I am not a trader and I don't understand to much this kind of acting. So I cannot be able to give you arguments for this matter. But I am almost sure (only feelings so nothing true for me even I use the word "sure") that the price you tell here will not be reached not only "very soon" like you wrote but even the first 6 months of the next year. So, if you accept,  we will make a friendly bet. We will write again in this thread after the first 6 months of the next year. If the price of bitcoin will be the amount you told only one day during this period since that final above told day I will accept that you are a PREDICTOR and I will accept this publicly doing here a post about this thing. I will call you in this way every time we will meet in various post. If the price will not arrive that amount then you must accept (writing a post) that:

first, your reasoning about the price of bitcoin were wrong and were irrational,

second, were connections of facts which cannot have that strong impact you pretend on the price of bitcoin and

third, that you somewhere (maybe to many times) make euphoric and casual reasoning which are only passionate and not rational.

Deal?

[prodigy8]

i rather keep gold, who know bitcoin in future is like $10 for 1btc  just maybe

That can also happen, because nobody can control the market and the bitcoin price.
Gold is something that has been in the market for a long time and it's hard to crash its price.
With this trend i think that bitcoin will cost more in the next few years and if you hold form now a profit should be appear.

[markj113]

i rather keep gold, who know bitcoin in future is like $10 for 1btc  just maybe

That can also happen, because nobody can control the market and the bitcoin price.
Gold is something that has been in the market for a long time and it's hard to crash its price.
With this trend i think that bitcoin will cost more in the next few years and if you hold form now a profit should be appear.

But hasnt it been proven that a bot controlled the bitcoin price during the last rise to its all time high?

[swscowods]

i rather keep gold, who know bitcoin in future is like $10 for 1btc  just maybe

That can also happen, because nobody can control the market and the bitcoin price.
Gold is something that has been in the market for a long time and it's hard to crash its price.
With this trend i think that bitcoin will cost more in the next few years and if you hold form now a profit should be appear.

But hasnt it been proven that a bot controlled the bitcoin price during the last rise to its all time high?

If we need to control the bitcoin then we need at least 1billion USD. I guess no one will get benefit for a lower price other than new investors. So, accusing a controlled market has no practical proof.

[RealBitcoin]

Higher prices don't allow more people to enter the market and substantially level off wealth distribution. As I said, the number of decimal places doesn't change a thing in this, since 100,000 people holding just 1% of bitcoins don't affect the wealth distribution in any meaningful way (even if 1 satoshi is worth $1,000)...

Somehow I thought you were smarter

Then you are again wrong, what do you mean they dont allow people to enter the market.

They can still buy 1 satoshi at worst case scenario for 100000$ for example. And if not then somebody would make a derivative like BitcoinMini , that could further divide that for poorer people.

Everyone can enter the market.

====================================

Now for the question of wealth distribution, that is not even an issue here. So what if the 10% holds 70% of the coins, where does that leave us?

Its still more fair than the outside economy, where the top 1% holds 80% of the wealth. Plus you have to understand that bitcoin is a "first come first serve" system. If you are the first, you get rich, if you are the last, you can still use it as currency.


There is no economic burden on uneven wealth distribution. That is only a socialist delusion.

[deisik]

Higher prices don't allow more people to enter the market and substantially level off wealth distribution. As I said, the number of decimal places doesn't change a thing in this, since 100,000 people holding just 1% of bitcoins don't affect the wealth distribution in any meaningful way (even if 1 satoshi is worth $1,000)...

Somehow I thought you were smarter

Then you are again wrong, what do you mean they dont allow people to enter the market.

They can still buy 1 satoshi at worst case scenario for 100000$ for example. And if not then somebody would make a derivative like BitcoinMini , that could further divide that for poorer people

I understand that you didn't read my post (carefully), but I specifically emphasized the conjunction AND (I hope that I won't be required to explain what it means). Now I emphasize it in bold, go and read my post again...

[RealBitcoin]

Higher prices don't allow more people to enter the market and substantially level off wealth distribution. As I said, the number of decimal places doesn't change a thing in this, since 100,000 people holding just 1% of bitcoins don't affect the wealth distribution in any meaningful way (even if 1 satoshi is worth $1,000)...

Somehow I thought you were smarter

Then you are again wrong, what do you mean they dont allow people to enter the market.

They can still buy 1 satoshi at worst case scenario for 100000$ for example. And if not then somebody would make a derivative like BitcoinMini , that could further divide that for poorer people

I understand that you didn't read my post (carefully), but I specifically emphasized the conjunction AND (I hope that I won't required to explain what it means). Now I emphasized it in bold, go and read my post again...

Then read the 2nd part of my post after the "=================" divider, because I exactly responded to that. I just first reiterated the first problem then I responded to it.

[deisik]

Now for the question of wealth distribution, that is not even an issue here. So what if the 10% holds 70% of the coins, where does that leave us?

Its still more fair than the outside economy, where the top 1% holds 80% of the wealth. Plus you have to understand that bitcoin is a "first come first serve" system. If you are the first, you get rich, if you are the last, you can still use it as currency

I brought forth the example of gold. I did it with intention. If you can't understand how it is different from Bitcoin (specifically, why a wealth distribution unevenness doesn't affect its value, in any significant way), it makes no sense trying to explain anything any further (but you are free to try)...

And you are factually wrong. Go check your figures

[RealBitcoin]

Now for the question of wealth distribution, that is not even an issue here. So what if the 10% holds 70% of the coins, where does that leave us?

Its still more fair than the outside economy, where the top 1% holds 80% of the wealth. Plus you have to understand that bitcoin is a "first come first serve" system. If you are the first, you get rich, if you are the last, you can still use it as currency

I brought forth the example of gold. I did it on intention. If you can't understand how it is different from Bitcoin (specifically, why a wealth distribution unevenness doesn't affect its value, in any significant way), it makes no sense trying to explain anything any further...

And you are factually wrong. Go check your figures

Is that accurate chart? How do they deternine that 47 people hold the majority of bitcoins?

Obviously 10 dirrerent address with 10,000 bitcoin on it doesnt necessarly mean that 10 different people hold that. It can be the same person holding all 10. Or it can be vice versa. 1 Bitcoin address can hold bitcoin as a custodian, for many people (coinbase, bitpay holding customer funds).

So i dont know how they determine which address is whom's or if 1 address holding bitcoin is his property and that he is not a custodian actually.

==================

Then I still dont understand what is your problem with oligarchic distribution?  You said morality doesnt count here or its less relevant.

So by analyzing it economically, oligarchy has absolutely no drawndown on itself. Now the oligarchs can be corrupt, that is another thing.

But just the fact that 47 people own the majority of bitcoins (? uncertain ?) is absolutely fine.

==================

You argument is most likely a poor socialist excuse, that has no economic basis.

[deisik]

Is that accurate chart? How do they deternine that 47 people hold the majority of bitcoins?

Obviously 10 dirrerent address with 10,000 bitcoin on it doesnt necessarly mean that 10 different people hold that. It can be the same person holding all 10. Or it can be vice versa. 1 Bitcoin address can hold bitcoin as a custodian, for many people (coinbase, bitpay holding customer funds).

So i dont know how they determine which address is whom's or if 1 address holding bitcoin is his property and that he is not a custodian actually

I am inclined to think that it does reflect the real distribution of wealth (rather than not). In any case, you can find many different sources which essentially confirm the same thing, i.e. huge Bitcoin wealth inequality. There are topics here which analyze just that (search is your friend)...

[apriyani420]

i choose bitcoin for investing and not gold even though bitcoin price is fluctuating much more i believe that its price can reach new heights in the near future

[deisik]

Then I still dont understand what is your problem with oligarchic distribution?  You said morality doesnt count here or its less relevant.

So by analyzing it economically, oligarchy has absolutely no drawndown on itself. Now the oligarchs can be corrupt, that is another thing

It has. And specifically (as I said) in respect to Bitcoin. And, as I also said, unless you come to understand why exactly it does not have a negative impact on gold, you won't be able to understand why it does on Bitcoin...

You argument is most likely a poor socialist excuse, that has no economic basis.

I see where you aim at, but no, my point has nothing to do with that. In fact, it is purely capitalistic in its premises

[deisik]

<shit skipped>

In short, your main problem is that you don't understand how things actually work at their simplest level. Without this understanding, you are bound to think up insane concepts (which I call mental chimeras) that are completely detached (or, rather, dispatched) from reality, and, at the same time, get stuck with this (or that) "phenomena thing". I remember you coming up with a theory of "downward volatility" based on halving the standard deviation (or something to that tune) without having even the faintest idea of what is deviation (and pretending it hadn't been your "brainchild" at all, wtf)...

Your mental efforts and labors are totally transparent. They are not worth wasting time