Bitcoin vs. Gold, Fiat and Altcoins (Updated: Traits of Money)

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

I think it's a little unfair, now that things are going badly, try to blame the alts for that, remember that last year btc and many alts reached their all-time high thanks to the popularity of the ICOs, which precisely created this waste of alts now.

Forcing Alts to prove actual value isn't a BAD thing for people in "crypto"

Alt value = ?!?!?!
BTC Value = funded every alt

Which are people supposed to value long term.

Which are people supposed to "wait and see" what everyone agrees the true value is, after the current "hype" dies. 

Never over value an alt, it just wastes precious bitcoin.

[CryptoKush]

For me, altcoins are more important than Bitcoin. Blockchain has many  usecases and in the future Bitcoin  will not have as many usescases as altcoins.

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

For me, altcoins are more important than Bitcoin. Blockchain has many  usecases and in the future Bitcoin  will not have as many usescases as altcoins.

It's the only crypto currency that has been adopted and used as a "currency."

There is no value in "blockchain technology" while marketers are trying to hype the masses on it because there are too many marketers trying to hype the masses on bullshit. Blockchain is a fancy word for digital ledger...that has never been new and never will be new.

There aren't as many great ideas and projects as the people invested in altcoins want people to believe.

We either support 3-4 projects in the "cryptocurrency space" (ALWAYS including Bitcoin) or we watch bitcoin's value decline over time as all the scammers walk away with people's money.

Denying bitcoin funds every altcoin would be moronic, finding the actual value in an altcoin is very hard.

[bayu7adi]

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adopted
from this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better

Everyone on bitcointalk should know that bitcoin is the only crypto with real value. Logic and reason aren't mandatory here though.

the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adopted

It's 9 years old might have something to do with it. It was "valued" under $200 for the first 4 years bitcoin existed and was available around the world.

It's a new asset class.

It's a Economic Renaissance, wrapped in a technological bubble that is in itself wrapped in a "get rich quick" scheme.

That doesn't diminish the value of bitcoin over the long term.

[Pursuer]

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adopted
from this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

why? it is so simple. bitcoin has been around about 10 years while Gold and USD has been around for a much longer time (USD from 1862 or 157 years and gold is about7000 years ago). in other words you are comparing a toddler with an ancient and you are expecting this toddler to beat that strong ancient in an arm wrestle!!!

not to mention that you don't see people constantly (as in 24/7) spread FUD about gold and USD even though you can find a lot of corruption in both of them specially in US dollar! for example when was the last time you heard a gigantic bank or a big market player call US government fraudulent? the answer is never. but you hear JPMorgan call bitcoin a fraud and other names almost every week
you can't expect bitcoin mass adoption to happen "fast" when there is this much opposing force against it trying to slow it down.

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

you hear JPMorgan call bitcoin a fraud and other names almost every week

They were caught manipulating the price of gold for the last 6 years actually... the lawsuits against them are being delayed for the "integrity" of the investigation (lol).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-20/jpmorgan-metals-probe-moves-ahead-as-u-s-seeks-to-delay-lawsuit

You can't make this shit up, they're just so fucking corrupt.

[squatter]

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better

Everyone on bitcointalk should know that bitcoin is the only crypto with real value. Logic and reason aren't mandatory here though.

What is "real value?" So much of Bitcoin's value is tied to speculation about future usage. It would be silly to say today's price is based on current network value. The same applies to altcoins.

Just because Bitcoin is the best cryptocurrency doesn't mean it's the only valuable one. Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons. It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

[miropp]

Based on these charts, we can see that bitcoin has the most advantages. However, it also has some drawbacks. I think that in the future we will safely use bitcoin for payment and all the problems that bitcoin has now will be solved.

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

What is "real value?"

January 2nd 2014 bitcoin was "valued" at $802.00
January 3rd 2009 the first bitcoin was mined ($0 value).

People who bought bitcoin 5 years ago today had a 400% INCREASE in value.

If people just want to simply offset inflation over a 5 year period from holding the Dollar, Rand, Rupee, Pound, Euro, Yuan, Ruble, Lira or any other printed National Currency, Bitcoin has a use case now that could suggest it's more valuable than Gold.

If 10 years data doesn't create trust as a store of value, people are still able to hold fiat in a bank account and compare the difference in spending power fiat vs bitcoin over the next 5 and 10 years....

Just because Bitcoin is the best cryptocurrency doesn't mean it's the only valuable one.

Bitcoin has helped fund EVERY cryptocurrency since it was created.... it is THE ONLY VALUABLE ONE (currently) for a reason.

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

It's also securely stored and transferred value without the need for 3rd parties for 9 years, none of the "other" supposedly better solutions have done anything to prove trust and security wouldn't be traded just to try something "new"

I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

How many cryptographic protocols, to securely store value and transfer it in a decentralized manner, have you created or maintained? Right. Perhaps you're opinion doesn't hold the weight you want to believe it does, unless you've contributed something to the actual protocol or an alternative/better solution...

[squatter]

What is "real value?"

January 2nd 2014 bitcoin was "valued" at $802.00
January 3rd 2009 the first bitcoin was mined ($0 value).

People who bought bitcoin 5 years ago today had a 400% INCREASE in value.

If people just want to simply offset inflation over a 5 year period from holding the Dollar, Rand, Rupee, Pound, Euro, Yuan, Ruble, Lira or any other printed National Currency, Bitcoin has a use case now that could suggest it's more valuable than Gold.

That doesn't address what you said.

Using your example: People who bought Litecoin at $1 in January 2015 are up 3400%. You said "Bitcoin is the only crypto with real value" so I still don't understand, what does "real value" mean? Why does Bitcoin have real value, but altcoins cannot?

Bitcoin has helped fund EVERY cryptocurrency since it was created.... it is THE ONLY VALUABLE ONE (currently) for a reason.

They have a symbiotic relationship. Altcoin markets suck bitcoins away from the fiat market, diminishing available supply and therefore encouraging higher Bitcoin prices. Altcoins also act as test beds for features that could eventually be ported to Bitcoin. For example, I think altcoins implementing Segwit facilitated implementing it in Bitcoin because they proved how safe it was at a time when Segwit was considered controversial.

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split.

It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

It's also securely stored and transferred value without the need for 3rd parties for 9 years, none of the "other" supposedly better solutions have done anything to prove trust and security wouldn't be traded just to try something "new"

That doesn't prove anything about the future at all! Bitcoin is currently the most secure and reliable cryptocurrency. It's also the most scalable relative to its security. That doesn't mean that better technology won't emerge in the future.

I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

How many cryptographic protocols, to securely store value and transfer it in a decentralized manner, have you created or maintained? Right. Perhaps you're opinion doesn't hold the weight you want to believe it does, unless you've contributed something to the actual protocol or an alternative/better solution...

Your opinion holds no weight either, by that logic. I was merely trying to engage in discourse. Why are you so butthurt? Stay out of Bitcoin Discussion and go to the mailing lists if you only want to engage with Bitcoin developers specifically.

[Valer4ik]

Everything would be fine if ....
Take for example gold. Value? Indisputable. Common, ancient, without a center of emission, etc. That what does the cue ball aim for? For him they sold (and sell) what they would not sell for money.
And now we divide the world economy into gold and .... we get some crazy prices for it. Something like megabax for 20g! However, in reality, the price is much lower.

Why?

Just by the fact that paper gold is “mined” a couple of orders of magnitude more real. I do not see anything that will prevent the cue ball from going along the same road. Derivatives, bitcoin accounts, blown volumes, ....

[shamc]

Altcoin category should not be as one unit. You can put something like ethereum or ripple in there but alts are so varied that some can easily be put in the HIGH group for everything. Good privacy coins like monero or zcash are arguably better than bitcoin so they shouldn't be lumped together as general alts

[Snaic]

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adopted
from this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

Cryptocurrency is very variable and it is unlikely that its development can be predicted from the graphs. No one could predict a sharp rise in the price of Bitcoin at the end of 2017 and the same sharp decline in its price after that and such a protracted process of a bear market. It is still difficult to say what will happen with Bitcoin in the future, since many problems, including its scalability, are not solved. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency is developing very quickly. In terms of functional performance, Bitcoin may soon be among the latter.

[deisik]

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point.

[Bijikopi]

While I agree with most of charts made like that one specifically, there's always going to be bias. You know what's missing in that table that's very important? User friendliness. Bitcoin might be the currency of the future until the end of mankind, but if it isn't easy to use for our parents and grandparents or non tech-savvy people in general, then probably forget  bitcoin as a currency for payments for now. Most people aren't even willing to remember their passwords. We're simply not there yet. Right now, bitcoin is a store of value for countries with economic crises, and for speculation.

Bitcoin is something new and is very related to advanced technology so that spreaders take a long time. so making bitcoin as a currency requires several stages, we must always believe that in time, bitcoin can be used as a legitimate payment instrument. if bitcoin is compared to gold then each has advantages and disadvantages so it is better to fill in the shortcomings to be better.

[deisik]

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point

I technically agree with this part

But we should take a deeper look and try to understand why privacy is not a big concern (or a concern at all). I have two perspectives on this. First of all, people are using cryptocurrencies for speculation mostly (that's kinda common knowledge but still worth mentioning in this context), and when you are using an exchange for trading, privacy is not what you typically look for or care about (apart from all coins necessarily being in the same league there by definition)

Further, there is a deeper paint to this as the majority of people (and that would be like 99% as I'm inclined to think) don't need the level of privacy that coins like Monero, ZCash, etc offer. These people are quite satisfied with what Bitcoin already has in this department (without any mimblewimble). I could even go so far as to say that a lot people would exchange a little less privacy for a little more profit and without thinking twice at that

[Herbert2020]

also, when everyone predicts the same thing, it never happens. price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident. 

i strongly disagree. if "everyone" predicts the same thing in a market then you can be 100% sure that it will happen. the real question is whether "everyone" is actually predicting $1500 or is it just some people who have been trying to short bitcoin.

for example majority of people were predicting the same trend as 2014 should repeat and while there was no logical reason for it, but it happened!

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point

I technically agree with this part

But we should take a deeper look and try to understand why privacy is not a big concern (or a concern at all). I have two perspectives on this. First of all, people are using cryptocurrencies for speculation mostly (that's kinda common knowledge but still worth mentioning in this context), and when you are using an exchange for trading, privacy is not what you typically look for or care about (apart from all coins necessarily being in the same league there by definition)

Further, there is a deeper paint to this as the majority of people (and that would be like 99% as I'm inclined to think) don't need the level of privacy that coins like Monero, ZCash, etc offer. These people are quite satisfied with what Bitcoin already has in this department (without any mimblewimble). I could even go so far as to say that a lot people would exchange a little less privacy for a little more profit and without thinking twice at that

It's not a concern because it hasn't affected the price or the status that bitcoin is the digital gold that funds every altcoin project and ICO.

Sell it and move on if you want. The second privacy becomes an issue, the largest amount of developers in the space will have a timeline for solutions.

It has the largest amount of development and infrastructure throughout this space. Other things die if somehow bitcoin can't be used to fund all of these projects.