Bitcoin or Gold? What would you pick?

[DannyElfman]

The private key is uncrackable for now. Who know if this is true 10 years down the road.

If technology was progressing to the point where it was feasible for a private key to be cracked, couldn't the devs just upgrade the encryption?

Firstly , you cannot 'crack' a single private key , you just need to find all the private keys in the entirety of Bitcoin.

Secondly , it's not possible that it will be cracked , by any force in our universe.

Okay, at first they said the speed of light in vacuum was the highest possible limit, but now it turns out that everything is not that simple. So how can we be that sure about it being impossible to crack?

The amount of energy that would need to be used by the amount of computing power necessary to crack a private key is so enormous that it would literally take lifetimes to crack a private key if all of the sun's energy were captuted

If we could walk to the Moon Sun, it would also take the lifetimes of many generations to get there (let's assume for a moment that we have an interest of getting there).

That is what people assume. We can progress at exponential rate if we put our mind into it. Walking on the Sun could be done if we set our mind into it.

We are still a very long ways away from being able to potentially accomplish the possibility of cracking a private key. It is much easier to use social engineering to steal coins as evidenced by the number of thefts and hacks that in some part used social engineering.

[Mobius7]

The private key is uncrackable for now. Who know if this is true 10 years down the road.

If technology was progressing to the point where it was feasible for a private key to be cracked, couldn't the devs just upgrade the encryption?

Firstly , you cannot 'crack' a single private key , you just need to find all the private keys in the entirety of Bitcoin.

Secondly , it's not possible that it will be cracked , by any force in our universe.

Okay, at first they said the speed of light in vacuum was the highest possible limit, but now it turns out that everything is not that simple. So how can we be that sure about it being impossible to crack?

The amount of energy that would need to be used by the amount of computing power necessary to crack a private key is so enormous that it would literally take lifetimes to crack a private key if all of the sun's energy were captuted

If we could walk to the Moon Sun, it would also take the lifetimes of many generations to get there (let's assume for a moment that we have an interest of getting there).

That is what people assume. We can progress at exponential rate if we put our mind into it. Walking on the Sun could be done if we set our mind into it.

We are still a very long ways away from being able to potentially accomplish the possibility of cracking a private key. It is much easier to use social engineering to steal coins as evidenced by the number of thefts and hacks that in some part used social engineering.

Could someone enlighten me on the "speed of light" part? Is there any amazing new discovery happened very recently?

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

The private key is uncrackable for now. Who know if this is true 10 years down the road.

If technology was progressing to the point where it was feasible for a private key to be cracked, couldn't the devs just upgrade the encryption?

Firstly , you cannot 'crack' a single private key , you just need to find all the private keys in the entirety of Bitcoin.

Secondly , it's not possible that it will be cracked , by any force in our universe.

Okay, at first they said the speed of light in vacuum was the highest possible limit, but now it turns out that everything is not that simple. So how can we be that sure about it being impossible to crack?

The amount of energy that would need to be used by the amount of computing power necessary to crack a private key is so enormous that it would literally take lifetimes to crack a private key if all of the sun's energy were captuted

If we could walk to the Moon Sun, it would also take the lifetimes of many generations to get there (let's assume for a moment that we have an interest of getting there).

That is what people assume. We can progress at exponential rate if we put our mind into it. Walking on the Sun could be done if we set our mind into it.

We are still a very long ways away from being able to potentially accomplish the possibility of cracking a private key. It is much easier to use social engineering to steal coins as evidenced by the number of thefts and hacks that in some part used social engineering.

Could someone enlighten me on the "speed of light" part? Is there any amazing new discovery happened very recently?

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

[arbitrage001]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

[tee-rex]

Could someone enlighten me on the "speed of light" part? Is there any amazing new discovery happened very recently?

Since it was me who mentioned the "speed of light" part, I think I'd have to expand more on this (though this hardly has anything to do with either gold or bitcoin). The Universe is expanding (no pun), and the speed of this expansion is neither limited nor related to the speed of light, so potentially it can be infinite (leading to what is called Big Rupture, or Big Rip). But what is more important here is that we could at least theoretically use this expansion of space to make travel faster than light possible.

[Harley997]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

It is generally accepted that certain things are possible but we just don't know how to do it yet. The most theoretically possible efficiency of computing (in terms of computing power - read hashrate - per W is not something we are able to achieve as of yet AFAIK, but it is generally accepted that it cannot be done more efficiently

[APSJEX.com]

 If you want something stable then your choice generally would be to choose gold, but if you can tolerate or want a huge volatibility in the price of the wealth then you will choose bitcoin.

[tee-rex]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

It is generally accepted that certain things are possible but we just don't know how to do it yet. The most theoretically possible efficiency of computing (in terms of computing power - read hashrate - per W is not something we are able to achieve as of yet AFAIK, but it is generally accepted that it cannot be done more efficiently

If we take a look at how science advanced through ages, we inevitably come to the conclusion that it is not even things that we think impossible at the time become possible in due course, but such things are made possible that we can't even think of.

[DannyElfman]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

It is generally accepted that certain things are possible but we just don't know how to do it yet. The most theoretically possible efficiency of computing (in terms of computing power - read hashrate - per W is not something we are able to achieve as of yet AFAIK, but it is generally accepted that it cannot be done more efficiently

If we take a look at how science advanced through ages, we inevitably come to the conclusion that it is not even things that we think impossible at the time become possible in due course, but such things are made possible that we can't even think of.

This may be true but things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to not be impossible

[tee-rex]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

It is generally accepted that certain things are possible but we just don't know how to do it yet. The most theoretically possible efficiency of computing (in terms of computing power - read hashrate - per W is not something we are able to achieve as of yet AFAIK, but it is generally accepted that it cannot be done more efficiently

If we take a look at how science advanced through ages, we inevitably come to the conclusion that it is not even things that we think impossible at the time become possible in due course, but such things are made possible that we can't even think of.

This may be true but things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to not be impossible

This is like saying that things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to be possible. In short, things proved to be impossible usually don't become possible. Theoretically (if we exclude logical fallacies from consideration) this still doesn't deprive us of hope since all proves are ultimately based either on evidence (which can be deceiving) or on premises (which are just postulated, i.e. accepted as true without proof).

[DannyElfman]

There is a maximum amount of energy that can be used on earth (the amount of energy that the sun emits. If you were able to use all of the energy that the sun emits then it would still take several lifetimes in order to crack a private key using the most efficient miners that is possible.

There is a difference between innovator and scientist. Scientist will quote and do all the math saying why certain things are impossible until innovator prove them wrong.

Most technology advancement are done by innovator. Concept by itself is useless unless someone find a way to implement it. The current academy regime are filled with people who can "talk" but can't "do" with all the "fact" and "reasoning/math" why certain things are impossible. University and college are now dinosaur. Times and times again these academic type are proven wrong by someone with little or no "qualification".

It is generally accepted that certain things are possible but we just don't know how to do it yet. The most theoretically possible efficiency of computing (in terms of computing power - read hashrate - per W is not something we are able to achieve as of yet AFAIK, but it is generally accepted that it cannot be done more efficiently

If we take a look at how science advanced through ages, we inevitably come to the conclusion that it is not even things that we think impossible at the time become possible in due course, but such things are made possible that we can't even think of.

This may be true but things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to not be impossible

This is like saying that things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to be possible. In short, things proved to be impossible usually don't become possible. Theoretically (if we exclude logical fallacies from consideration) this still doesn't deprive us of hope since all proves are ultimately based either on evidence (which can be deceiving) or on premises (which are just postulated, i.e. accepted as true without proof).

Sure you could always go by the adage that "anything is possible" however it should be understood that something are simply not possible, like going backwards in time (it is possible to go forwards in time, but just couldn't get back)

[tee-rex]

This is like saying that things that have been proven to be impossible have generally not been proven to be possible. In short, things proved to be impossible usually don't become possible. Theoretically (if we exclude logical fallacies from consideration) this still doesn't deprive us of hope since all proves are ultimately based either on evidence (which can be deceiving) or on premises (which are just postulated, i.e. accepted as true without proof).

Sure you could always go by the adage that "anything is possible" however it should be understood that something are simply not possible, like going backwards in time (it is possible to go forwards in time, but just couldn't get back)

That is exactly my point! I don't say that going back in time is possible (strictly speaking, even about that you not correct). But how can you be so sure of anything like that? You would base your opinion on some logical premises and empirical evidence, but you can't say that they are either universally correct and applicable or just not deceiving.

And there are a lot of examples from history that confirm my stance (to take it seriously). People for centuries tried to turn lead into gold, and someone (in fact many) would obviously come out and cry aloud that it was simply not possible and would never be!

[Kprawn]

I see that if we {Bitcoin community} can get only 20% of investors in gold to shift their investment to BTC it would push the BTC price up to +/- $ 50 000 per BTC

So gold is still the best vehicle for store value.

[unpure]

I see that if we {Bitcoin community} can get only 20% of investors in gold to shift their investment to BTC it would push the BTC price up to +/- $ 50 000 per BTC

So gold is still the best vehicle for store value.

Hard to say which choice is better. We will only know for sure 10 years down the road.

[desired_username]

Keeping more than 10% of wealth in precious metals is idiotic.

Buying paper gold is even more idiotic.

Gold (or any other precious metal) is seriously overhyped:

1.) Storing is a hassle

2.) Selling is a hassle (you get nowhere near the exchange rate)

3.) It's not accepted anywhere as money

4.) Verifying its authenticity is a hassle

5.) all the precious metal markets are rigged

Having said that I keep 5% of my net worth in PMs, but it's basically a hedge against a complete collapse.
If that happens it is very likely that you won't have the chance of using your shiny-shiny.

[Benjig]

Keeping more than 10% of wealth in precious metals is idiotic.

Buying paper gold is even more idiotic.

Gold (or any other precious metal) is seriously overhyped:

1.) Storing is a hassle

2.) Selling is a hassle (you get nowhere near the exchange rate)

3.) It's not accepted anywhere as money

4.) Verifying its authenticity is a hassle

5.) all the precious metal markets are rigged

Having said that I keep 5% of my net worth in PMs, but it's basically a hedge against a complete collapse.
If that happens it is very likely that you won't have the chance of using your shiny-shiny.

Yes bitcoin has at least 3 main advantages has bitcoin over gold, storing is not a hassle, selling is not a hassle and authentifying is also not a problem.

[tee-rex]

Keeping more than 10% of wealth in precious metals is idiotic.

Buying paper gold is even more idiotic.

Gold (or any other precious metal) is seriously overhyped:

1.) Storing is a hassle

2.) Selling is a hassle (you get nowhere near the exchange rate)

3.) It's not accepted anywhere as money

4.) Verifying its authenticity is a hassle

5.) all the precious metal markets are rigged

Having said that I keep 5% of my net worth in PMs, but it's basically a hedge against a complete collapse.
If that happens it is very likely that you won't have the chance of using your shiny-shiny.

Yes bitcoin has at least 3 main advantages has bitcoin over gold, storing is not a hassle, selling is not a hassle and authentifying is also not a problem.

Despite all its disadvantages, gold is by far more robust. I mean in case of some apocalypse, you can exchange it directly for food, clothes, or shelter. Bitcoin in this aspect is very vulnerable. Hell, it wouldn't have worked some 20+ years ago, so if we regressed that far, that would be the end of bitcoin.

[STT]

Im pretty dam old so I can remember 20 years ago and bitcoin would work still.   We arent going to reset that far unless its a full nuclear war then it'll be 1914.
The difficulty would be much slower but they had Pentium cpu back then and parallel processing.  Not that far off peer to peer and seti joint processing of packets and so on

3.) It's not accepted anywhere as money

4.) Verifying its authenticity is a hassle

Nope,  your off the rails there.   Its accepted many places, used as money for housing and large purchases maybe.  Not in the West because we finance everything with debt.   The real drawback maybe is negotiating a price but then you cant say bitcoin has an established price yet either.
The 'spread' is very large like you say, gold is a physical lumpy thing and theres personal security issues.    This is bitcoin needs to shine, sleek, slick, fast and secure.    It really needs to be click of the fingers easy to use because if they dont make btc as simple as email or text messaging then the banks will turn mobiles into ATM and they are not far off that now.

I can tap my card on a till and pay a bill in a few seconds, can btc do that anywhere even in theory.   Thing is if dollar goes down, theres plenty others and people can just use VISA and canuck dollars instead.   So gold is some backing to the normal banking system, many central banks do hold it and are buying more even and some like USA or europe are vastly negligent in their reserves and budgeting but the extreme is bitcoin which has no reserves of any kind and so it really needs to be king of transactional velocity and worth.  Still a way to go

4.) Verifying its authenticity is a hassle

No its quite simple.   Can it be done as simply as bitcoin, or cash actually yes if its in coin form.    Gold has a fixed weight and a coin fixed dimensions so you have two elements of the equation to prove absolutely you have your gold there.   What they used to do (obviously we stopped using coins of actual worth) is use fixed scales.  So you put a gold coin into a set trap, it will only fit this coin regulated dimensions and then it has to equal perfectly the weight.   Gold is a unique element so its really not possible to fake both weight and dimensions, so this quick test works and yes gold has worth as a transactional secure monetary thing!

[tee-rex]

Im pretty dam old so I can remember 20 years ago and bitcoin would work still.   We arent going to reset that far unless its a full nuclear war then it'll be 1914.
The difficulty would be much slower but they had Pentium cpu back then and parallel processing.  Not that far off peer to peer and seti joint processing of packets and so on

There was no network back then to make transacting in bitcoin anywhere near usable on a wider scale. Just phone lines and dial-up modems!

I wouldn't call this "work".

[Swordsoffreedom]

Im pretty dam old so I can remember 20 years ago and bitcoin would work still.   We arent going to reset that far unless its a full nuclear war then it'll be 1914.
The difficulty would be much slower but they had Pentium cpu back then and parallel processing.  Not that far off peer to peer and seti joint processing of packets and so on

I guess I should ask then what was the Gold Standard like in the 1970's and how well did it function as a means of trading and exchange
That is pretty far back now but having a comparable commodities based payment system versus the fractional fiat system compared to a digital currency system seems like an interesting area of discussion.

Basically gold physical commodities versus digital gold and virtual commodities it seems to be the generational gap point in currencies worth noting
1971 - Gold Standard 1971-Present No Tiered fiat system 2008-Present Digital Payment Systems