Bitcoin or Gold? What would you pick?

[bajing]

surely i take gold because gold have physical so i don't have a risk. i can safe gold on safety box and i can sleep tight. not to worry for price dump fastly

[Amph]

surely i take gold because gold have physical so i don't have a risk. i can safe gold on safety box and i can sleep tight. not to worry for price dump fastly

but it won't raise either, gold is forever stuck in a limbo, it won't rise by any significant amount, so you can't play with it on the market, unless you deal with a great amount and take advatage of the tiny spread

[deisik]

surely i take gold because gold have physical so i don't have a risk. i can safe gold on safety box and i can sleep tight. not to worry for price dump fastly

but it won't raise ether, gold is forever stuck in a limbo, it won't rise by any significant amount, so you can't play with it on the market, unless you deal with a great amount and take advatage of the tiny spread

Gold futures let you trade with leverage, so you don't need to "deal with a great amount" to "play with gold on the market". If you don't like leverage, no one can force you to buy beyond what your deposit actually allows...

And yes, if you want gold bullion, you can always buy physically settled contracts

[Amph]

surely i take gold because gold have physical so i don't have a risk. i can safe gold on safety box and i can sleep tight. not to worry for price dump fastly

but it won't raise ether, gold is forever stuck in a limbo, it won't rise by any significant amount, so you can't play with it on the market, unless you deal with a great amount and take advatage of the tiny spread

Gold futures let you trade with leverage, so you don't need to "deal with a great amount" to "play with gold on the market". If you don't like leverage, no one can force you to buy beyond what your deposit actually allows...

And yes, if you want gold bullion, you can always buy physically settled contracts

leverage rise too much the risk also, so it is not really a thing i would like to deal with, but if the fluctuation were bigger, one could earn a good amount without risking more

also i don't like to borrow money from no one

[deisik]

leverage rise too much the risk also, so it is not really a thing i would like to deal with, but if the fluctuation were bigger, one could earn a good amount without risking more

I specifically mentioned that no one can force you to buy more gold than you can cover with your deposit. Your risk of price volatility in that case would be the same if you just bought that much gold without leverage...

[Amph]

leverage rise too much the risk also, so it is not really a thing i would like to deal with, but if the fluctuation were bigger, one could earn a good amount without risking more

I specifically mentioned that no one can force you to buy more gold than you can cover with your deposit. Your risk of price volatility in that case would be the same if you just bought that much gold without leverage...

the problem with leverage is that you will rise a debt(if your trade go wrong), that without it there would not be, then you're in trouble if you can't repay it in time

instead with your capital, you will not get those kind of problems, simply because you can't trade more than what you have

one could argue that you should not use a leverage that is higher than your total capital, but then i would say, what is the point of it, if i can just use my own capital(raising my investment to match the possible leverage) instead

[deisik]

one could argue that you should not use a leverage that is higher than your total capital, but then i would say, what is the point of it, if i can just use my own capital(raising my investment to match the possible leverage) instead

The point is that you don't actually use all your capital, you limit your exposure to risk while "taking advantage of the tiny spread". At the same time, you can invest the bigger part of your capital (which is still available to you because of leverage in gold) in some safe instrument which is negatively correlated to gold, e.g. in US Treasuries...

Thereby your expectation of reward is higher than if you just bought gold with all your capital while risk remains the same

[Amph]

one could argue that you should not use a leverage that is higher than your total capital, but then i would say, what is the point of it, if i can just use my own capital(raising my investment to match the possible leverage) instead

The point is that you don't actually use all your capital, you limit your exposure to risk while "taking advantage of the tiny spread". At the same time, you can invest the bigger part of your capital (which is still available to you because of leverage in gold) in some safe instrument which is negatively correlated to gold, e.g. in US Treasuries...

Thereby your expectation of reward is higher than if you just bought gold with all your capital while risk remains the same

one can do the same thing without leverage, putting a % in one risky asset and the other in a more safe ones, without risking to cut the money in the more safe asset in the case your risky asset will goes wrong

if the majority of your money are on the safe asset, then it does not matter anymore if the spread is tiny or not, you can go ahead and trade normally with your capital, because the real money will come from the safe ones

[deisik]

one could argue that you should not use a leverage that is higher than your total capital, but then i would say, what is the point of it, if i can just use my own capital(raising my investment to match the possible leverage) instead

The point is that you don't actually use all your capital, you limit your exposure to risk while "taking advantage of the tiny spread". At the same time, you can invest the bigger part of your capital (which is still available to you because of leverage in gold) in some safe instrument which is negatively correlated to gold, e.g. in US Treasuries...

Thereby your expectation of reward is higher than if you just bought gold with all your capital while risk remains the same

one can do the same thing without leverage, putting a % in one risky asset and the other in a more safe ones, without risking to cut the money in the more safe asset in the case your risky asset will goes wrong

You asked what's the point of buying gold on leverage versus buying the same amount of gold without leverage. In the former case you free some part of your capital (thereby giving you an opportunity to earn more through other instruments), while in the latter case you spend all your capital, the risk being the same in both of these cases...

[Amph]

i think that leverage is only good for good players that are constantly in profit by few % and they can boost that with leverage exactly

but for those who are at 1:1 ratio between loss and gain it is useless

assuming that the market will double or will go to zero

if player A is using leverage(x5) and player B is not, both are investing in two assets, in which they put 10% in the one with the higher risk and 90% in the other

if player A lose it will end up with 0% on the first asset and 50% of the second(he need to give back 40%), players B instead will be at 0% and 90%, so player A is losing 5 times more

if player A win it will gain 60% on the first asset(because 10%x5 leverage x2 market = 100%-40% that he need to give back) and still 90% on the second, player B instead 20% on the first and 90% on the other, so player A is gaining 3 times more

the ratio is 3:5, not in favor of A certainly

maybe i'm missing something, but it does not look wise to use leverage

[mayflor2]

One cannot ignore Bitcoin's success or overlook its advantages over the normal currencies, I admit. But I would like to emphasize on the fact that bitcoins are still relatively new and we are not sure if we should invest a large chunk of money on it, especially when we have gold as the other option, which is much more reliable. Gold's prices WILL shoot up no matter what, but we cannot say the same about Bitcoin with such assurance since as we have seen in the past , its value keeps fluctuating. I would still invest in gold if I have a choice between the two mentioned.

[moneyflow]

Gold anyday! Bitcoins have immense potential but they are still a new concept. I dont think i will choose bitcoin over gold. there are many reasons to back my decision or argument and ill state a few. first,bitcoin isn't backed by anything... though this feature of bitcoin hasn't backfired so far, there's no guarantee that it'll not in the future, and the feature. Whereas gold's prices are to rise in the future (assured) which makes it more reliable.!

[harlenadler]

I would choose Gold because bitcoin is still kind of a 'beta' concept. It is still new and the world is beginning to start integrating it, but there are some tremendous risks along the way. With gold, there are less risks, and there is no doubt about demand. People always want gold.

[Zorrocoin]

If given a choice to walk away with either Bitcoin or gold of equivalent value, what would you pick?

Asians and Westerners were asked in Taipei in Chinese and English if they would take Bitcoin or gold home with them that day, and the answer might surprise you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6GiC8dqN9A

We just shot a video outside the Taipei 101 skyscraper area here and gave people a chance to answer if they would walk away with either Bitcoin or gold- and why.

If you were approached and were offered the same deal, would you walk away with Bitcoin or gold in your pocket, and why???

I'd take both of them  and run . Just kidding. If I was given the  choice , I'd definitely pick bitcoin, it is not that big at the moment , but is definitely the currency of the future and very promising and reliable. Gold is great too and is more secure  but bitcoin is more profitable in my opinion.

[Mehek]

I'd take both of them  and run .

Definitely. It is normal to diversificate the investments. Both of them are potential investments. So I would prefer to believe equally in both of them. Half of my money that are designated to invest will go in bitcoin and half of them in gold. Maybe 60-70% in bitcoin because of hope I have that bitcoin will go high in years. 

I agree. And if both of them are having the equivalent value( according to the question)  , then how could we possible pick? But I too trust bitcoin having higher values in a couple of years. Although having financial problems at the time, it will be more secure for me to go with gold .

[HarHarHar9965]

Gold. I can trade it even without electricity and most people will know what it is and accept it as payment. On the other hand most people never heard of bitcoin, so in many cases it's useless.

But what if assuming you have a gold coin of 10mg gold and its worth 100$ (for example), but you need to pay your dues of only 30$ and the other person does not have any other way to pay you, how will you accept or complete the transaction? Gold cannot be traded at tis purest solid form or in terms of coins too, as they need to have accurate denominations right? What if you can't divide a gold coin? What then?

[Miracal]

I would put down my money in gold and bitcoin both, but I will always have a soft corner for gold. it has always helped me and my family since the years when gold was not even there, and it has always helped me in my dire need. I have a lot of love for btc, but I will always love and value gold more, regardless what price bitcoin is. I just have a preference for gold, I like shiny objects

[roadbits]

If Bitcoin becomes the store of value for the majority of the people unbanked, it could replace gold as the preferred medium for storing wealth.

[BTCevo]

If Bitcoin becomes the store of value for the majority of the people unbanked, it could replace gold as the preferred medium for storing wealth.

To replace gold bitcoin must make the price stable enough because compared to gold bitcoin is too far to make it stable. And one more thing that without the volatility of bitcoin, bitcoin will lose their attractive to people because bitcoin will no longer as a trading but a pure investment. So it must be considered well enough

[Amph]

If Bitcoin becomes the store of value for the majority of the people unbanked, it could replace gold as the preferred medium for storing wealth.

To replace gold bitcoin must make the price stable enough because compared to gold bitcoin is too far to make it stable. And one more thing that without the volatility of bitcoin, bitcoin will lose their attractive to people because bitcoin will no longer as a trading but a pure investment. So it must be considered well enough

bitcoin is fairly stable recently, if we can maintain this climbing, we can have both, stability and a good price

also volatility it's bad only when bitcoin falls, not when it's rise for evident reasons, this is not true for merchants, but it is true for holders