Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

i'm convinced gold is heading lower.  this is why i have my Bitcoin longs hedged with gold and silver shorts.  this is taking the pain out of the current Bitcoin decline. 

if Bitcoin turns up, i'll be hitting on both cylinders.

[1713586206]

1713586206

[1713586206]

1713586206

[1713586206]

1713586206

[cypherdoc]

Paypal adding Bitcoin?  this is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7HxLCFMeY&feature=youtu.be&t=8s

[cypherdoc]

Hammer Time

[cypherdoc]

silver back under 19

[damnek]

Paypal adding Bitcoin?  this is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7HxLCFMeY&feature=youtu.be&t=8s

If I remember it right, Wordpress accepting bitcoin killed the decline around November 2012 and sparked a major rally. Are we seeing the same thing play out now but on a larger scale?

[FNG]

i'm convinced gold is heading lower.  this is why i have my Bitcoin longs hedged with gold and silver shorts.  this is taking the pain out of the current Bitcoin decline. 

if Bitcoin turns up, i'll be hitting on both cylinders.

All of it hedged? Scary thought. So much value will flow from the USD into un-printable assets (Gold and BTC)

[Chalkbot]

So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?

If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?

Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)?

As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys.

Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply?

If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it.

Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach.

[cypherdoc]

Paypal adding Bitcoin?  this is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7HxLCFMeY&feature=youtu.be&t=8s

If I remember it right, Wordpress accepting bitcoin killed the decline around November 2012 and sparked a major rally. Are we seeing the same thing play out now but on a larger scale?

it's ludicrous for ppl to think merchant additions is bearish b/c of the immediate conversion to fiat.  yes, this "apparent" relationship is gonna flip in a vicious way for those banking on it.  the addition of Paypal will be huge for Bitcoin as it essentially integrates/envelops/takesover/gobbles its biggest pure digital currency competitor.

[damnek]

Paypal adding Bitcoin?  this is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7HxLCFMeY&feature=youtu.be&t=8s

If I remember it right, Wordpress accepting bitcoin killed the decline around November 2012 and sparked a major rally. Are we seeing the same thing play out now but on a larger scale?

it's ludicrous for ppl to think merchant additions is bearish b/c of the immediate conversion to fiat.  yes, this "apparent" relationship is gonna flip in a vicious way for those banking on it.  the addition of Paypal will be huge for Bitcoin as it essentially integrates/envelops/takesover/gobbles its biggest pure digital currency competitor.

If COIN were to exist, we would've seen a guaranteed 10% jump up in price considering the current stock market. If the paypal news is true, this could be a buying opportunity of the decade.

[cypherdoc]

silver criticality incoming.

first critical breach is $19 for psychological reasons.  then 18.70, finally 18.17.

first breach accomplished

[notme]

So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?

If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?

Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)?

As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys.

Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply?

If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it.

Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach.

It is much easier to demand delivery of Bitcoin, or at least proof of reserves.

[Peter R]

Paypal adding Bitcoin?  this is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF7HxLCFMeY&feature=youtu.be&t=8s

This looks legit, but I'm in awe.  The video was uploaded by the official PayPal YouTube account, and it clearly says "we can spend bitcoin with a tap" at 0:09.    

I want to believe but I'm going to need confirmation.  This would be huge.  But perhaps everyone's positioning themselves to ride the coat tails of the media attention that mobile payments are going to receive when Apple unveils its new payment system.  Bitcoin adoption by PayPal is more edgy than an iWallet, so perhaps they hope to steal some of the spotlight.  

[zeetubes]

It is probably becoming another good time to purchase precious metals.   In the long term, there is almost no logical way that precious metals will not appreciate.   As the USD (and other currencies) get further and further inflated, precious metals will have to go up (hopefully along with BTC)

Probably true. To me, gold bugs are mostly insignificant in terms of their influence on prices. The 4000 ton gorilla in the room is China and to a lesser extent India and Russia. China has been accumulating Gold and probably silver (the name for a bank in China is essentially Silver Company - 银行 yin hang) for several years. It will be China vs the Fed and fiat. If and when China decides it's time to flex its financial muscles, it will announce that its current reserves have increased by x000 tons and USD will begin its death rattle. I'm not sure i want to be around when it happens but at least we will be able to say we saw history in action. For me, gold and btc are complementary: PMs for the older generations and BTC for the more technically savvy. I went out for dinner with a chinese girl last night and talked about economics for a while. She said her mother (mega rich) had bought a stash of physical gold in the past few months. I asked her about bitcoins and she said her mother had heard of it but wouldn't trust it if she couldn't hold it.

[rocks]

So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?

If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?

Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)?

As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys.

Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply?

If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it.

Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach.

Gold can only function properly if the majority of people demand delivery of physical metal. If the majority do not demand delivery of physical then it becomes possible to fractionalize gold and artificially increase supply by selling paper. Essentially the scarcity property of gold breaks down unless the majority of people take physical delivery.

This is why FDR's executive order banning physical possession was so effective at breaking the gold standard, after 2 generations the majority no longer demanded physical possession, but see paper products as "gold". It also is why the "gold bugs" vision is never realized, you need the majority of the population to demand physical and reject paper. If only 1% of the population regularly buys gold eagles, then banks can continue to sell paper for a long time.

The advantage for bitcoin is it is just so easy to take delivery. Any smartphone app can do so in seconds, and there is no reason not to. If people who adopt bitcoin for the most part use bitcoins directly then we just might fix the problems gold ran into.

My suspicion is this is how bitcoin will be attacked though, with regulation that drives adoption out of individually held wallets and into coinbase type online services by making compliance easier with online services. From there it becomes easier for online services to fractionalize bitcoin same as gold...

[zeetubes]

"Gold truly is the barbarous relic."

More accurately it's the gold 'Standard' that Keynes referred to as the relic. Gold itself will be in every new iphone because nothing else can do what it does as efficiently from an industrial perspective.   

[cypherdoc]

My suspicion is this is how bitcoin will be attacked though, with regulation that drives adoption out of individually held wallets and into coinbase type online services by making compliance easier with online services. From there it becomes easier for online services to fractionalize bitcoin same as gold...

i think it's too late for them to try that. 

the good thing about the mtgox hack is that it's now forced the community into performing Bitcoin audits via the hashing trees.  i don't think legacy payment processors like Paypal will be able to just get away w/o the same auditing as awareness is now high regarding the importance of this.

[Chalkbot]

So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?

If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?

Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)?

As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys.

Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply?

If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it.

Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach.

Gold can only function properly if the majority of people demand delivery of physical metal. If the majority do not demand delivery of physical then it becomes possible to fractionalize gold and artificially increase supply by selling paper. Essentially the scarcity property of gold breaks down unless the majority of people take physical delivery.

This is why FDR's executive order banning physical possession was so effective at breaking the gold standard, after 2 generations the majority no longer demanded physical possession, but see paper products as "gold". It also is why the "gold bugs" vision is never realized, you need the majority of the population to demand physical and reject paper. If only 1% of the population regularly buys gold eagles, then banks can continue to sell paper for a long time.

The advantage for bitcoin is it is just so easy to take delivery. Any smartphone app can do so in seconds, and there is no reason not to. If people who adopt bitcoin for the most part use bitcoins directly then we just might fix the problems gold ran into.

My suspicion is this is how bitcoin will be attacked though, with regulation that drives adoption out of individually held wallets and into coinbase type online services by making compliance easier with online services. From there it becomes easier for online services to fractionalize bitcoin same as gold...

It is much easier to demand delivery of Bitcoin, or at least proof of reserves.

Thanks rocks and notme.

You both agree that the simplicity of taking delivery of bitcoin is what is going to protect it from the same fate as gold. I think it's a reasonable observation, but so far we've seen no evidence of that happening. The general public, and even some outstanding members of our early adopter community, have repeatedly lost bitcoin entrusted to a third party. The general feeling I get from normal folk when I talk about bitcoin is that it's too complicated, and they'd rather have someone else holding it for them and allowing access with a nice GUI or credit card analogue. This is what gave me pause; Outside of the people in threads like this, everyone wants a 3rd party to hold their bitcoin, and they may or may not care about solvency or audits. These are things that they don't really have a grasp of. With the majority of the world made up of people like this, how can we expect the industry NOT to capitalize on them? We can shout about private keys and audits all day long, but to an outside observer, we sound like the gold bug stackers ranting about physical coins.

[justusranvier]

i think it's too late for them to try that.

I think it is too late for them to be successful at this, but I'm convinced they will make the attempt.

PayPal et al. can throw a lot of resources at UX and advertising (propaganda) designed to keep people from taking physical custody.

They can also get help with this from the IRS and other government agencies. We might see a situation where anyone who takes physical custody of their coins will be subject to merciless and endless legal harassment.

[cypherdoc]

i think it's too late for them to try that.

I think it is too late for them to be successful at this, but I'm convinced they will make the attempt.

PayPal et al. can throw a lot of resources at UX and advertising (propaganda) designed to keep people from taking physical custody.

They can also get help with this from the IRS and other government agencies. We might see a situation where anyone who takes physical custody of their coins will be subject to merciless and endless legal harassment.

it's then up to us to raise holy hell about audits in that case.  i have no problem doing that. 

if all the top experts in the Bitcoin field do just that, i doubt they can be ignored.

[Trader Steve]

So, if we ignore for a minute, the properties of gold that make it less attractive than bitcoin, and purely focus on the limited nature of each one; Why isn't gold acting as a store of value in a QE economy? Why is it not guaranteed profit to take out a huge low interest loan, and buy gold?

If there is an answer to that, why doesn't it apply to bitcoin?

Gold truly is the barbarous relic. It can be shorted to hell with naked contracts (big banks can sell what they don't own) and it is very inefficient in the digital age. How can it compete with instant and cheap value transfers like bitcoin (for which naked short selling does not currently exist)?

As we've said before, bitcoin is assuming the position historically held by gold. Bitcoin is Gold's Black Swan. Just remember to take possession of your private keys.

Appreciate the response Steve. To delve a little deeper, I realize that gold is a "barbarous relic" and inconvenient to use, which is why I was ignoring those facets for this particular comparison. Surely a clumsy, less efficient, hassle of a commodity will still rise in value relative to a paper currency issued in unlimited supply?

If naked shorts really are the answer to what keeps gold value in check, then my next question would be what keeps bitcoin protected from entities offering naked short selling? I realize that if everyone acts responsibly, that won't be a possibility, but that's never happened before, so I'm not counting on it.

Also, just to clarify a bit, I wasn't trying to compare gold to bitcoin, I believe bitcoin is superior in this role. I was comparing each to dollars, and wondering how we can expect bitcoin to clear the hurdles that gold failed to do, when they are both using the same approach.

Gold can only function properly if the majority of people demand delivery of physical metal. If the majority do not demand delivery of physical then it becomes possible to fractionalize gold and artificially increase supply by selling paper. Essentially the scarcity property of gold breaks down unless the majority of people take physical delivery.

This is why FDR's executive order banning physical possession was so effective at breaking the gold standard, after 2 generations the majority no longer demanded physical possession, but see paper products as "gold". It also is why the "gold bugs" vision is never realized, you need the majority of the population to demand physical and reject paper. If only 1% of the population regularly buys gold eagles, then banks can continue to sell paper for a long time.

The advantage for bitcoin is it is just so easy to take delivery. Any smartphone app can do so in seconds, and there is no reason not to. If people who adopt bitcoin for the most part use bitcoins directly then we just might fix the problems gold ran into.

My suspicion is this is how bitcoin will be attacked though, with regulation that drives adoption out of individually held wallets and into coinbase type online services by making compliance easier with online services. From there it becomes easier for online services to fractionalize bitcoin same as gold...

It is much easier to demand delivery of Bitcoin, or at least proof of reserves.

Thanks rocks and notme.

You both agree that the simplicity of taking delivery of bitcoin is what is going to protect it from the same fate as gold. I think it's a reasonable observation, but so far we've seen no evidence of that happening. The general public, and even some outstanding members of our early adopter community, have repeatedly lost bitcoin entrusted to a third party. The general feeling I get from normal folk when I talk about bitcoin is that it's too complicated, and they'd rather have someone else holding it for them and allowing access with a nice GUI or credit card analogue. This is what gave me pause; Outside of the people in threads like this, everyone wants a 3rd party to hold their bitcoin, and they may or may not care about solvency or audits. These are things that they don't really have a grasp of. With the majority of the world made up of people like this, how can we expect the industry NOT to capitalize on them? We can shout about private keys and audits all day long, but to an outside observer, we sound like the gold bug stackers ranting about physical coins.

I agree that most people are fools and they will continue to entrust their asset to third-parties but I also think that it will be very difficult for entities to conduct naked short sales of bitcoin without being called on the carpet for it (squeezed). The assumption is that most of the bitcoins are already in private hands and not bankster hands making it much harder for the manipulations to take place. Of course, I could be wrong.

My optimistic opinion is that counterparty risk failures in the legacy banking system will drive bitcoin adoption along with the awareness of the importance of taking possession of one's assets.