How Much Of The World's Gold Was Mined Before People Started To Think Of It As $

[gigabytecoin]

As of right now, more than 25% of the bitcoins that will ever be created have been distributed... probably to a handful of ~1,000 people.

I highly doubt that we mined a few tonnes of gold before the entire world ever thought it might be worth something? I mean... why would we? If it was worthless? This is essentially what the early adopters were doing, committing insanity.

Did the kings and queens of the time simply look at gold, think "wow i want more of this", and tell everybody it was worth money?

Is that what we're doing?

I don't know exactly what I'm asking or saying here... but something about this is rubbing me the wrong way...

I usually get quite nervous when I'm on the brink of making a ton of money though (and usually for no good reason) so maybe this is just simply my nerves talking?

[1715253148]

1715253148

[1715253148]

1715253148

[FreeMoney]

Surely a lot of gold was dug up when it was a great barter good, but not yet full blown money. It isn't a black and white thing.

I suppose it's interesting that with gold very little is mined until people put a lot of value on it, but with bitcoin ~30% would be mined at this point with tiny interest or with worldwide acceptance.

As is frequently repeated though, mining is not the point. I could imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is introduced, say, 17 years ago. And it is way too early for major acceptance, but most of the coins are mined by this point. And now it gets in Forbes as this long lost great idea to save us from government money and some people invest in GPUs, but since the reward is down to 3/block most mining involves going to computer graveyard and searching hard drives for wallet files. We would essentially remine the coins once we realized the great value. Point being that the 'forced' creation of the coins isn't a problem. They will sit with miners or on forgot hard drives from 2009 until the world 'demands' that they be found and released.

[gigabytecoin]

Surely a lot of gold was dug up when it was a great barter good, but not yet full blown money. It isn't a black and white thing.

I suppose it's interesting that with gold very little is mined until people put a lot of value on it, but with bitcoin ~30% would be mined at this point with tiny interest or with worldwide acceptance.

As is frequently repeated though, mining is not the point. I could imagine a scenario where Bitcoin is introduced, say, 17 years ago. And it is way too early for major acceptance, but most of the coins are mined by this point. And now it gets in Forbes as this long lost great idea to save us from government money and some people invest in GPUs, but since the reward is down to 3/block most mining involves going to computer graveyard and searching hard drives for wallet files. We would essentially remine the coins once we realized the great value. Point being that the 'forced' creation of the coins isn't a problem. They will sit with miners or on forgot hard drives from 2009 until the world 'demands' that they be found and released.

I have a pretty good feeling that the world will demand Bitcoin become mainstream sooner or later. I sure hope you are right.

[jimbobway]

I, myself, am also a gold miner and I also have gold mining equipment.  Back in the old days people panned for gold in rivers and the gold automatically collected in certain areas of a river.  Gold was easy to collect and pan out.  Once all of the "easy gold" was found it I imagine gold become more and more valuable because of the scarcity and the difficulty to find gold.  So similarly, when bitcoins become harder to mine it will increase in value.

[FBI]

We will have to see how the analogy really pans out, but it will be interesting to see a digital gold rush or coin rush rather.

[Grinder]

Gold has been considered valuable for thousands of years, and obviously it's always been mined purely because it was considered valuable. Bitcoins on the other hand started out as a political movement, and still largely is.

[BitterTea]

We will have to see how the analogy really pans out, but it will be interesting to see a digital gold rush or coin rush rather.

Nice.

Gold has been considered valuable for thousands of years, and obviously it's always been mined purely because it was considered valuable. Bitcoins on the other hand started out as a political movement, and still largely is.

The statements "gold is valuable" and "gold is money" are not equivalent. Diamonds are valuable, but they are not money.

[Shortline]

Gold has been considered valuable for thousands of years, and obviously it's always been mined purely because it was considered valuable. Bitcoins on the other hand started out as a political movement, and still largely is.

That's an interesting take on the origins of bitcoin - I haven't dug into the shadowy past of this thing to validate the truth of that statement. But the best part is that no matter what your political leanings (or lack of them, should you just so happen to be an apathetic person) bitcoin still works for you.

That's great, isn't it? It's a very useful invention. And sometimes I feel that the forum paradigms around here might lend a bit more weight to the perceived political "purpose" of bitcoin than is strictly correct - it just so happens that many of the regulars around here are believers of a common stripe, it doesn't necessarily mean that the forums represent the average bitcoin user now or in the future.

If I were ready for a political debate (and I'm not, I'd surely be exposed in all my glorious ignorance) I'd raise the question: what kind of terrible political agenda would necessitate the creation of a tool that is equally valuable to all competing political agendas. Bitcoin is just as useful to terrorists, the Secret Service, Chinese activists or Santa Clause as it is to someone who, let's say, has concerns about American monetary policy?

Anyways, sorry, we were talking about gold. I love going off-topic.

[Grinder]

The statements "gold is valuable" and "gold is money" are not equivalent. Diamonds are valuable, but they are not money.

But in the case of gold there is no clear distinction, because the value of the amount you have is measured by the weight. This makes it easy to use for trade, no matter what you call it. If you have to stamp it out in circular objects with a picture of some guy to call it money then sure, it took a while, but all you really need to use it for trade is a weight. The value of diamonds on the other hand varies drastically because of a fairly subjective quality measurement.