Do you think Buffett was right?

[gentlemand]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

[dataispower]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

[Kipsy89]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

[gentlemand]

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

There are metals that are rarer than gold with industrial uses that are a fraction of the price.

A huge portion of its value is because it looks pretty and because of that it's lasted through the ages. It's been worth a large amount when there was no industrial use for it, or any industry at all.

If you'd offered me bitcoins five years ago for my services, the chances are I probably wouldn't have taken it. These days I would. The only thing that's changed in that time is that more people believe it has value so I can use it elsewhere.

[dataispower]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

[ThatDGuy]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

[dataispower]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

Do people use gold as money today? Why should large amount of people decide to use bitcoin as money?

[brg444]

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

[ThatDGuy]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

Do people use gold as money today? Why should large amount of people decide to use bitcoin as money?

Your question needs adjusting.  It isn't why should people decide to use Bitcoin, it's why people are using and would use  Bitcoin as money.  Erik Vorhees summed it up:

It is easy to divide and recombine
It cannot be counterfeited
It is highly durable, so long as certain precautions are taken
It can be sent anywhere, instantly, at near-zero cost
If you were going to make a super hero currency, this is one of the traits you would give it
Can’t do that with gold due to physical constraints, or dollars due to legal constraints
It is scarce, with a known supply and a known inflation schedule
And it cannot be manipulated, restricted, or seized by any central party (shares this property with gold). Nobody has special privileges. In this way, it is very democratic, and very egalitarian.

As for your other question:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

Couldn't have said it better.

[dataispower]

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

Please enlighten me, I'm just asking questions. 

[dataispower]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

Do people use gold as money today? Why should large amount of people decide to use bitcoin as money?

Your question needs adjusting.  It isn't why should people decide to use Bitcoin, it's why people are using and would use  Bitcoin as money.  Erik Vorhees summed it up:

It is easy to divide and recombine
It cannot be counterfeited
It is highly durable, so long as certain precautions are taken
It can be sent anywhere, instantly, at near-zero cost
If you were going to make a super hero currency, this is one of the traits you would give it
Can’t do that with gold due to physical constraints, or dollars due to legal constraints
It is scarce, with a known supply and a known inflation schedule
And it cannot be manipulated, restricted, or seized by any central party (shares this property with gold). Nobody has special privileges. In this way, it is very democratic, and very egalitarian.

As for your other question:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

Couldn't have said it better.

Still, it doesn't mean that large amount of people will start using bitcoin as money. There is no need for it.

[ThatDGuy]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

Do people use gold as money today? Why should large amount of people decide to use bitcoin as money?

Your question needs adjusting.  It isn't why should people decide to use Bitcoin, it's why people are using and would use  Bitcoin as money.  Erik Vorhees summed it up:

It is easy to divide and recombine
It cannot be counterfeited
It is highly durable, so long as certain precautions are taken
It can be sent anywhere, instantly, at near-zero cost
If you were going to make a super hero currency, this is one of the traits you would give it
Can’t do that with gold due to physical constraints, or dollars due to legal constraints
It is scarce, with a known supply and a known inflation schedule
And it cannot be manipulated, restricted, or seized by any central party (shares this property with gold). Nobody has special privileges. In this way, it is very democratic, and very egalitarian.

As for your other question:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

Couldn't have said it better.

Still, it doesn't mean that large amount of people will start using bitcoin as money. There is no need for it.

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

[dataispower]

I don't know if Gold is overpriced. The price of bitcoin should represent the value it brings to the people. If it doesn't bring value as an efficient network for transmitting money (most people don't care about decentralization), and isn't used as a currency by a large amount of people, then it means that bitcoin is highly overvalued, and the people who invested their money into bitcoin will lose it.

Gold is at the price it's at because of belief. Something has value because people reward it that value, and in gold's case they look to history and see that it's dependable. As long as that continues then it'll always be up there.

Obviously it does have practical uses, but that makes up a fraction of the value we award it today.

Once upon a time sea shells in certain cultures were an economic mainstay. They had practical uses too but the overwhelming portion of their value was purely because consensus awarded them value.

BTC's price is based on the belief of a lot fewer people, but it's still there. I'm not so sold on it as the idea of a day to day currency, but as a value storage and transfer mechanism there's never been anything like it before. Whether enough people decide that it has value for them is what we'll find out in the coming years.

But gold still has practical use. It might or might not be overpriced, it still is used. There is a need for gold.

If you have a service to transmit money world wide that is convenient, cheap and popular you won't need bitcoin, doesn't
matter if it decentralized or not. If it works, most people will not care.

There is no reason to use bitcoin as a currency, there is no need for it.

So if there is no need bitcoin, not for transmitting money and not for using it as a currency, why would it have value?

Are you claiming that the only thing that will give value to bitcoin is the idea that people might start to believe that bitcoin has value?

Well maybe there's also a need for Bitcoin's ability to store wealth, man. Sure there could be another system for transferring money. But we don't need gold, either it seems. It has good capabilities, but in no way is a must for many applications.

By "need" I mean that there is a demand for gold for different applications other than store of value.

Bitcoin has to provide something of value, a practical use case.

To say that bitcoin is valuable because we believe it has value is not good enough.

Gold's other applications weren't what gave it value as money.  It became money over time because of the properties that it had.  Many of those properties are shared by Bitcoin - although there are different properties that give Bitcoin a unique place.

Money is chosen over time because it has specific attributes that make it highly useful in exchange.  Bitcoin has plenty of those attributes.  It's entirely possible that it could become a widely-used form of money.  It already is money, and the fact that it's sitting at $270 supports that.

Do people use gold as money today? Why should large amount of people decide to use bitcoin as money?

Your question needs adjusting.  It isn't why should people decide to use Bitcoin, it's why people are using and would use  Bitcoin as money.  Erik Vorhees summed it up:

It is easy to divide and recombine
It cannot be counterfeited
It is highly durable, so long as certain precautions are taken
It can be sent anywhere, instantly, at near-zero cost
If you were going to make a super hero currency, this is one of the traits you would give it
Can’t do that with gold due to physical constraints, or dollars due to legal constraints
It is scarce, with a known supply and a known inflation schedule
And it cannot be manipulated, restricted, or seized by any central party (shares this property with gold). Nobody has special privileges. In this way, it is very democratic, and very egalitarian.

As for your other question:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

Couldn't have said it better.

Still, it doesn't mean that large amount of people will start using bitcoin as money. There is no need for it.

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.

In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.

[ThatDGuy]

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.

In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.

Of course it can, that's why even banks and the fed are now scrambling to come up with their own version of BTC that they have control over - precisely the reason why BTC is superior than any of their versions would be.

Money isn't in an investment? You are not supposed to invest in money?

Have you ever heard of forex??? Let me Google it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/forex-market.asp

Speaking of Google, it's part of what we call the internet.  The internet was also not needed back in 1990.

You're missing the big picture that money can, and has changed many times over the history of mankind.  It's not going to stop changing now because dollars are some perfect system.

[dataispower]

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.

In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.

Of course it can, that's why even banks and the fed are now scrambling to come up with their own version of BTC that they have control over - precisely the reason why BTC is superior than any of their versions would be.

Money isn't in an investment? You are not supposed to invest in money?

Have you ever heard of forex??? Let me Google it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/forex-market.asp

Speaking of Google, it's part of what we call the internet.  The internet was also not needed back in 1990.

You're missing the big picture that money can, and has changed many times over the history of mankind.  It's not going to stop changing now because dollars are some perfect system.

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

[ThatDGuy]

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.

In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.

Of course it can, that's why even banks and the fed are now scrambling to come up with their own version of BTC that they have control over - precisely the reason why BTC is superior than any of their versions would be.

Money isn't in an investment? You are not supposed to invest in money?

Have you ever heard of forex??? Let me Google it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/forex-market.asp

Speaking of Google, it's part of what we call the internet.  The internet was also not needed back in 1990.

You're missing the big picture that money can, and has changed many times over the history of mankind.  It's not going to stop changing now because dollars are some perfect system.

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

Who said anything about "replacing"?? Bitcoin doesn't have to replace anything.  It can carve out it's own place.

You're trying to use your own definition to determine what is and isn't money.  The problem is that it's just -your- definition.  

Let's use some more magic of the internet to look up what money is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered money.

What do you know? Bitcoin is money

This is why the other poster was right when posting this:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

You're claiming after the fact that it was supposedly a rhetorical question, but after more discussion it honestly seems more likely that you don't have a good grasp of what money is.

[gentlemand]

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are  speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.

Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.  

Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?

[ThatDGuy]

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are  speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.

Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.  

Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?

I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913538.msg10032317#msg10032317

The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?

 

Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?

[dataispower]

The other poster made a good point, in that you probably need to do a little more research about what money is, and why certain monies became what they did, when they did.

Money didn't come around because of a need - Money happened because it was easier than bartering.  Nobody said "hey you know what, we need these seashells to trade back and forth." It made sense, and it made the act of trading easier.

Money is our way to get around the Coincidence of Wants dilemma, It is a common medium of exchange, whereby everyone agrees to trade for money instead of other objects.

Remember when I talked about the seashells?  People used that as money.  People used silver and gold as money.  People use paper in the form of dollars as money now.  Nothing is to say that we won't look back at paper in another 50-500 years and find that antiquated as well.

Again, it's not about need - it's about something performing the function of money better (or differently enough to warrant a place) than its predecessors.

Bitcoin does that.

The other poster only showed that he is unable to differentiate between real questions and rhetorical ones.

In the current form, bitcoin can't preform better than the money we use today. You can't solve volatility if you treat money as an investment and not simply as a tool. You are not supposed to invest in money, you supposed to use it.

Of course it can, that's why even banks and the fed are now scrambling to come up with their own version of BTC that they have control over - precisely the reason why BTC is superior than any of their versions would be.

Money isn't in an investment? You are not supposed to invest in money?

Have you ever heard of forex??? Let me Google it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/forex-market.asp

Speaking of Google, it's part of what we call the internet.  The internet was also not needed back in 1990.

You're missing the big picture that money can, and has changed many times over the history of mankind.  It's not going to stop changing now because dollars are some perfect system.

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

Who said anything about "replacing"?? Bitcoin doesn't have to replace anything.  It can carve out it's own place.

You're trying to use your own definition to determine what is and isn't money.  The problem is that it's just -your- definition.  

Let's use some more magic of the internet to look up what money is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered money.

What do you know? Bitcoin is money

This is why the other poster was right when posting this:

Do people use gold as money today?

That sentence tells us all we need to know about your understanding of money, or lack thereof.

You're claiming after the fact that it was supposedly a rhetorical question, but after more discussion it honestly seems more likely that you don't have a good grasp of what money is.

The discussion is about bitcoin value, and the question why should the majority use it. We're talking about the practical use cases of bitcoin, how people could benefit from using it.

[dataispower]

Of course money will change, my point is that bitcoin, in the current form, will not replace it.

Bitcoin is not used as money by most people who own bitcoin. If the majority of people who own bitcoin don't use it as money - then it is simply not money. This is what I mean when I talk about treating money as an investment.

From sniffing around it seems that it's a lot of different things to different people at the moment. Some people are using it purely as money. Others are  speculating and nothing but. Many are a combination.

Some are super keen for it be fully integrated into the existing financial system. Others would boil their miners if that happened.  

Assuming it continues to survive and grow, what do you think its place in the world might be?

I don't love speculating, but a quick look through dataispower's post history shows that it's littered with Dogecoin-moon posts, and includes this gem:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913538.msg10032317#msg10032317

The question is, will the Dogecoin network effect overtake bitcoin?

 

Maybe shedding some light on where he thinks (wants) BTC's place in the word to be?

Irrelevant to the discussion.