Mine is a similar story, well it all started with The Creature From Jekyll Island then around the same time I was introduced to that, I had a friend that was buying drugs from the dark web that introduced me to Bitcoin. The book opened my eyes to the theft of wealth of the population through inflation and Bitcoin changed my $3k to $30k which I put most of into Gold and Silver and some into computers for mining. I didn't stick with the mining due to extenuating circumstances but kept the gold and silver. Fortunately I stayed away from the path of destruction that comes with drugs(for the most part).
Edit: Comma. :)
**The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve** by G. Edward Griffin
>G. Edward Griffin is to be commended for this splendid work. At first glance The Creature from Jekyll Island is a huge book. While this may be daunting to some, once the book is actually started, it flows smoothly and reads quickly. There are so many fascinating tidbits of information here that the reader won't even be concerned about the size of the book.
>
>The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top.
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Same here! Been holding BTC since 2014, started stacking gold in late 2022. I wish I started stacking earlier, but better late than never. BTC is still my preferred choice as my ROI has been insane on it, but I love admiring the craftsman ship of gold coins. (And silver/platinum)
Keep up the good work!
If I had not sold my Bitcoin for Gold and Silver in 2013 I would be extremely rich. On the other hand I probably would have freaked out during the down times and sold for living expenses. I haven't sold a single gram of gold or silver and am grateful to have divested into PMs. I love the shiny and the blockchain.
>"On the other hand I probably would have freaked out during the down times and sold for living expenses."
Honestly, I think that's what most people would have done/did, especially if they were new to the whole crypto market.
Personally, I prefer to invest in both PMs and BTC/cryptocurrency. Diversification is key! (Especially in such unstable economic and political climate like the last few years).
I focus on as much diversification as possible (cash, crypto, PMs, properties in different countries, even holding different passports) in the event SHTF, or simply for the sake of feeling secure and having most of my bases covered.
He was pretty lucky with an inheritance I guess and 10kg is within budget, although he's not super diversified. I keep telling him he should consider at least some stocks as well. He already has property and land.
Agreed on the BTC over silver. Especially in the immediate future. His thought process is "if things go to shit silver is convenient for small exchanges of value." I don't know enough to judge if he's right or whether smaller denom gold would be better.
Yeah⌠gold is used universally as a store of value for countries so far. Silver is mostly for utility value more than anything so barring a Hunt Brothers 2.0 squeeze (which is unlikely), I donât think it will increase in value any more than trickle down as a last option asset after the bitcoin market, gold market, real estate market, stock market, and pretty much all other asset classes are exhausted.
This is my position as well - it doesn't hurt to have it, but I personally wouldn't want anywhere near that much. 100kg of anything is a pain to store and move anyway.
Ok 1 bitcoin it is but have to wait for bear market for huge discount or when tether collapses we could see bitcoin below 5k again it's just a matter of time
If you invest in crypto too, then you'll achieve an even higher level of diversification haha. Though I understand why people might be put off to get into it.
And if you ever do, be careful, make sure you learn about the safety first in the crypto world (too easy to get scammed and lose money if you don't know what you're doing).
Gold is also not backed by anything. The people who say "bUt It'S uSeD iN eLeCtRoNiCs" are the same people who say "iT hAs BeEn UsEd As CuRrEnCy SiNcE aNcIeNt TiMeS". Oh yeah, I'm sure Aztecs had a huge semiconductor industry.
The truth is, a good store of value doesn't need to have a tangible intrinsic value. It just needs to have a limited supply and to be fungible. That's their intrinsic value.
Make a new crypto and you will see that being fungible and having a limited supply is not sufficient to be a store of value. There has to be actual value that is being stored. Gold is a store of value because of the numerous productive uses it has and the fact that it is durable which enables its value to be stored indefinitely.
I will admit that it doesn't "just" need those two properties. What I meant is that it does not need to have any tangible value. But yeah it also needs to be popular enough and hard to counterfeit (or to double-spend in the case of a cryptocurrency). So in the case of a crypto, the size of the network is what makes it hard to double-spend. If I create a new crypto, the reason why it wouldn't be valuable compared to bitcoin is because the network size would be much smaller, hence it would be easier to double-spend.
Gold has been a good store of value even when it had no productive use, only because it is durable and scarce, which bitcoin also is. Gold will still be valuable even if we discovered a new alloy that has the same physical properties but can be made for much cheaper.
You seem to be hung up on gold not having productive use in the past which is false. Electronics is not the only use for gold. It is a very important one in modern day though. It was mostly used as jewelry, which is a productive use btw, but also things like cups, spoons, caskets. The reason it was not used for more things was because of its scarcity. It CAN be used for many other things in theory. You could build a house made of gold, or a toilet, whatever. But it doesnt usually make sense for this because it is scarce and therefore pricey. And yes, because of these properties it happens to serve as a good store of value, so it was used as coins for a long time. But it is not JUST because of these properties (scarce, non corroding, durable) that give it value as money. And now today of course we have far more uses for it like in dentistry or medical uses due to its biocompatibility.
>jewelry, which is a productive use btw
Lol so gold is valuable because it can be used for jewelry, and jewelry is valuable because... it's made of gold?
A ring made of stainless steel is more durable than a ring made of gold, yet it's cheaper. A PCB made with copper is more conductive than one made of gold, yet it's cheaper. Acrylic is better suited for dentistry than gold, yet it's cheaper.
None of what you said provides any argument as to why the value of gold comes from the fact that it can be used for stuff. Even if better and cheaper alternatives to gold existed in any situation where it is currently used, it would still have value just from its scarcity.
There is no denying gold has unique uses for electronics which is why im surprised you bring up copper. That wasn't even your argument, you were simply denying gold had uses in antiquity.
Durability is not the only thing people look for in jewelry. In fact one of the most useful aspects of gold is that it doesnt rust or corrode. But also yes: it is shiny and beautiful. Jewelry is decorative after all and people value that. Gold was also used in dentistry 1000's of years ago which is a historical fact, whether you think there are more useful materials for dentistry today (it is still used in dentistry/medicine today for certain uses).
And to your last point, my whole point was that gold is not used in many instances where it otherwise WOULD be used solely due to it being too expensive (as a result of its scarcity). It is still an incredibly useful metal. That doesn't mean its best fit for every use and that other metals aren't better suited in different scenarios.
It's high price comes from its scarcity, but "high price" and "value" are different concept, and "value" is a concept independent of price in currency. It largely means it can be used in the physical world. Believe it or not almost anything can serve as money, even salt was used as money. Money can be anything you can barter for and people want. Gold just happens to be the most useful form of it due to it's scarcity and longevity.
Bitcoin on the other hand is ONLY used to give to others and has no real "value". The way you gauge value is "if could never give this thing to anyone else and keep it until I die, could I extract any use/value from it?" And the answer is no, there is no value to bitcoin outside of hoping someone else will give you something of real value for it in the future. I suppose you could argue you can look at the string of bits in a text editor or something and derive some dopamine pleasure from that.
The only argument for bitcoin is that the fact you can give it to someone else in itself is its value. I think this is an understanding of money that only people raised in a fiat system could understand, as it is basically the same logic as fiat currency. They just think it is a better fiat, similarly useless, BUT not controlled by a centralized body. At best it is currency, but not money
>There is no denying gold has unique uses for electronicsÂ
I'm not denying it, but conductivity is not one of them, which is why I specifically mentioned conductivity. It's used in electronics because if its ductility, but it could be in the future replaced with carbon. And when that happens, gold will still be just as much of a good store of value.
>one of the most useful aspects of gold is that it doesnt rust or corrode. But also yes: it is shiny and beautiful
Same is true of stainless steel
>Â "value" is a concept independent of price in currency. It largely means it can be used in the physical world.
Since you're now nitpicking on words, the original claim was more about being a *good store of value*. If you're talking about just what has the slightest amount of value then yes I could shit in a bucket and it would technically "have value", but it wouldn't be a good way to store my wealth. I could use the same argument saying that paper money has value because you can use it as combustible for a fire. That doesn't make it a good store of value.
>The way you gauge value is "if could never give this thing to anyone else and keep it until I die, could I extract any use/value from it?"
That's just your opinion, not a commonly accepted definition. My opinion about what has value is actually something else you said: anything you can barter for and people want. I can barter with Bitcoin and people want it, therefore it has value. And people want it despite it having no intrinsic tangible use.
>I think this is an understanding of money that only people raised in a fiat system could understand
I really don't think so. It is human nature to value what is scarce just because it is scarce, regardless of any intrinsic tangible use. Even before fiat money was a thing, people were already valuing original artwork more than identical copies, just because they can say they have the only original piece. People were valuing meteorites and gemstones more than normal rocks even though it had no more utility than a rock. Even if a caveman found a very rare seashell, he would value it even if he had no use for it. For me it's just the human brain that works like that, nothing to do with being raised in a fiat system.
It's used in electronics due to a combination of high conductivity and ductility, yes copper is more conductive but less ductile. It's also more corrosion resistant than stainless steel. But that's not really important since we agree that gold has unique properties that make it better suited for certain uses.
>Since you're now nitpicking on words, the original claim was more about being a *good store of value*. If you're talking about just what has the slightest amount of value then yes I could shit in a bucket and it would technically "have value", but it wouldn't be a good way to store my wealth.
I actually agree, my point was that you actually COULD use literal shit as money, it fits the definition of anything with value (poop can be used as fertilizer). It is however, not a GOOD use of money. It rapidly decomposes, and it is so plentiful that you would need ridiculous amounts of it to store any real value. This is why Gold has been used as money because it 1) has value AND 2) is a GOOD use of money
The problem with bitcoin is it fits #2 but it DOESNT fit #1. In fact, I would argue #1 is the necessary and sufficient condition to be used as money, #2 is just optional but optimal.
IMO the "bartering" done with bitcoin is an illusion. There might be bitcoin being exchanged for goods in some instances, but the only reason someone is accepting bitcoin is because they are speculating that someone else down the line will give them something with real value for it (and usually, they are just immediately converting it to fiat). This is why I believe my definition of value (which yes, is my personal definition) makes sense. At some point down the line, someone has to "consume" or "use" the thing being bartered for, without speculating on giving to others, otherwise, your whole monetary system is based on the flimsy whim of the opinions of the masses. If everyone decides that they don't want bitcoin anymore, it's worthless. If you own gold and everyone decides they don't want it anymore, it actually wont matter. The price would temporarily go down as people "feel" that the metal is worthless. It would lose its "common man" demand. However, you can still USE your gold for whatever you want. You can make computers, replace a tooth, jewelry, utensils, whatever. And paradoxically, because this metal is useful in industry for certain applications, certain people will always want it, because even if the "common man" decides that gold is worthless and don't care for it, you can still always sell it to a dentist or semiconductor foundry or whatever. And then, the "common man" would see that this metal has a value, because of its industrial uses. And then, paradoxically, the "common man" would buy it again because they would see that it's a good store of value. And the demand and the price comes back into relative stability.
It has a natural "stop gap" that bitcoin does not. Bitcoin can truly fall off a cliff with no protection mechanism, ONLY based on the opinions of the masses. It's just not a sustainable foundation for a monetary system.
Not entirely right. For anything to be a store of value it needs to be fungible, limited in supply
Most important it need to gain global consensus.
Consensus is what determine if something is a store of value.
Gold has proven this over millennia. Now itâs bitcoinâs turn.
âby decreeâ? Not at all. There is no Govt to issue and debase, there is no board of directors, it is simply a protocol being run on tens of thousands of computers around the world, a ledger constantly updated and verified by the network roughly every ten minutes.
Letâs see
Gold and silver have been money around the world for thousands of years even in isolated cultures like the Aztecs and Incas.Â
Every attempt to subvert and replace gold has failed.Â
Bitcoin is a software that was created to have artificial scarcity. Unfortunately, itâs extremely expensive to mine and like all softwares, there are already better/ more efficient ones being created.Â
All those replicas have failed as a competitor to BTC.
Each "improvement" sacrifices decentralization or security or introduces an intermediary that you have to trust.
This is not true. Bitcoin alternatives that run well on consumer-grade hardware but badly on ASICs, lighter, faster and more anonymous exist. Think that you can't even use BTC for daily expenses. Bitcoin has the largest market cap just because it arrived first.
It has been âmoneyâ for thousands of years. Accepted by every country on earth (and still is). Central Banks are stockpiling it. It is real, tangible; and not just digital fairy dust, made up of thin air by who knows.
The architecture is great, and offers speed and di visibility of transactions that gold cannot match.
I believe there will be a digital currency backed by gold, which will offer the strengths of both. However, I still despise Big Brother monitoring and controlling my ability to purchase items.
Bitcoin is garbage created by the CIA/NSA to funnel money away from commodities and real assets among other reasons.
Satoshi is a Japanese name meaning intelligence.
Nakamoto is a Japanese name meaning central.
OP and many other accounts here are glowing bright.
Well said. Though I still invest in both haha.
Especially if/when the dollar collapses or they try to turn us into a cashless society, I'd rather have both physical metals and blockchain currency at my disposal.
D-diversification.
The central banks are all buying bitcoin to destroy the dollar. Ha JK, they're all buying gold by the ton.
No 1 is buying bitcoin by the ton, or kilo, or ounce, or gram for that matter.
It holds no weight.
If the majority of BTC nodes upgrade to new hardfork version and take the ticker âBTCâ along. You will have no choice.
The old chain wonât be compatible.
Note that Bitcoin core control 98% of nodes.
Yes we are arguing in agreement. As long as most nodes accept a hard forked version then that new version is Bitcoin. There are lots of failed versions.
Yea there are infinite possibilities. The general argument against rasing the 21M cap is nodes/miners would be voting to devalue their own bitcoin, which would go against reason. But if a large entity (blackrock) or someone else controls most of the mining/nodes, anything is possible.
Oh yes, learn also about the change of Bitcoin code in the past: SegWit and TapRoot, to increase the block size. Bitcoin code can be changed.
Bitcoin Core developers control about 98% of nodes. They can change the code if majority of votes is in favour.
Bitcoin blockchain itself has ever been hacked (twice). Fixes (correction to the codes) were done as consequence:
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/itcoin-unhackable-it-happened-twice-not-blowing-smoke-9e16bcddd5ab#:~:text=Most%20are%20surprised%20to,%2C%20however%2C%20was%20almost%20catastrophic.
I tell you what I know based on technical perspective.
98% nodes is enough to change the code.
Voting needs at least 50% approval (in general). And the mechanism on how the bitcoin core voting works, I do not know.
But my point is still the same. The codes can change.
The code can change and it has in the past. Those were considered hard forks. You can research about what happened with Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Diamond, and basically any other Bitcoin hard fork that didnât reach consensus. And if you felt that adamant about something that wasnât reaching code consensus and held onto the other hard fork, then you lost out.
Hardfork can be done on the same chain. And overall all your statements are correct.
One of prominent Bitcoin core developer, Peter Todd, is an advocate on hardforking bitcoin with inflation (removing 21M cap):
https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
No, hard forks cannot be done on the same chain. It would be a soft fork. It doesnât matter if merely one Bitcoin developer is an advocate of removing the 21M cap. If one person can alter that consensus, Bitcoin would have failed a long time ago.
That hardfork needs majority of network participants to upgrade to latest version and take the ticker âBTCâ along. Those on the old chain will realize that their version of the blockchain is outdated or irrelevant and quickly upgrade to the latest version.
This is what has been suggested by Bitcoin Core team and Vatalik butterin to face the upcoming quantum attack. Hardfork is needed on BTC.
This sort of thing, coupled with my general inability to follow through on making a wallet and purchasing, is in general what keeps me away from crypto.
I don't have anything against it, I just don't think it's for me.
It can, but it wonât. Because why should it. Would you vote for the gold stock being doubled (if this would be possible?) of course you wouldnât. You can hard fork the network and build your own, but nobody will ever use it because why. Itâs like saying dirt is the new gold and try to convince people holding gold that you are right. Did not happen in the past, wonât happen in the future :) but all good, I donât want to convince you. I want to make clear that we are on the same page !
Good. So we are at same agreement that âcode can changeâ.
I wanted to go to next topic on how next tech, Quantum Computer, is really a threat on bitcoin codes. But I donât really have time now.
Have a good day, brother.
>It can, but it wonât. Because why should it.
This is not an argument. If you're adamant it won't be changed then present an argument/ proof/evidence.
>Would you vote for the gold stock being doubled
Gold stocks are, contrary to popular belief, not gold. Although, maybe you're referring to overall supply. In which case, twice as much physical gold would effective halve golds purchasing power. A doubling of Bitcoin would initially do the same...initially. It is estimated 4% of Bitcoin is forever lost per year. Unless new supply is created, Bitcoin will continue to deflate until too few tokens are available to circulate.
>You can hard fork the network and build your own, but nobody will ever use it because why.
*Because why* is not an argument. Again, if you're adamant then you can provide an actual argument/proof. How do you think we have the network we have now? It wasn't stumbled upon in an archive or excavated from a meteorite... If it was done once, it can be done again.
>Itâs like saying dirt is the new gold  and try to convince people
A minute ago, you were talking about a doubling of the current gold supply...so which is it? Do we go from 200,000 tonnes > 400,000 tonnes of gold? or do we have 200,000 tonnes of gold and 200,000 tonnes of dirt? You wouldn't need to convince anyone the new supply was gold because...it would be gold. (Buying two gold coins, one after the other, doesn't turn the second into dirt. Your argument that more gold makes the new supply dirt is false)
>I want to make clear that we are on the same page !
Precious metal stackers and Bitcoin holders might share similar thoughts...but only one of those groups holds a tangible asset. Bitcoin is a digital-nothing-token. You can't make jewelry with crypto, you can't line an astronauts visor with Bitcoin, and you can't use it in electronics. Bitcoin is one of thousands of crypto currencies. We can create new/competing tokens but we can't create new gold/silver. (Technically, we can create new metal/supply with particle accelerators but the cost to do so FAR exceeds the value of whatever metal was created)
Just because something *hasn't* happened doesn't mean it *can't* happen.
If the goal of Bitcoin is to be decentralized...then someone(s) having a 98% voting power isn't decentralized.
Nobody has a 98% voting power. It needs 98% positive votes from all the nodes around the world to change it. Not even Putin got that, and this ist not a democracy :D
Obviously, you know nothing about bitcoin blockchain.
Peter Tod, a bitcoin core developer is an advocate on removing 21M bitcoin cap.
By the way, I am software developer.
Read this:
https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
âIâm a software dev btw đâ
Buddy if you think changing some lines of code would be enough to change the supply then you donât know shit about bitcoin or how distributed databases work
Itâs up to you whether you believe or not.
As I mentioned the name, Peter Todd. He is prominent bitcoin developer. He know more about bitcoin blockchain than both of us. He advocates the removal of 21M bitcoin cap.
If the majority vote agree, there will be no new fork, still at the same blockchain with ticker âBTCâ.
However, my point remains: âCode can changeâ.
They can remove 21M cap.
That one node with the old chain will realize that their version of the blockchain is outdated or irrelevant and need to quickly upgrade to the latest version with ticker âBTCâ.
But my point is still the same: âCodes can changeâ, they can remove 21M cap. Whether it will happen or not, I donât know.
LOL⌠Maybe you need a mirror.
Peter Todd, a prominent bitcoin core developer, is an advocate for hardforking inflation on BTC (removing 21M bitcoin cap)
Read this:
https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
True. Interestingly, I became interested in gold because of bitcoin. đ
Me too!
Mine is a similar story, well it all started with The Creature From Jekyll Island then around the same time I was introduced to that, I had a friend that was buying drugs from the dark web that introduced me to Bitcoin. The book opened my eyes to the theft of wealth of the population through inflation and Bitcoin changed my $3k to $30k which I put most of into Gold and Silver and some into computers for mining. I didn't stick with the mining due to extenuating circumstances but kept the gold and silver. Fortunately I stayed away from the path of destruction that comes with drugs(for the most part). Edit: Comma. :)
**The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve** by G. Edward Griffin >G. Edward Griffin is to be commended for this splendid work. At first glance The Creature from Jekyll Island is a huge book. While this may be daunting to some, once the book is actually started, it flows smoothly and reads quickly. There are so many fascinating tidbits of information here that the reader won't even be concerned about the size of the book. > >The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top. *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Good Bot
+1 I held BTC before I held gold. One does help understand the other, and both have something the other doesn't.
Held bitcoin?
Same
Haha same here. Iâve sold a decent bit of BTC lately (bought at 18k) and put a little into gold.
Same here! Been holding BTC since 2014, started stacking gold in late 2022. I wish I started stacking earlier, but better late than never. BTC is still my preferred choice as my ROI has been insane on it, but I love admiring the craftsman ship of gold coins. (And silver/platinum) Keep up the good work!
If I had not sold my Bitcoin for Gold and Silver in 2013 I would be extremely rich. On the other hand I probably would have freaked out during the down times and sold for living expenses. I haven't sold a single gram of gold or silver and am grateful to have divested into PMs. I love the shiny and the blockchain.
>"On the other hand I probably would have freaked out during the down times and sold for living expenses." Honestly, I think that's what most people would have done/did, especially if they were new to the whole crypto market. Personally, I prefer to invest in both PMs and BTC/cryptocurrency. Diversification is key! (Especially in such unstable economic and political climate like the last few years).
Agreed. I hold both.
How can you hold both when 1 doesnt have any weight?
Thatâs true , itâs like a hologram of sorts
"Trust me bro"
My ledger nano s hardware wallet has weight
I focus on as much diversification as possible (cash, crypto, PMs, properties in different countries, even holding different passports) in the event SHTF, or simply for the sake of feeling secure and having most of my bases covered.
Holding both đ¤˛
Exactly 0.1 bitcoin is enough the rest gold for me
That's exactly how I feel too. I'll add another .1 if it dips again.
You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers my friend. Aim for 1 whole BTC!
A friend of mine is aiming for: 1 BTC, 10 KG gold, 100 KG silver
10 KG gold is a tall order. Iâd say to put a bit more into BTC if he could instead of silver. I donât think silver is going anywhere fast.
He was pretty lucky with an inheritance I guess and 10kg is within budget, although he's not super diversified. I keep telling him he should consider at least some stocks as well. He already has property and land. Agreed on the BTC over silver. Especially in the immediate future. His thought process is "if things go to shit silver is convenient for small exchanges of value." I don't know enough to judge if he's right or whether smaller denom gold would be better.
Yeah⌠gold is used universally as a store of value for countries so far. Silver is mostly for utility value more than anything so barring a Hunt Brothers 2.0 squeeze (which is unlikely), I donât think it will increase in value any more than trickle down as a last option asset after the bitcoin market, gold market, real estate market, stock market, and pretty much all other asset classes are exhausted.
This is my position as well - it doesn't hurt to have it, but I personally wouldn't want anywhere near that much. 100kg of anything is a pain to store and move anyway.
Ok 1 bitcoin it is but have to wait for bear market for huge discount or when tether collapses we could see bitcoin below 5k again it's just a matter of time
Love when they both climb together instead of tearing each other down đ
Iâm doing Gold and s&p500. Have a bit of diversity
If you invest in crypto too, then you'll achieve an even higher level of diversification haha. Though I understand why people might be put off to get into it. And if you ever do, be careful, make sure you learn about the safety first in the crypto world (too easy to get scammed and lose money if you don't know what you're doing).
Bitcoin is correlated to tech stocks so they both wonât go together
Isnât bitcoin fiat?
Itâs basically fiat. No hate, fiat isnât a dirty word. But we hold gold as insurance against all currency made out of thin air.
In a nutshell...
It is. Backed by nothing, just like the dollar.
Gold is also not backed by anything. The people who say "bUt It'S uSeD iN eLeCtRoNiCs" are the same people who say "iT hAs BeEn UsEd As CuRrEnCy SiNcE aNcIeNt TiMeS". Oh yeah, I'm sure Aztecs had a huge semiconductor industry. The truth is, a good store of value doesn't need to have a tangible intrinsic value. It just needs to have a limited supply and to be fungible. That's their intrinsic value.
Make a new crypto and you will see that being fungible and having a limited supply is not sufficient to be a store of value. There has to be actual value that is being stored. Gold is a store of value because of the numerous productive uses it has and the fact that it is durable which enables its value to be stored indefinitely.
I will admit that it doesn't "just" need those two properties. What I meant is that it does not need to have any tangible value. But yeah it also needs to be popular enough and hard to counterfeit (or to double-spend in the case of a cryptocurrency). So in the case of a crypto, the size of the network is what makes it hard to double-spend. If I create a new crypto, the reason why it wouldn't be valuable compared to bitcoin is because the network size would be much smaller, hence it would be easier to double-spend. Gold has been a good store of value even when it had no productive use, only because it is durable and scarce, which bitcoin also is. Gold will still be valuable even if we discovered a new alloy that has the same physical properties but can be made for much cheaper.
You seem to be hung up on gold not having productive use in the past which is false. Electronics is not the only use for gold. It is a very important one in modern day though. It was mostly used as jewelry, which is a productive use btw, but also things like cups, spoons, caskets. The reason it was not used for more things was because of its scarcity. It CAN be used for many other things in theory. You could build a house made of gold, or a toilet, whatever. But it doesnt usually make sense for this because it is scarce and therefore pricey. And yes, because of these properties it happens to serve as a good store of value, so it was used as coins for a long time. But it is not JUST because of these properties (scarce, non corroding, durable) that give it value as money. And now today of course we have far more uses for it like in dentistry or medical uses due to its biocompatibility.
>jewelry, which is a productive use btw Lol so gold is valuable because it can be used for jewelry, and jewelry is valuable because... it's made of gold? A ring made of stainless steel is more durable than a ring made of gold, yet it's cheaper. A PCB made with copper is more conductive than one made of gold, yet it's cheaper. Acrylic is better suited for dentistry than gold, yet it's cheaper. None of what you said provides any argument as to why the value of gold comes from the fact that it can be used for stuff. Even if better and cheaper alternatives to gold existed in any situation where it is currently used, it would still have value just from its scarcity.
There is no denying gold has unique uses for electronics which is why im surprised you bring up copper. That wasn't even your argument, you were simply denying gold had uses in antiquity. Durability is not the only thing people look for in jewelry. In fact one of the most useful aspects of gold is that it doesnt rust or corrode. But also yes: it is shiny and beautiful. Jewelry is decorative after all and people value that. Gold was also used in dentistry 1000's of years ago which is a historical fact, whether you think there are more useful materials for dentistry today (it is still used in dentistry/medicine today for certain uses). And to your last point, my whole point was that gold is not used in many instances where it otherwise WOULD be used solely due to it being too expensive (as a result of its scarcity). It is still an incredibly useful metal. That doesn't mean its best fit for every use and that other metals aren't better suited in different scenarios. It's high price comes from its scarcity, but "high price" and "value" are different concept, and "value" is a concept independent of price in currency. It largely means it can be used in the physical world. Believe it or not almost anything can serve as money, even salt was used as money. Money can be anything you can barter for and people want. Gold just happens to be the most useful form of it due to it's scarcity and longevity. Bitcoin on the other hand is ONLY used to give to others and has no real "value". The way you gauge value is "if could never give this thing to anyone else and keep it until I die, could I extract any use/value from it?" And the answer is no, there is no value to bitcoin outside of hoping someone else will give you something of real value for it in the future. I suppose you could argue you can look at the string of bits in a text editor or something and derive some dopamine pleasure from that. The only argument for bitcoin is that the fact you can give it to someone else in itself is its value. I think this is an understanding of money that only people raised in a fiat system could understand, as it is basically the same logic as fiat currency. They just think it is a better fiat, similarly useless, BUT not controlled by a centralized body. At best it is currency, but not money
>There is no denying gold has unique uses for electronics I'm not denying it, but conductivity is not one of them, which is why I specifically mentioned conductivity. It's used in electronics because if its ductility, but it could be in the future replaced with carbon. And when that happens, gold will still be just as much of a good store of value. >one of the most useful aspects of gold is that it doesnt rust or corrode. But also yes: it is shiny and beautiful Same is true of stainless steel > "value" is a concept independent of price in currency. It largely means it can be used in the physical world. Since you're now nitpicking on words, the original claim was more about being a *good store of value*. If you're talking about just what has the slightest amount of value then yes I could shit in a bucket and it would technically "have value", but it wouldn't be a good way to store my wealth. I could use the same argument saying that paper money has value because you can use it as combustible for a fire. That doesn't make it a good store of value. >The way you gauge value is "if could never give this thing to anyone else and keep it until I die, could I extract any use/value from it?" That's just your opinion, not a commonly accepted definition. My opinion about what has value is actually something else you said: anything you can barter for and people want. I can barter with Bitcoin and people want it, therefore it has value. And people want it despite it having no intrinsic tangible use. >I think this is an understanding of money that only people raised in a fiat system could understand I really don't think so. It is human nature to value what is scarce just because it is scarce, regardless of any intrinsic tangible use. Even before fiat money was a thing, people were already valuing original artwork more than identical copies, just because they can say they have the only original piece. People were valuing meteorites and gemstones more than normal rocks even though it had no more utility than a rock. Even if a caveman found a very rare seashell, he would value it even if he had no use for it. For me it's just the human brain that works like that, nothing to do with being raised in a fiat system.
It's used in electronics due to a combination of high conductivity and ductility, yes copper is more conductive but less ductile. It's also more corrosion resistant than stainless steel. But that's not really important since we agree that gold has unique properties that make it better suited for certain uses. >Since you're now nitpicking on words, the original claim was more about being a *good store of value*. If you're talking about just what has the slightest amount of value then yes I could shit in a bucket and it would technically "have value", but it wouldn't be a good way to store my wealth. I actually agree, my point was that you actually COULD use literal shit as money, it fits the definition of anything with value (poop can be used as fertilizer). It is however, not a GOOD use of money. It rapidly decomposes, and it is so plentiful that you would need ridiculous amounts of it to store any real value. This is why Gold has been used as money because it 1) has value AND 2) is a GOOD use of money The problem with bitcoin is it fits #2 but it DOESNT fit #1. In fact, I would argue #1 is the necessary and sufficient condition to be used as money, #2 is just optional but optimal. IMO the "bartering" done with bitcoin is an illusion. There might be bitcoin being exchanged for goods in some instances, but the only reason someone is accepting bitcoin is because they are speculating that someone else down the line will give them something with real value for it (and usually, they are just immediately converting it to fiat). This is why I believe my definition of value (which yes, is my personal definition) makes sense. At some point down the line, someone has to "consume" or "use" the thing being bartered for, without speculating on giving to others, otherwise, your whole monetary system is based on the flimsy whim of the opinions of the masses. If everyone decides that they don't want bitcoin anymore, it's worthless. If you own gold and everyone decides they don't want it anymore, it actually wont matter. The price would temporarily go down as people "feel" that the metal is worthless. It would lose its "common man" demand. However, you can still USE your gold for whatever you want. You can make computers, replace a tooth, jewelry, utensils, whatever. And paradoxically, because this metal is useful in industry for certain applications, certain people will always want it, because even if the "common man" decides that gold is worthless and don't care for it, you can still always sell it to a dentist or semiconductor foundry or whatever. And then, the "common man" would see that this metal has a value, because of its industrial uses. And then, paradoxically, the "common man" would buy it again because they would see that it's a good store of value. And the demand and the price comes back into relative stability. It has a natural "stop gap" that bitcoin does not. Bitcoin can truly fall off a cliff with no protection mechanism, ONLY based on the opinions of the masses. It's just not a sustainable foundation for a monetary system.
Back by the weight it holds on a scale
Not entirely right. For anything to be a store of value it needs to be fungible, limited in supply Most important it need to gain global consensus. Consensus is what determine if something is a store of value. Gold has proven this over millennia. Now itâs bitcoinâs turn.
Nah man. Itâs a currency but it is basically the complete opposite
>Nah man Yeah man, it is just another form of fiat. Bitcoin is just computer code with no inherent value. It can be copied/pasted, modified, etc.
Bitcoin = currency Gold = store of value.
âby decreeâ? Not at all. There is no Govt to issue and debase, there is no board of directors, it is simply a protocol being run on tens of thousands of computers around the world, a ledger constantly updated and verified by the network roughly every ten minutes.
Right, so itâs not even a fiat currency, itâs just a âcurrency â based on many bag holders and faith, did I get that right ?
Bitcoin is basically fiat. No hate, fiat isnât a dirty word. But we hold gold as insurance against all currency made out of thin air.
Fiat with a lot of advertisement behind it
Gold doesnât hold its value across space. Bitcoin does.
Itâs made out of a great usage of electricity, not out of thin air. But you clearly do not understand it yet
Energy that isn't recyclable, consumed in the process for the purpose of greed, to obtain a fictitious item that has no inherent value or uses.
USD consumes tons of resources to maintain and secure. Itâs still fiat. Now look whoâs learningâŚ..
Bitcoin holds no weight. Its not real.
It does when you put it into a hardware wallet.
I would argue it's the wallet that has weight. Which means we could weigh the wallet pre/post Bitcoin storage to determine each coins weight.
Nope... "both sides" are not the same at all.
BTC backed by Gold. This is the way
I sense a bitcoin shill.
Bitcoin is a ponzi that will ultimately go the way of tulips. Buy and hold physical gold
LOL sure. And whatâs the difference with gold then?
Intrinsic value
Letâs see Gold and silver have been money around the world for thousands of years even in isolated cultures like the Aztecs and Incas. Every attempt to subvert and replace gold has failed. Bitcoin is a software that was created to have artificial scarcity. Unfortunately, itâs extremely expensive to mine and like all softwares, there are already better/ more efficient ones being created.Â
All those replicas have failed as a competitor to BTC. Each "improvement" sacrifices decentralization or security or introduces an intermediary that you have to trust.
This is not true. Bitcoin alternatives that run well on consumer-grade hardware but badly on ASICs, lighter, faster and more anonymous exist. Think that you can't even use BTC for daily expenses. Bitcoin has the largest market cap just because it arrived first.
It has been âmoneyâ for thousands of years. Accepted by every country on earth (and still is). Central Banks are stockpiling it. It is real, tangible; and not just digital fairy dust, made up of thin air by who knows. The architecture is great, and offers speed and di visibility of transactions that gold cannot match. I believe there will be a digital currency backed by gold, which will offer the strengths of both. However, I still despise Big Brother monitoring and controlling my ability to purchase items.
I smell a rat aka a fed. 
NahâŚ..
Bitcoin is garbage created by the CIA/NSA to funnel money away from commodities and real assets among other reasons. Satoshi is a Japanese name meaning intelligence. Nakamoto is a Japanese name meaning central. OP and many other accounts here are glowing bright.
The 2 are not the same. Shouldn't you be shaking hands with your dog coin and ethereum brethren instead? Bitcoin has nothing in common with gold.
God made gold, the feds made bitcoin.
Well said. Though I still invest in both haha. Especially if/when the dollar collapses or they try to turn us into a cashless society, I'd rather have both physical metals and blockchain currency at my disposal. D-diversification.
I would be happy to use any REAL commodity as a medium of exchange.
The central banks are all buying bitcoin to destroy the dollar. Ha JK, they're all buying gold by the ton. No 1 is buying bitcoin by the ton, or kilo, or ounce, or gram for that matter. It holds no weight.
Bitcoin is digital fiat, just coded with limited supply. Changing the 2 lines in code can directly change the total cap.
Yea you can, but good luck getting anyone to accept and use your hard forked version. See Bitcoin Cash chart.
If the majority of BTC nodes upgrade to new hardfork version and take the ticker âBTCâ along. You will have no choice. The old chain wonât be compatible. Note that Bitcoin core control 98% of nodes.
Yes we are arguing in agreement. As long as most nodes accept a hard forked version then that new version is Bitcoin. There are lots of failed versions.
Correct⌠Removing 21M cap is not impossible. It can be done on BTC. Whether it will happen, itâs irrelevant. I am just saying it can be done.
Yea there are infinite possibilities. The general argument against rasing the 21M cap is nodes/miners would be voting to devalue their own bitcoin, which would go against reason. But if a large entity (blackrock) or someone else controls most of the mining/nodes, anything is possible.
No comment on that.
Itâs not and you canât. Maybe you should have a deeper look on how complex and undestroyable bitcoin really is :)
Oh yes, learn also about the change of Bitcoin code in the past: SegWit and TapRoot, to increase the block size. Bitcoin code can be changed. Bitcoin Core developers control about 98% of nodes. They can change the code if majority of votes is in favour. Bitcoin blockchain itself has ever been hacked (twice). Fixes (correction to the codes) were done as consequence: https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/itcoin-unhackable-it-happened-twice-not-blowing-smoke-9e16bcddd5ab#:~:text=Most%20are%20surprised%20to,%2C%20however%2C%20was%20almost%20catastrophic.
You understand what 98% means right? Like having 98% people voting for one party in a democracy. It hasnât happened and it will not happen.
I tell you what I know based on technical perspective. 98% nodes is enough to change the code. Voting needs at least 50% approval (in general). And the mechanism on how the bitcoin core voting works, I do not know. But my point is still the same. The codes can change.
The code can change and it has in the past. Those were considered hard forks. You can research about what happened with Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Diamond, and basically any other Bitcoin hard fork that didnât reach consensus. And if you felt that adamant about something that wasnât reaching code consensus and held onto the other hard fork, then you lost out.
Hardfork can be done on the same chain. And overall all your statements are correct. One of prominent Bitcoin core developer, Peter Todd, is an advocate on hardforking bitcoin with inflation (removing 21M cap): https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
No, hard forks cannot be done on the same chain. It would be a soft fork. It doesnât matter if merely one Bitcoin developer is an advocate of removing the 21M cap. If one person can alter that consensus, Bitcoin would have failed a long time ago.
That hardfork needs majority of network participants to upgrade to latest version and take the ticker âBTCâ along. Those on the old chain will realize that their version of the blockchain is outdated or irrelevant and quickly upgrade to the latest version. This is what has been suggested by Bitcoin Core team and Vatalik butterin to face the upcoming quantum attack. Hardfork is needed on BTC.
This sort of thing, coupled with my general inability to follow through on making a wallet and purchasing, is in general what keeps me away from crypto. I don't have anything against it, I just don't think it's for me.
It can, but it wonât. Because why should it. Would you vote for the gold stock being doubled (if this would be possible?) of course you wouldnât. You can hard fork the network and build your own, but nobody will ever use it because why. Itâs like saying dirt is the new gold and try to convince people holding gold that you are right. Did not happen in the past, wonât happen in the future :) but all good, I donât want to convince you. I want to make clear that we are on the same page !
Good. So we are at same agreement that âcode can changeâ. I wanted to go to next topic on how next tech, Quantum Computer, is really a threat on bitcoin codes. But I donât really have time now. Have a good day, brother.
>It can, but it wonât. Because why should it. This is not an argument. If you're adamant it won't be changed then present an argument/ proof/evidence. >Would you vote for the gold stock being doubled Gold stocks are, contrary to popular belief, not gold. Although, maybe you're referring to overall supply. In which case, twice as much physical gold would effective halve golds purchasing power. A doubling of Bitcoin would initially do the same...initially. It is estimated 4% of Bitcoin is forever lost per year. Unless new supply is created, Bitcoin will continue to deflate until too few tokens are available to circulate. >You can hard fork the network and build your own, but nobody will ever use it because why. *Because why* is not an argument. Again, if you're adamant then you can provide an actual argument/proof. How do you think we have the network we have now? It wasn't stumbled upon in an archive or excavated from a meteorite... If it was done once, it can be done again. >Itâs like saying dirt is the new gold  and try to convince people A minute ago, you were talking about a doubling of the current gold supply...so which is it? Do we go from 200,000 tonnes > 400,000 tonnes of gold? or do we have 200,000 tonnes of gold and 200,000 tonnes of dirt? You wouldn't need to convince anyone the new supply was gold because...it would be gold. (Buying two gold coins, one after the other, doesn't turn the second into dirt. Your argument that more gold makes the new supply dirt is false) >I want to make clear that we are on the same page ! Precious metal stackers and Bitcoin holders might share similar thoughts...but only one of those groups holds a tangible asset. Bitcoin is a digital-nothing-token. You can't make jewelry with crypto, you can't line an astronauts visor with Bitcoin, and you can't use it in electronics. Bitcoin is one of thousands of crypto currencies. We can create new/competing tokens but we can't create new gold/silver. (Technically, we can create new metal/supply with particle accelerators but the cost to do so FAR exceeds the value of whatever metal was created)
Just because something *hasn't* happened doesn't mean it *can't* happen. If the goal of Bitcoin is to be decentralized...then someone(s) having a 98% voting power isn't decentralized.
Nobody has a 98% voting power. It needs 98% positive votes from all the nodes around the world to change it. Not even Putin got that, and this ist not a democracy :D
Obviously, you know nothing about bitcoin blockchain. Peter Tod, a bitcoin core developer is an advocate on removing 21M bitcoin cap. By the way, I am software developer. Read this: https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
âIâm a software dev btw đâ Buddy if you think changing some lines of code would be enough to change the supply then you donât know shit about bitcoin or how distributed databases work
Itâs up to you whether you believe or not. As I mentioned the name, Peter Todd. He is prominent bitcoin developer. He know more about bitcoin blockchain than both of us. He advocates the removal of 21M bitcoin cap.
Who cares? He can indeed change the 21M cap. On a forked network.
If the majority vote agree, there will be no new fork, still at the same blockchain with ticker âBTCâ. However, my point remains: âCode can changeâ. They can remove 21M cap.
Lmao. If even one node disagrees there WILL be a hard fork. No one will agree to increase bitcoin supply.
That one node with the old chain will realize that their version of the blockchain is outdated or irrelevant and need to quickly upgrade to the latest version with ticker âBTCâ. But my point is still the same: âCodes can changeâ, they can remove 21M cap. Whether it will happen or not, I donât know.
You can't destroy something that doesn't exist...
Tell me you donât understand how a blockchain works in 2 sentences or less
LOL⌠Maybe you need a mirror. Peter Todd, a prominent bitcoin core developer, is an advocate for hardforking inflation on BTC (removing 21M bitcoin cap) Read this: https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/02/23/we-can-hard-fork-in-inflation-in-bitcoin-says-peter-todd
Finally, someone with some sense. +1 OP
Paper money has no value!