Topic: Bitcoin as a better store of value than gold - page 9. (Read 20456 times)

I also believe that bitcoin has a better store of value than gold because a single bitcoin is equivalent to a more quantity of gold.And way back in the year 2017,many have gained huge profits in bitcoin that made them even millionaires while gold has remained a constant value even up to the present times.The only disadvantage for bitcoin is that its price gradually changes every now and then so people cannot expect good profits all the time.

When it comes to price stability,  gold are have it but it's value today, bitcoin is to far from it. People are so considerate with the price and they probably choice for bitcoin rather than for gold as they could gain more profits.
The practicality we have now will surely brought people to think that bitcoin is more valuable than of gold, and it shown it already.

These positions aren't at odds.

Bitcoin is transferable over a communications channel. It's portable, divisible and easy to store. This gives it better features than gold with regards to being a medium of exchange.

Decentralization is achieved through redundancy. This is inefficient and requires higher costs than any centralized scheme.

How do these statements contradict one another?


Lightning uses a P2P protocol based on distributed redundancy, just like Bitcoin. That you keep mischaracterizing it as "centralisation" is simply dishonest.

Anyway, LN network topology isn't relevant to the question of trustlessness, which is the goal of Bitcoin. If we can retain node decentralization in Bitcoin, I think using LN -- even if a more centralized topology emerges -- is the best available option.

If you had your way, a small minority of users (miners) would have blocked all users from ever having the choice to use trustless, off-chain alternatives like LN. You want to restrict the choices of all Bitcoin users and force everyone to transact on-chain. You're obviously not concerned about centralization of Bitcoin nodes, either.

I would not support this claim I don't think bitcoin is a better store of value than gold.
In fact in terms of instability gold is far much stable in price than bitcoin

Bitcoin and gold are interesting store of value, but which one is best depends on the individual who uses it, and between the two has advantages and disadvantages of each.

Not unless bitcoin is regulated by the government, then they have the power and controll over it. Regards with the store value, i would rather have bitcoin than gold because when emergency comes, i cannot lift all my gold but i can open my bitcoin account anywhere with internet. How convinient.

Yes I agree with you. Bitcoin is better for holding than gold. Bitcoin is virtual currency but gold is not. Bitcoin is more secure than gold. We can buy and sell bitcoin any time. But we cant sell gold anytime because selling gold need some precess. And holding gold is not secure because it can stolen any time. But holding bitcoin is risky than gold because bitcoin price is always increase and decrease. But in my opinion bitcoin is better store of value than gold.

your turning into a flip flopper
you want to one minute say bitcoin is better than gold at MoE... but then say YOU say
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"

i fully understand you prefer centralisation, along with your buddies. that has been obvious for near a year of you and your buddies "dev defense" meanders.
but putting your opinions aside about your admiration for centralisation.
going centralisation(middlemen factories) in general removes desirability of bitcoin. people will start thinking its no better than fiat
locking funds up removes self control
locking funds up removes desire for people to want to be full nodes. which reduces security
locking funds up reduces onchain fees as theres less onchain utility makes miners less profitabl thus reduces security
along with many other things which i could continue listing makes btc less desirable and leads to people wanting to exit and use other coins.
all of which make btc have less value

this opinion of yours has flaws, ill explain.
1. out of all the coins not much are actually on exchanges. so the effect you think is not as much as you think
2. if anything. it wil be people on exchanges who will avoid exiting exchanges and instead lock into a channel with an exchange to be able to arbitrage faster. thus there would actually be more 'balance' on exchanges, because LN will benefit day traders more then it would average joe just buying occassional stuff

LN doesnt leverage bitcoins security, onc you update yourself with the 2018-2019 concepts and code of LN in regards to factories. the users are not even holding bitcoin. they are holding a 12decimal pegged token.
remember LN is a separate network and bitcoin had to change to fit LN's needs. not the other way round
LN has no blockchain. LN has no community audit. LN requires people to be online, LN requires people to sign on your behalf.
LN has none of the bitcoin ethos/features that secure bitcoin.
its like trying to assume bank notes are the same as gold. think about that in respect of the 18th century.. then play it out 200 years later and see the flaw of bank notes and gold


bitcoins PRICE is higher due to the underlying value held up via mining costs. there is hardly any 'speculative' value ontop due to peoples faith and boost due to desirability.
take people off the network. making it costly to use the bitcoin network and all the other reason will reduce the desire to mine it which will make bitcoin not as popular

again take utility away from the MINING network of a blockchain will cause the underlying support of the mining:market dynamic. which will affect its underlying value.

if you think bitcoin would remain top when other coins can do the same thing but without the restrictions applied to bitcoin. people will move to the coins with less restrictions.

remember bitcoin network is only stalled and costly. not due to some technological limit. but an implied limit by humans(devs)
again to quote you. you said:
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"
it is developers that put in the restrictions to make it inefficient and costly

Yes.Bitcoin definitely has a better store of value than gold but the risks its brings is higher than gold.Bitcoin and gold are really good store of value although they differ in their functions.For me,i think bitcoin gives more opportunities to people to gain huge profits but let us consider too that gold has also a lot of good advantages even before bitcoin has not recognized.

Why should it be compared between bitcoin and gold, even though they have different functions. Gold has the main function for the most stable conductor of electricity so that it is widely used for electronic devices. While bitcoin is only a digital number, the transaction is guaranteed by Miner. Okay, I agree bitcoin is easier to save than gold, but the risk of damage to technology devices is higher than saving gold.

I disagree with you. Yet gold is much more stable than Bitcoin and I think that at the moment they prefer to keep their money in gold

I agree with you as Bitcoin gives us the opportunity to earn very well and much more than you can do it thanks to gold

It certainly attracts. The possibility of unlimited ownership and the knowledge that no one can control your funds. In this regard, bitcoin is very good. But you must be able to cope with risks, otherwise such storage of your assets will not be safe.

That sidesteps his point though, doesn't it? Even if you believe that on-chain scaling is superior to off-chain, we should be able to agree that Bitcoin's properties make a superior medium of exchange to gold.


Actually, it probably will. The more people that buy coins to lock them in LN channels, the more supply that is removed from the market. That should increase prices.

I don't think LN is ideal, but neither is Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly. It's pretty amazing that LN could leverage Bitcoin's security while sidestepping those costs.


Altcoins that are cheaper to transact with have been available for many years now. If what you're saying were true, everyone would have exited exchanges with altcoins rather than bitcoins. Yet Bitcoin is still #1, in spite of its expensive costs. Why so?

I agree with you it is both good investment but in different criteria, gold is more stable value than bitcoin. Bitcoin is unpredictable, the value and very risky but it is profitable when hits the bull.

Of course bitcoin and gold have different properties because gold can be held while bitcoin cant be. However, the possibility for bitcoin to have the most quality properties as store of value than gold in the future once bitcoin reach the total 21 million coins to ever mine.

That's the problem where it not being control by government and that's also the reason for them to not legalize bitcoin as payment transaction.
Invest on bitcoin is like invest on something risky so if you dare to take the risk, bitcoin can give you more than ordinary legit investment.

Personally after I made profit from crypto, I try to invest on other platform, not in crypto !

I find it astonishing both gold and bitcoin share the identical history, first it is about mining, then some very rich fella spend a lot to build better mining tools, then it become a booming industry. I prefer both share the same trait of store of value.

Gold has a millennia-old history of storing value.
Whereas in the eyes of the public, bitcoin has a history of storing $18,000 of value and turning it into $3,000.
We need a better value proposition.

Gold already become store of value for centuries and people still trust on gold. Bitcoin is new investment instrument and not many people know and trust on bitcoin because they can touch it. Its virtual investment but its true that bitcoin more secure than gold and more flexible