Topic: Bitcoin or Gold? What would you pick? - page 158. (Read 299008 times)

I would pick bitcoins because it's undervalued at the moment while gold have less room to increase its value.

You seem to be underestimating gold's (and silver's for that matter) ability to spike (and collapse) pretty fast.

his progress is certainly stagnant, it could require tons of years just to double, not like bitcoin which appear to be faster imho

Besides that, you also should ensure an Internet connection to your computer. And what is more important, everyone should have an Internet connection to their computers for Bitcoin to work as a currency.

Then the Chinese would start unloading their massive stash of gold, and then they would ban it, so it would know the same crisis that BTC had a few months ago

As long as major economical problems arise in the world gold can go up in value. I'd say gold and BTC now both would be good investments.
But, where is the gold that I would buy stored? I can't even touch it? It's more just a number on a bankaccount, unless you have good ways to store it safely in your home.
Bitcoin is easy to store and to transact from home. Ofcourse your computer must be safe and locked as well but id go for crypto's.

It is stagnant till the moment a new 2008 year comes around. Then it can double or triple in value and do it very fast...

isn't gold very stagnant? why i should pick it, gold has no possibility to grow more imho

For an investor, Gold. For a revolutionary, Bitcoin


THE REVOLUTIONARY! BTC

i thinks between Gold vs Bitcoin is totally different, how to mining it is different too, each of it has excess and shortage
we can take every excess of this thing (bitcoin and gold)
thanks ...

What do you mean by both being currency proxies? Care to explain?

Value? Buy high, sell low you mean?

Comparism can't be made between both been currency proxies.However,bitcoin is more promising.

maybe i would choice bitcoin . take all profit in one click .
just need more experience.

I meant to say that at first (before he was appointed as a chairman of the FED) he was pro-gold, stating (in 2004) that “the gold standard appeared to be highly successful from about 1870 to the beginning of World War I in 1914. During the so-called ‘classical gold standard period,’ international trade and capital flows expanded markedly, and central banks experienced relatively few problems ensuring that their currencies retained their legal value”. And later (as a chairman in 2012) "The gold standard would not be feasible for both practical reasons and policy reasons, I understand the impulse, but I think if you look at actual history the gold standard didn’t work well”

 

I know Greenspan wrote an essay on the importance of the gold standard and how much damage fiat currency does.    He did of course play out all the mistakes he warned about, a theoretical genius and a guy who basically went opps when questioned in front of congress.   He said himself, he doesnt know what happened and Ben Im sure is equally clueless but no doubt a clever guy on paper ironically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj9v9s9buk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj9v9s9buk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tgy47vTNfk

Have you heard (or read) what this Bernanke was saying about gold when he hadn't yet been appointed as a chairman of the FED in 2006 (just a few years prior to his appointment)?

I dont think they do love gold, those guys are buried and gone.   Who in living history really relied on gold for their job security.    Ben Bernanke isnt faking about this, fort knox is about important as a museum full of bones to him and to be fair I can see why he'd think that.    Gold is a relic, you go see how the world used to work and its covered in dust and quite boring and now we have technology and hauling some heavy metal is antiquated, archaic and if nothing else, insignificant.   The knox gold doesnt have enough worth to do anything much, he is correct right this moment to think it makes no difference.   The price of gold would need to go up alot to actually counter all the new money produced.

The swiss used to be on 20% backing and are now at 10% after tracking the Euro with a fixed rate.   USA however must be a complete joke now, I dont think its near even 1%.  Its probably about the same as silver coins, dollar was silver and now its copper so all those guys that used to lean on that solid value exchange have been gone a while I think.
   Nobody thinks like that, till you get a total exchange of everybody in government out of their jobs and a whole new education and paradigm I dont think it'll change what or how they use knox.   More likely to me is they dump out that useless gold for some low price, like rubbish out of a wheel barrow to make way for something far superior and less cumbersome in their view.  Its just a weight on their back


Banks lease gold and maybe Germany has to wait six years to receive delivery because it must be bought before it can be shipped or for the leases to expire naturally.    All banks lend out their deposits so I guess thats normal though Im sure Germany itself should have been doing this, Im not sure its that closely controlled when abroad.
Probably the biggest interest in keeping gold price low is the biggest buyer of gold which would be China.  As they had no gold under communism and is a large percentage of the world, they must now come upto speed in a short time or this appears to be their actions quietly done.   Rickards says they have got 3000 tons in the last decade by his estimates which is alot of transfer.
I think its more because we are excluding that China also buys gold mines, many of which will not operate with a high oil price and a lower gold price but are worth alot more if any government were to switch to solid exchange instead of debt; gold being alot more compact and worth exchanging of course.

GLD has sold alot of gold, the fund is smaller now.  If it was bought on the market or cashed out directly Im not sure but that is transfer also.   That appears as a lower price, lower value to the market but like a delisted company share it doesnt mean the company is worth less just less well known and the market is less accurate when its not reported, of course gold has no revenue really visible to estimate worth on.  Bitcoin worth and volume has alledgely dropped to 2012 levels I read recently, if use dictates value that is.  With gold, its tricky as you say the deeds of ownership are not always reported publicly.  China recently denied any new ownership of gold in the last few years

Gold is locked up but transfer must occur, I think of it like an ice age.  Water is largely frozen but must liquidate to transfer, so there are changes ahead

they are both investment but at this point of time i choose gold.

it depend on either the value of the gold or the bitcoin