It's all in the context. 
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1260. (Read 2032272 times)
^^ +1 I like it It's all in the context.
It's all in the context. hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
What's PM?
It is a subset of alt currencies where instead of having a digital balance, your balance is determined by how much of a certain element you hold. Popular elements of choice include gold, silver, and platinum.
ok, just to try to stay in-topic: has gold bottomed here??? A swiss banker friend of a friend recently said me that it has to drop down to 1000 USD. I'm asking just 'cause i liquidated my papergold and looking for a good entry point for some phyzz while holding fast-depreciating USD.
About BTC and anything else, so fast and furious rallies in a context of unanimous bullishness make me feel nervous, bearish, and inclined to start selling, or at least put some bids at low price -about 140 USD.
About BTC and anything else, so fast and furious rallies in a context of unanimous bullishness make me feel nervous, bearish, and inclined to start selling, or at least put some bids at low price -about 140 USD.
What's PM?
it doesn't matter who's right.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
Very good point. You can't track the total supply of PMs world wide. You can only make estimations of the total.
Never thought of that until now.
This is why/how PM is anonymous, and Bitcoin isn't.
Anonymous until you want to claim your ownership, in which case Bitcoin is still more anonymous.
On the other hand: if you're young and don't have much money, going all-in with crypto can make sense.
In a sense, it's not going truly all-in if you don't wager in all your future earning potential...
If somebody has as much money as I do, but is young and healthy and with a good diploma (none of which I possess), his earning potential is much higher than mine. Therefore it makes sense to put a higher percentage of current wealth into crypto.
it doesn't matter who's right.
Yup. I still say it's impractical and borderline reckless to switch to crypto fully, though. It's simple enough to straddle traditional and crypto, rebalancing as per fiat risk tolerance.
Im doing this as well. People who have families and obligations should not have everything in one basket. Im a huge crypto guy and i have some silver in some fields somewhere. I hope i never have to dig it up but im happy it is there just in case i need it.
On the other hand: if you're young and don't have much money, going all-in with crypto can make sense.
it doesn't matter who's right.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
Very good point. You can't track the total supply of PMs world wide. You can only make estimations of the total.
Never thought of that until now.
This is why/how PM is anonymous, and Bitcoin isn't.
it doesn't matter who's right.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
Very good point. You can't track the total supply of PMs world wide. You can only make estimations of the total.
Never thought of that until now.
it doesn't matter who's right.
Yup. I still say it's impractical and borderline reckless to switch to crypto fully, though. It's simple enough to straddle traditional and crypto, rebalancing as per fiat risk tolerance.
If you hold Bitcoin I don't really see the need to hold PMs as well. However, a healthy collection of nice stocks never hurt anyone
If you are 100% sure of Bitcoin, plus 100% sure of your government, and 100% sure of everything, please by all means skip PM's totally. But why would you, as it does not hurt to own a tiny emergency stash. Most of us have at least some insurance for house for example. Hopefully this analogy will make it easier to understand why going 100% all in with anything is just not smart.
People including me think that I am cocksure, yet it means that I am only about 25% sure that Bitcoin will take over fiat in a grand way, 75% sure that I know the intention of my government, and 10% sure of everything. If in your heart you are even less sure about things, do not forget the sound math of gambling theory.
Up to this point I estimated there to be around 160,000 tons of gold above ground and I think that's along the lines of other estimates.
Karen says that there is at least 500,000 tons of gold, all conventional figures say about 160,000 tons. The latter figure is imho rather well researched from the mining output in 20th century - before which only a fraction of the total gold existing was produced. Do you have some credible theory, how the gold aboveground could be so much higher figure?
Central Banks using all there gold to gold plate tungsten bars could perhaps extend 160k tons to 500k tons i suppose ...
it doesn't matter who's right.
Yup. I still say it's impractical and borderline reckless to switch to crypto fully, though. It's simple enough to straddle traditional and crypto, rebalancing as per fiat risk tolerance.
as much as i troll miscreanity, he was the other half of Gold: I Smell A Trap. without him, these gold threads would never have become as popular as they are. i won't soon forget the 4 mo debate from 8/11-11/11 i had with him which made up the bulk of that and this thread. back and forth, multiple times per day, in friendly and sometimes not so friendly terms (mainly b/c of me). he has a much deeper understanding of economics than 99% of you here.
yet somehow he's gone astray on this gold thing.
he's slowly giving way, much to his credit. 
i think what he, and most others, are missing is the speed and rapidity of the Bitcoin phenomenon. also, this fuzziness of supply with gold is a major problem.
edit: for evidence of this, look at his sig. he grossly undersestimated the speed with which those price predictions would be achieved. he's not the only one.
it doesn't matter who's right.
Yup. I still say it's impractical and borderline reckless to switch to crypto fully, though. It's simple enough to straddle traditional and crypto, rebalancing as per fiat risk tolerance.
If you hold Bitcoin I don't really see the need to hold PMs as well. However, a healthy collection of nice stocks never hurt anyone
it doesn't matter who's right.
Yup. I still say it's impractical and borderline reckless to switch to crypto fully, though. It's simple enough to straddle traditional and crypto, rebalancing as per fiat risk tolerance.
it doesn't matter who's right.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
the point is, production and stock is fuzzy; and it always will be. which is precisely why i switched to BTC investment back in early 2011. Bitcoin is easily trackable according to the protocol by anyone. it's brutally defined. and time is proving it's uncrackable.
just one of the many reasons i've been arguing to switch publicly since Gold: I Smell A Trap.
How do we know only a fraction of gold was mined before the 20th century? All kinds of cultures had been obsessed with gold and/or used it as money long before that. Maybe a lot was mined (easily accessible?) and somehow gathered up and stored. But that's a wild theory.
Does not hold water. Deduction:
- 20th century has seen more people-lifeyears than all the previous history combined
- The material living standard has been higher also
- Gold's purchasing power has been constant or decreasing
- 20th century production figures are quite well documented.
Does Karen Hudes ever explain why she feels there are 500,000 tons rather than the conventionally-reported 160,000? I'm all for believing that conventional figures are faked or made up, because they are in a very large number of cases, but I need some actual evidence.
She "says" that these vaults in Hawaii, Singapore, etc have X tons of gold each, and added together it is about 500,000. But how does she arrive at those vault figures in the first place.....
She "says" that these vaults in Hawaii, Singapore, etc have X tons of gold each, and added together it is about 500,000. But how does she arrive at those vault figures in the first place.....
Up to this point I estimated there to be around 160,000 tons of gold above ground and I think that's along the lines of other estimates.
Karen says that there is at least 500,000 tons of gold, all conventional figures say about 160,000 tons. The latter figure is imho rather well researched from the mining output in 20th century - before which only a fraction of the total gold existing was produced. Do you have some credible theory, how the gold aboveground could be so much higher figure?
No, I have no credible theory on this. I don't know where Hudes got this, I haven't seen her back up the claims with anything but "you will see".
How do we know only a fraction of gold was mined before the 20th century? All kinds of cultures had been obsessed with gold and/or used it as money long before that. Maybe a lot was mined (easily accessible?) and somehow gathered up and stored. But that's a wild theory.
Boy am I glad bitcoin doesn't have such problems.
Up to this point I estimated there to be around 160,000 tons of gold above ground and I think that's along the lines of other estimates.
Karen says that there is at least 500,000 tons of gold, all conventional figures say about 160,000 tons. The latter figure is imho rather well researched from the mining output in 20th century - before which only a fraction of the total gold existing was produced. Do you have some credible theory, how the gold aboveground could be so much higher figure?
Fussion?
lol i read some nazifiction book where the nazis had retreated to antarctica and spent their time extracting gold from seawater
Jump to: