Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1312. (Read 2032272 times)

I agree.

We have a lot of people treating exchanges like banks.

Not a good idea.

That is your interpretation of Bitcoin, money, value, and etc.  And it is fine.  Other people look at things differently and come to different conclusions or at least different ways of describing the same conclusion.

I view fiat, Bitcoin, and gold as nothing more than 'accounting systems'.  Each have their own properties, strengths, and weaknesses.

I disagree. Crypto-currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular are the purest form of money that has ever been available to men: They implement the requirements of money the best.

So they are really really bad.

When the Krugerrand hits my hands, it's a chunk of metal with the inherent simplicity (and thus, reliability) that I mentioned.

The fact that it took some effort to get it into my hands is a factor in the 'store of value' aspect that I expect of it.

---

As an aside, Bitcoin is similar in a way in that a relatively short string of numbers is the analog of a Krugerrand.  Even if the transmission system failed there would still be a set of entries in the block chain which have value to me and me alone.

In that case, though, actually extracting value from the blockchain would be somewhere between extremely challenging and impossible (unless one had wisely broken their holdings into multiple wallets before-hand...hint,hint...) whereas the pool of market participants with which one could exchange gold or silver coins would be much more expansive.

Very good.

These two gold threads have represented an enormous amount of work for all involved.

James Turk probably represents the best example of who you're talking about.  And you're right. There are many more.

It's been amazing to watch.

Wtf... are they just really really bad dealers?

https://www.cachemetals.com/store/index.php

The bolded is a good point.  I did say 'strongly favor' to allow for some shifting.  It's a giant and expensive pain in the ass to shift reserve assets around and so far it has not been worth it in spite of the gain in confidence that several more years of Bitcoin has produced.  At some point it probably will for me.

It is also worth noting again that my posture about wealth storages is strongly influenced by things which have not yet transpired.  And with a lot of luck, never will in my lifetime.  These would be major upheavals and it is difficult to predict how they would impact the infrastructure upon which Bitcoin relies.

Relatedly, the evolution of Bitcoin itself and the nature of it's reliance on the network infrastructure which rides are currently big question marks.  As are the questions about proliferation (or not) of alternate similar solutions.

Distributed cryto-currencies will always have more complexity and hence more risk than a chunk of metal.  I rely on PM's not to grow but rather to simply act as a storage tank which does not leak to much.  My Bitcoin footprint is still on the highly speculative end of the scale and if it does not grow significantly it will not live up to my hopes.  I expect it to take a lot more tending to however.

People's confidence in PMs' value is backed by thousands years of human history, it hasn't changed since 2009.

OTOH, confidence in Bitcoin as a trustworthy "entry in a certain class of vehicles" has increased multiple orders of magnitude. Bitcoin is much better tested technically and socially today than a year ago.

With these two drastically different growth curves in terms of their soundness, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep their allocation ratio constant.

Bitcoin did not change my thoughts on PM's or wealth or value one iota.  Bitcoin is just another entry in a certain class of vehicles, albeit a fascinating one with some neat features.  I made up my mind quite early in my interest in Bitcoin about where I wanted to set my wealth percentages and has not changed since.  (My posture strongly favors physical PM's and probably always will.)

Obviously Bitcoin has vastly outperformed PM's at the time of this writing.  I am, of course, delighted, and I'll be even more delighted if that remains the case which is very possible.  But I'm not going to think I'll roll snake-eyes, then do so, then take a victory lap about it.  I anticipated a number of possible scenarios for my BTC holding in two years form the time I set them.  We are sitting at one of them.  Things could be both much much better than we see today, or they could be zero'd due to a system failure or other causes.

My speculation in Bitcoin actually has to do more with the impacts of things which have not happened yet...to me because I live in the US and not in Cyprus...  I'll be a lot more interested in what the landscape looks like after such an event rather than during this dead-space period we are in now.

I don't feel it's a far-fetched thought there's a connection between Bitcoin's rise and PM's recent downfalls.

To a portion of hardcore PM bugs who have great influence on fund flow, the psychological impact has be huge and profound. To some, Bitcoin rocked the foundation of their concept about wealth and value.

If you are a PM investor or a fund manager, and Bitcoin hasn't made you rethink wealth and money, you didn't work hard enough.

 

Fuckin' TED talks.  Almost universally fascinating.  I have no idea how this talk bore any relationship to this conversation, but it was new to me and very interesting.  I'm usually skeptical of such amazing results.  This guy's thinking is 'orthagonal' but actually should not be.  Ecosystems are so amazingly complex and tens or hundreds of millions of years of evolution are such a good tuning fork that it would make sense to look to pre-history to find solutions which work.

It wouldn't help little people much, no. At least not anymore in western nations, unless they took action over a year ago.

I'm talking about entities that play governments against each other the way thrift store bargain shoppers hunt for the best deal at retail competitors. Scale makes a major difference.


Safety in numbers

so this is where you're coming from.

1450 support has now become resistance.. its not looking good, 1000$ gold is inevitable


bitcoin is ( and rightfully so ) stealing golds thunder?

Yep... all the way up to yesterday's price .

Gold is up now

BTC gonna crash like crazy

Neither will having been tagged as an individual who had had an interest in Bitcoin.  Just sayin'

No matter how well managed a fund is, it is no substitute for physical held in direct ownership. When all paper is in question, there is no third party audit that will perform to satisfaction. The largest independent entities are entirely capable of storing their own gold in quantity. Smaller investors would have greater relative exposure to funds.

Physical metal held in the GLD fund began decreasing at the beginning of 2013 and the decline accelerated starting in April. Almost a quarter of the tonnage in the fund has been removed, leaving the paper price vulnerable. There remains a question of where that metal is moving. Sprott's gold trust has not seen a decline in ounces held.

Note that the premium for GLD has also gone to zero, if not negative. It is not the premium on paper that will wooden, only that of physical. GLD also experienced the 2nd biggest trading volume, the first being in March 2010 which occurred at a major low before price rose again.

The most pertinent question is that asking where the gold being removed from GLD is going. There is a buyer on the other end, or it is being redeemed through physical delivery.

What is being seen in the daily volatility of currencies and commodities is the strain of paper vs physical. The undercurrent of physical acquisition is accelerating, and rapidly making paper irrelevant.

Keep this in mind: gold is as anonymous as cash and Bitcoin. Holding metal where it must be reported defeats that purpose. Smart money is exiting as many reporting requirements as possible, and the result once that window closes will be phenomenal revaluation, potentially in multiple stages.