Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 650. (Read 2032266 times)

The difference is that with bitcoin those mining costs also secure the network allowing it to function as a secure transaction network.

With gold mining you are left with just the gold.

Nonsense, there are infinite perspectives.

Over the past 24 hours bitcoin has proven a better investment than fiat.

We can both pick any part of the fractal to agree with our own stance.

Fiat is a faith based money, anyone with half a brain knows fiat is not tenable in the long term. It's issuance is controlled by a few families who are FAR richer than us, their wealth wasn't accrued through labor.

You should study some history rather than browsing my little pony sites.

There is an important human & capital investment required to obtain this gold.

This same investment could be put toward mining Bitcoins. "Not easy exactly but its there..."

Cypherdoc: you could be right. If so this thread could be referenced in the monetary history books

Edit: One can imagine a future student scratching his head and frowning, "teacher what are all those pages about side chains?".

On Counterparty...
I like it, but also recognize that it brings SOME of the problems that side chains bring.  One of these is the increased regulatory attack profile.  The more things Bitcoin does, the more government agencies start to think "oh, we are the authority on everything to do with that".

The introduction of securities, distributed organizations, distributed exchanges, and all of the wonders of the Bitcoin 2.0 suite of things brings in new armies of regulators that will work to enforce rules on anyone who lives in or has assets in their jurisdictions.

It also used a sort of SVP one directional diminishing peg with the Proof of Burn initial distribution.  This was the most ethical distribution method of any of the 2.0 efforts of the time.  Earliest "burners" were rewarded slightly more than later burners, and there was an end block after which burned BTC would yield no XCP.

The Side Chain technologies provide much of the same, but also allow for "unburning" the burned BTC, but the Bitcoin protocol doesn't support this currently.  
Personally my position on SC is pretty nuanced, I'd rather see the experimental changes done on another block chain rather than Bitcoin.  The economic issues are complicated, and some of the risks are insidious (they build over time).  For those, we won't know that we hit a tipping point until afterwards, and I don't see an impending crisis of need for Side Chains manifesting.  We already have Counterparty, and its implementation of turing completeness.  We have some parts of our test bed already, but there are others we don't have.

The benefits of SC are tremendous.  They also pale in comparison to the Bitcoin endgame and provide a distraction from the steady march towards that.  I like the innovation, I would like to see it on the Bitcoin block chain... eventually.  
For now, I'd rather see it as a Dogecoin side chain implementation, or Litecoin side chain implementation or Monero side chain implementation.  I would like to see how the economics play out, or at least have some faster chain running into the problems that Bitcoin may have with it AHEAD of when it would happen with Bitcoin (each of those examples have faster block times, and faster emission schedules).

Agree, one thing I always mention to my friends is that Bitcoin is arguably the most accessible investment asset that exist.

This accessibility is getting increasingly rare though. You don't see people finding "pebbles" of gold laying around anymore.

And people hoarding Bitcoin will be filthy rich, just like everyone who hoarded first-gen smartphones!!1!

the failure of gold to perform its stated function can be no more clear.  it's been failing to enforce Sound Money for over 40 years.  today's Swiss vote shows just how far we've gone over the edge into the hands of a Keynesian reliance.

there's a reason Bitcoin has formed what i think is a bull flag along with a diminution in the McClellan Oscillator, a quieting period so to speak.  we be fixing for a big move.

we need a follow up chart from you on the Bitcoin rich list balances.

I made posts similar to this much earlier in the year. First came the internet to the Western world, next comes smartphones everywhere. That future will be here in the next three years! Android handsets are already dirt cheap. All bitcoin has to do is literally stay functional and it will arise dominant. It just need a spark.

we're fixing for a big move in the next 24 hours. 

i say UP.

+1

The work is the tradeoff for trust.

Justusranvier had a good comment on this in that "useful proof of work is an oxymoron".

Yet, as Peter points it out, this work is not "wasted". The energy is what is required to establish a trustless ledger that replaces the need for a "benevolent and omniscient God"

This is precisely true.  (with some liberty taken on the definition of minted)

AFAIK difficulty is essential to regulate the emission schedule of newly minted coins.

what's interesting about your theory is that it's inflationary in thinking.  in essence, what you're saying is that the money supply needs to grow to match the growth in population.  and that the new money added should be "free" as in being able to be picked up off the ground.

well, that's where we disagree.  early on in Bitcoin, everyone could just turn on their CPU and collect "free" money.  maybe everyone got used to this and are now arguing how unfair it is to have to go out and actually have to "pay" to get Bitcoin, either in the form of ASICs or on the free market.  i don't agree with this.  there's nothing wrong with having to "buy in".  and with Bitcoin, we "need" that buy in to develop the mining infrastructure so critical to security.  my other problem with this viewpoint is that it is inherently "unpredictable" in nature in terms of final supply.  in this system, you have to "project" your calculations into the future as to just how much additional money supply will come online.  to me, that doesn't make for a particularly efficient monetary system.  i suppose you could argue about how much BTC will be lost over time for the reverse argument.  but that could apply to gold too, altho maybe less likely since it is afterall a hunk of metal.  

but then again, this entire discussion is to ignore the seamless tx abilities of being able to send $millions overseas at the click of a button.

Here is one way gold can be viewed, nothing special, just another way:

Some gold is useful, that is the consumption part. We could include some of the ornaments, and the technical use in electronics and so on (not the gold used in indian weddings - that is mostly monetary). Due to the monetary gold value, gold for consumption is more expensive than what it otherwise would be.

Gold is distributed, since it can be found basically everywhere. Someone could not monopolize gold because of that. And even if it was possible, it could not controle the value, since the production is small relative to all the gold that already exists as money.

Gold production adds to worlds monetary gold holdings at the rate of 1-3 percent. This rhymes with a natural development of productivity, so prices of goods in gold could be even more long time stable than with bitcoin.

The resources that is used to produce new gold is governed by the actual gold price, just as with bitcoin. You just think of it that way, you think that someone produces gold from a mine, can sell it for marginally more, and that is ok. As long as someone buys it, it is wealth creation. The same could be said about bitcoin.

It is the straightforwardness of bitcoin price and cost structure that fools people into thinking that it is wasteful. In reality, it is the same as with gold. And it is nothing to cry about, the cost is reasonable when you think of the value the system brings to the world.

Im thinking about USA and it has vast unoccupied sections, like deserts and so on.   I realise thats not really habitable in some cases and thats why its empty but in theory, theres gold there to be found.   Im thinking even in the 1st world its possible to some extent

Im not slamming table on these points, just throwing it out there for discussion and maybe its the case thats its important to success or not.    I do believe capitalism is about people and the more the better, because all of us can achieve things of greater benefit with the right backing in theory


Also finding gold in developed world, watch this tv series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Sea_Gold    It is possible to mine gold and just pick it up off the ground right in the USA.  Not easy exactly but its there..


I hope you are right about M pesa etc, would be good to see

Substance?  As opposed to Bitcoin?
To put things in perspective, fiat has been ~x3 better store of value than Bitcoin over the last year.
You may now return to your delirium.

we have a pretty big difference in perspective.

there is just no way anyone in the developed world can randomly pick up a piece of gold.  that pretty much is true for most in the non-developed world as well.  and travel to whatever region that has accessible gold is dangerous, expensive, and impractical for the avg person. 

Bitcoin, otoh, is easily accessible for anyone in developed nations.  maybe this is the elitist function you're referring to.  but that's changing fast:

http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/

and with smartphone penetration increasing quickly to places like Africa, soon that will change too.  i'm the first one i know to have identified M Pesa as a good example of how Bitcoin could quickly make an impact in places like Kenya and we are now seeing that play out.  and it's spreading.  and none of this discussion assumes the ease with which Bitcoin can be used to transact btwn ppl worldwide.  the network effect has caused Bitcoin to gain much greater acceptance of Bitcoin as a payment network as evidenced by all the thousands of merchants accepting it worldwide today. 

the growth and trajetory seems pretty clear.  i think it was a huge warning sign that Bitcoin had the audacity to go up and touch gold parity in fiat terms just last year. 

I think you're right.  In a world where everybody is 100% trustworthy, pebbles are perfectly effective as a store of value (maintaining the global ledger).  The fact that there's no competition to pick up pebbles beyond one's pre-defined allotment means that very little resources are consumed "mining" for this money.  So this seems to weaken Andolfatto's argument. 

So, if trust is perfect, no resources need to be consumed by "mining," whether money is digital or physical.  I suppose the question then becomes, "given that trust is not perfect, what system for money is most efficient?"  I think you addressed this with your earlier comment:


Haha, I felt I was on the verge of some new insight.  Maybe not...