Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 854. (Read 2032266 times)

Btw, we have a Dow Theory bearish primary trend change in the books as both violated their Aug 7 lows.  any bounce from here is to be considered counter trend until proven otherwise.  the only question is whether we also got a Dow Theory non-confirmation:

Land Taxes. Who holds the keys here?

Land

I agree there will be no correct answer until those 1000 years have elapsed, but it's a perfectly valid question, giving insight into how the person answering thinks about wealth stores as long term contenders.

Myself I would stack a portfolio to last 1000 years something like this as a starting point:

50% Precious metals.
30% Bitcoin.
20% items that may be considered valuable antiques by then ( I would have to think more on that one ).

For a portfolio, with a 10 ... 50 year outlook, I would forget the antiques and have 50% Bitcoin, 50% PM.

A fiendish conspiracy of mainstream press working in congress with my masters.

I'm sorry, I realize how that might have come over as confrontational.

I just think the term is negatively loaded, it causes emotional responses. Preparing for a possibility (risk assessment) is very different from preparing for a certainty.

Many people think anyone holding a little silver or gold is a crazy paranoid "prepper", but that's not the case, people have used it as a store of wealth for millennia, it's proven to be a very robust wealth store, to that there is no argument.

"Gold bugs" are also thought to be a little crazy in all popular media etc. This notion I assume is spread as a cheap way to apply downward pressure to metals in order to hide real inflation rates.

$1309/$1319 was the number I quoted when it was diving and people were scared? I think thats the first TP level... because it dove quite fast I think get past that.

I don't believe this is a valid question.

We don't have the slightest idea what will be valuable 1000 years from now.

yes, it's fascinating to me that Bitcoin touched that price for only a few minutes before pulling back to where we are now.  at the very least, from a charting perspective, one would expect a retest or double top as one might call it.  except this time, i think we touch it, reject for a short time, and then blow through the top.

we'll see.

I agree with this post Melbustus. Whilst the pace of scientific change in the last 50 years has exploded, the limits of the human lifespan sadly have not kept up. We may be amongst the last few generations to not have access to life extension technology so for me at least transmitting wealth across millenia is a moot point. Unless we choose to do a Hal Finney and be cryogenically frozen.

But I agree that bitcoin is an improved digital gold. Most of the world thinks of gold as valuable. That process is taking place for bitcoin right now. The great unanswerable question is how large a pool of wealth bitcoin can become in the coming years.

Both are true.  they compliment and compete.
Gold just has a massively larger market at the moment.

The folks who sold bitcoin at gold ounce parity (which coincidentally was its exact ATH, lasting only minutes) and have time-cost averaged back toward bitcoin balance since then, have done pretty well.

There is *currently* room for both gold and bitcoin, sure. But if bitcoin proves to be resilient/successful, the argument for gold will be severely reduced. Bitcoin is a superset of gold. You can think of this in a couple ways; all the usual properties of money that gold is good at, bitcoin is better at. Or that gold is a physical manifestation of a decentralized ledger, and bitcoin is the far more efficient digital manifestation of the same thing.

Once bitcoin has proven longevity, use for gold will be limited to: 1) industrial, and 2) hedging an extremely thin slice of the long-tail of possible disaster outcomes. I think it's far less of a practical hedge than most gold-bugs think it is, but yes, there are still some scenarios in which you'd want it (and in which bitcoin is useless). That said, it's tough to hedge for all those tiny-probability events, so it's not really worth thinking about that much.

The question of how would you transmit wealth over 1000 years is interesting. Wences addresses that in his bitcoin2014 talk. Gold has obviously been the answer for the last 5000 years or so. I'm unconvinced it'll remain the answer. Humanity may just no longer have the ability to transmit wealth deeply through time anymore. The last 200years (last 100 especially) have been absolutely unprecedented in human history with regard to the pace of change and advancement. For the first time, it *is* rational to expect that things which have been constants for thousands of years will change in the next few decades.

as i said, gold continues to climb.  that's ok; it's meant to suck the bulls back in before the next take down.  here's what i see:

gold is breaking up thru resistance, the lower red line, and may start sliding down the volume profile mountain to the upside.  the next area of resistance is the middle red line at which time i will start considering reintroducing shorts.  the top red line represents where gold has to get over the top of to start a new mini-bull for the intermediate term.  doubt it gets that high as i think the long term top is in at 1923 from 2011.

Why shouldn't he mention it? Why do you laugh when he does?

He could have sold before travelling and purchased after he arrived. Yes, bitcoin would be the best tool to do that.


Lol, who mentioned "prepper", only you.


Really, you think that? Do you have any historical event that you can reference where such a thing has happened: unrest or disaster causing a permanent fall in golds buying power?

In the context of collapse, I agree 2 days after a collapse is not the best time to try and liquidate metal, but it will retain it's worth until stability reforms. The same cannot be said for most other non perishables of modest physical volume.

Why do you think central banks covet gold if it's so useless?


As you mention "prepping"... Risk analysis would say the best strategy is to fully hedge, anyone all in gold or all in bitcoin or bullets or beans is not optimally hedged.

Out of interest: Say you were given the task of designing a portfolio to survive 1000 years, what would it be comprised of?

I few months ago, I watched a friend encounter the downsides of gold first hand.

He was moving internationally and had absolutely no way to move the amount of gold he had with him.

Long story short, he sold all his gold for bitcoins, and had absolutely no trouble taking the bitcoins with him.

As far as the prepper argument goes, I'm pretty sure that any natural disaster that takes down the internet will destroy the entire concept of a money economy in entirely, so gold will be just as useless as bitcoins.

If you want to prep for that kind of situation, the physical goods you want to hoard aren't gold.

Excellent post, and surprising to see how Fed people are some of the best or most intelligent supporters of Bitcoin. Someone will post this to Reddit.

I agree Gold and  BTC serve the same purpose and yes by expending some time you may convince some usual gold purchasers to purchase bitcoin.

But I think your time investment would yield a higher return if you convinced people to turn against less sound investments, because there sure as hell are plenty of them out there. This would drive both Gold and BTC up.

I also think a fully hedged portfolio should be lined with Gold, you must admit bitcoin carries more risk than Gold. Bitcoin requires a working internet, Gold only requires a hand to hold it.

There is room for both Gold and Bitcoin in a sound portfolio.

Not silly to anyone who understand the concept of opportunity cost.

Why do people hate on gold so much... oh I worked it out, because they've been persuaded to by people who like to covet the physical gold. DOH!

Let's look at the 10 yr gold chart...



Strong support forming at 1200, not bad, gold stays afloat rather well considering all the market manipulation happening:

http://www.gata.org/

Gold and Bitcoin are very similar. The notion that they are competing against each other is silly, they compliment each other and they have a common enemy, that being imaginary money (fiat) which undergoes constant debasement. Did we all forget the $16 Trillion bank bailouts of 2008? $16 Trillion printed out of thin air caused YOUR dollars to be worth less.