They have created (atoms of) gold before, but the costs to make them are far higher than what it is worth, at least currently.
But theoretically, if they make gold at low costs and large quantities, than yes, bitcoin will be the only valuable good left that is in limit quantities.
Topic: What if gold is produced in lab? (Read 6466 times)
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) become more and more familiar in the scientific community.
NASA's scientist confirms that by using nickel they can produce heat+copper (not radioactive) and by using carbon they can produse heat+nitrogen.
Also independant research teams from all over the world have reached to similar experimental data.
So, the propability of producing no-radioactive gold with low cost rises in the near future. I will make my speculation more extreme by saying that producing gold may also give an energy-profit when LENR is understood in a deeper level.
I will speculate that in 5-10 years the price (in $) of one 1Kg of gold will reach the price of one 1Kg of copper.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nuclear-reactor-to-replace-your-water-heater/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE3MC5tGBrY
NASA's scientist confirms that by using nickel they can produce heat+copper (not radioactive) and by using carbon they can produse heat+nitrogen.
Also independant research teams from all over the world have reached to similar experimental data.
So, the propability of producing no-radioactive gold with low cost rises in the near future. I will make my speculation more extreme by saying that producing gold may also give an energy-profit when LENR is understood in a deeper level.
I will speculate that in 5-10 years the price (in $) of one 1Kg of gold will reach the price of one 1Kg of copper.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nuclear-reactor-to-replace-your-water-heater/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE3MC5tGBrY
What if nuclear fusion is successfully and can be done very cheaply, suppose almost infinite energy for free, that means you can produce almost anything for free why you will need bitcoins?
For use as a medium of universal exchange, of course. Bitcoin is totally unique in that aspect.
Who's going to pay for all these nuclear fusion reactors?
It could be true! thanx for sharing
Here is a video that supports these evidence. The cold fusion (LENR) processes are used by nature.
1 hour video but it is really interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGl4wPCSl5M
Then bitcoin would be the only medium of exchange that has a limited supply.
What do you think?
What if nuclear fusion is successfully and can be done very cheaply, suppose almost infinite energy for free, that means you can produce almost anything for free why you will need bitcoins?
I agree with you.
I believe btc is more than a currency or medium of exchange. Btc is a tool. A tool for society to leave behind any inflationary debt based model. If bitcoin becomes successfull in a large scale then a decrease in prices over time will be a common thing. And there are technologies like 3-D printing or LENR that support the idea of a continious decrease in prices.
So bitcoin may be unnecessary for things that can be easily produced.
Bartering causes problems where people don't want certain items for their items, that's why currencies were invented in the first place, it wasn't meant for them to prop up economies or control how entire countries grew and developed.
Then bitcoin would be the only medium of exchange that has a limited supply.
What do you think?
What if nuclear fusion is successfully and can be done very cheaply, suppose almost infinite energy for free, that means you can produce almost anything for free why you will need bitcoins?
Pffft I'm sure that's the kind of thing they said about flight and look what happened then, humanity needs to do this kind of thing for its survival, if we don't we'll blow each other up over the only remaining resource left on this planet.
Off-planet mining is crazy. Its way too dangerous and expensive. Its not beyond our capabilities, but its just way out there. Totally different from building the first airplane. The Wright brother's first airplane cost $22,000 in today's dollars to build. [source]
If energy was free, and we could build bomb-proof robot spacecraft that could go 10% of the speed of light for next to nothing, then it'd be different. Mars rovers cost hundreds of millions each, and it's totally unsuitable for resource harvesting. NASA is ecstatic every time they have a successful Mars mission (and they should be).
It might be possible with new technology very soon, you never know.
Cool! Hopefully it would inflate the supply of gold and other precious metals so that they become cheap and so there's enough for everyone!
Pffft I'm sure that's the kind of thing they said about flight and look what happened then, humanity needs to do this kind of thing for its survival, if we don't we'll blow each other up over the only remaining resource left on this planet.
Off-planet mining is crazy. Its way too dangerous and expensive. Its not beyond our capabilities, but its just way out there. Totally different from building the first airplane. The Wright brother's first airplane cost $22,000 in today's dollars to build. [source]
If energy was free, and we could build bomb-proof robot spacecraft that could go 10% of the speed of light for next to nothing, then it'd be different. Mars rovers cost hundreds of millions each, and it's totally unsuitable for resource harvesting. NASA is ecstatic every time they have a successful Mars mission (and they should be).
It might be possible with new technology very soon, you never know.
Did you read the article and use some critical thinking skills and do some fact-checking? Its pure speculation. There's no evidence at all of any precious metals. They said it appears to be a typical asteroid.
I did some research and this is what "typical asteroids" are made of:
Carbon (C-type) Carbon over 75 percent 0.03-0.09 (Very dark)
Silicate (S-type) Metallic iron mixed with iron-silicates and magnesium-silicates 17 percent 0.10 -0.22 (Relatively bright)
Metallic (M-type) Iron/ nickel less than 7 percent 0.10-0.18 (Relatively bright)
Dark (D-type) Water ice/frozen carbon monoxide mixed with rock less than 1 percent 0.05 (Relatively dark and reddish)
No precious metals named.
Here's another source of "typical asteroid composition" from http://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html
It lists the composition as follows:
Iron Meteorites:
Iron 91%
Nickel 8.5%
Cobalt 0.6%
Stony Meteorites:
Oxygen 36%
Iron 26%
Silicon 18%
Magnesium 14%
Aluminum 1.5%
Nickel 1.4%
Calcium 1.3%
Funny, no mention of precious metals.
Apparently, data on typical valuable minerals & metals composition of asteroids is rarer than hen's teeth.
This guy did a lot of research and had "exceptional difficulty" finding data.
That BBC article is a fairy tale. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Don't believe everything you read, folks. Especially not from the BBC.
Fly a robot up there, have it slap some thrusters on the rock, send it to Earth and crash land it in idk Africa or something.
lmao, you aren't thinking outside the box, it's a problem I've noticed a lot with people who think space exploration isn't worth it.
The problem isn't thinking outside the box, it really isn't.
Where are these balls of gold in deep space anyhow? Has anyone proven they exist?
lmao, you aren't thinking outside the box, it's a problem I've noticed a lot with people who think space exploration isn't worth it, vast limitless space in itself is worth quite a bit considering how overcrowded our planet is becoming right now.
Because space is so vast, I can guarantee you that $1 billion will be nothing compared to what can be found out there, it's simple laws of probability.
How many trillions would throw at the problem to bring back a pound of gold? Its insane.
We have bitcoin now, we don't need more gold.
Because space is so vast, I can guarantee you that $1 billion will be nothing compared to what can be found out there, it's simple laws of probability.
If we spent that money on getting back just one of those valuable asteroids and getting out all the precious metals cost wouldn't be an issue in the future to make those kind of expeditions, the only places we really have that amount of resources any more is Afghanistan and Africa etc. we're running out, so we've got to get it from some place and digging deeper is going to be just as dangerous if not more so than going out to space.
Proposed mining projects (wikipedia)
"On April 24, 2012 a plan was announced by billionaire entrepreneurs to mine asteroids for their resources. The company is called Planetary Resources and its founders include aerospace entrepreneurs Eric Anderson and Peter Diamandis.
The plan has been met with skepticism by some scientists who do not see it as cost-effective, even though platinum and gold are worth nearly £35 per gram ($1,600 per ounce). An upcoming NASA mission (OSIRIS-REx) to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid to Earth will cost about $1 billion USD.[1] Planetary Resources admit that, in order to be successful, they will need to develop technologies that bring the cost of space flight down."
..."develop technologies that bring the cost of space flight down."
Understatement of the year. That's code for free energy and $20,000 spacecraft.
If we spent that money on getting back just one of those valuable asteroids and getting out all the precious metals cost wouldn't be an issue in the future to make those kind of expeditions, the only places we really have that amount of resources any more is Afghanistan and Africa etc. we're running out, so we've got to get it from some place and digging deeper is going to be just as dangerous if not more so than going out to space.
Pffft I'm sure that's the kind of thing they said about flight and look what happened then, humanity needs to do this kind of thing for its survival, if we don't we'll blow each other up over the only remaining resource left on this planet.
Off-planet mining is crazy. Its way too dangerous and expensive. Its not beyond our capabilities, but its just way out there. Totally different from building the first airplane. The Wright brother's first airplane cost $22,000 in today's dollars to build. [source]
If energy was free, and we could build bomb-proof robot spacecraft that could go 10% of the speed of light for next to nothing, then it'd be different. Mars rovers cost hundreds of millions each, and it's totally unsuitable for resource harvesting. NASA is ecstatic every time they have a successful Mars mission (and they should be).
Jump to: