Topic: What if gold is produced in lab? - page 3. (Read 6466 times)
The price will go up since that's a more expensive way of getting gold!
In the case of some stones, normally there is a microscopic laser etched mark on the inside by the manufacturer. Or, if you were going for a,"how do we know everything isn't synthetic inception type of question", my response is, who is to say that everything isn't synthetic, meaning synthetic is natural?
How does the manufacturer know? Or are they microscopically etched inside the earth before they are dug out? If a manufacturer added some synthetic diamonds to their inventory and etched them all natural how would you know? If the manufacturer is honest is it not possible for somone else to etch a synthetic diamond with code for a "natural one". You do see the obvious flaws in this system right.
It is a failing attempt to keep artificial scarcity for a product which was never that scarce to begin with and now with high quality synthetics is become less scarce over time.
BTW: Given the amount of violence involved in blood diamonds and the near perpetual slaver that even non-conflict diamond miners live in my wife would probably be happy to pay EXTRA for a synthetic one which didn't have human misery backed into every stone.
How do you know the "natural" isn't a synthetic?
In the case of some stones, normally there is a microscopic laser etched mark on the inside by the manufacturer. Or, if you were going for a,"how do we know everything isn't synthetic inception type of question", my response is, who is to say that everything isn't synthetic, meaning synthetic is natural?
There are synthetic stones that are 100% exact replicas of their natural versions, yet they are much cheaper. I guess my main point was, people will always value natural over synthetic, even if the two things are 100% identical.
How do you know the "natural" isn't a synthetic? If they are exactly identical you wouldn't know. Now stones are fungible. No two diamonds (or garnets) are identical. So even among diamonds some stones are rarer (and thus more valuable) than others. Larger stones are rarer than smaller ones, stones with no/less imperfections are rarer than ones with lots of imperfections. There is a reason that outside of legend of Zelda gems didn't become a widespread currency. They aren't fungible.
Gold is simply gold. There isn't "rare" gold and "common" gold. There isn't some gold which is more desirable than other gold. You don't have "large rare" gold and smaller gold fragments. Gold is simply the element which has 79 protons, 118 neutrons, and 118 electrons which produces a yellow tinged, highly ductile and corrosion resistant metal that is a sold at normal pressure and temperature. It can be melted and formed into any shape and even recycled and formed again with little/no loss in value.
Lets test that theory. Go to the store, get your wife a ring made with cubic zirconia instead of diamond, and see if she minds.
Cubic zirconia isn't diamond. It is obviously not diamond.
Your quote would be more like saying. Go to the store and get your wife a ring made with gold instead of gold and see if she minds. Synthetic gold IS gold. It is exactly the same atomic structure as natural gold. Now here is the "meta" part. How do you think "natural gold" formed? That's right. Lots of hydrogen, lots of spare neutrons and sub atomic particles some of that hydrogen underwent neutron capture and become more complex atoms (helium, carbon, zinc, iron, uranium, and yes Gold). Man made gold is no different than "natural" gold unless you think at the time of the big bang there was a giant gold planet which exploded and showed the universe with gold fragments.
There are synthetic stones that are 100% exact replicas of their natural versions, yet they are much cheaper. I guess my main point was, people will always value natural over synthetic, even if the two things are 100% identical.
Lets test that theory. Go to the store, get your wife a ring made with cubic zirconia instead of diamond, and see if she minds.
Cubic zirconia isn't diamond. It is obviously not diamond.
Your quote would be more like saying. Go to the store and get your wife a ring made with gold instead of gold and see if she minds. Synthetic gold IS gold. It is exactly the same atomic structure as natural gold. Now here is the "meta" part. How do you think "natural gold" formed? That's right the same way.
In the early universe (i.e. seconds after big bang) there was just lots and lots of hydrogen (being the simplest atom) and not much else. Some of that hydrogen underwent fusion and produce helium isotopes, some of those isotopes underwent neutron capture and become heavier elements. Lots of fusion, fission, neutron capture and other atomic reactions going on. The universe is mostly hydrogen and carbon because those are relatively common reactions. The universe doesn't have "much" gold or other trace elements because those reactions were relatively rare.
Simple version "shortly" (as in from 0 sec to couple million years) after the big bang all elements were created using the same process the would be used in a lab to produce gold. I mean where did you think gold came from? A giant gold planet which got shattered by Thor flinging gold fragments all over the universe.
just a j/k.Synthetic gold IS gold. It is absolutely identical to "natural" gold. Done properly it would be completely impossible to tell if the gold in the store was made 5 billion years ago or 5 years ago.
If synthetic gold could be made it likely would be nearly impossible to detect. Also who cares? It is gold. It isn't like it is fake gold. It has all the properties of gold right down the atomic structure. The value of gold would quickly fall to slightly above the marginal cost of production. The good news is that marginal cost of synthetic production is currently in the millions of dollars per oz.
Lets test that theory. Go to the store, get your wife a ring made with cubic zirconia instead of diamond, and see if she minds.
Here is a publication about LENR:
http://www.borderlands.de/Links/TransmutationC1.pdf
Although really hard to understand the whole publication, it seems that progress is being done in that direction.
Read the conclusions, especially the last 3-4 paragraphs.
So, can we go make some gold bullion or stick with the tungsten filling?
Of course you can at a couple million dollars an ounce. Tungsten slugs are far easier and cheaper though.
...
How do a user decide what fork to be on?
How do a user decide what fork to be on?
By using the wallet software that suits your preference.
/off topic
So, can we go make some gold bullion or stick with the tungsten filling?
Of course that wouldn't be bitcoin and given there are no barriers of entry the remaining non-cartel miners could continue to real bitcoin fork. In time more miners would join the real fork because that is where the value (from utility, adoption, and scarcity) is at.
It would be like saying. Yeah someday gold miners could get tired of limited quantities of gold and start making coins made out of sand. Then people would buy the sand coins and the supply of sand coins would explode. Except they wouldn't. They would continue to use the gold coins due to their value (from utility, adoption, and scarcity).
How do the other miners mine without the cartel's blessing? You are dismissing the cartel by assuming that it does not exist.
If the cartel is mining the fork then there is no restriction on mining the original. Unless it is your claim that the cartel will be so powerful as to have a monopoly on the mining of both the fork and the original. I know that is your argument because you have months ago denounced proof of work as unviable but it is just your unproven conclusion.
How do a user decide what fork to be on?
I thought that nuclear transmutation resulted in gold that was at least significantly radioactive? Maybe they have found a better way to do it, I haven't read any recent articles on the subject.
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive. In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.
Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury.
Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by neutron capture, and following electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons. Other mercury isotopes are converted when irradiated with slow neutrons into one another or formed mercury isotopes, which beta decay into thallium.
Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with un-moderated reactors.
It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.
Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury.
Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by neutron capture, and following electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons. Other mercury isotopes are converted when irradiated with slow neutrons into one another or formed mercury isotopes, which beta decay into thallium.
Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with un-moderated reactors.
It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.
(197Au is the only stable (non-radioactive) isotope of gold.)
As noted elsewhere, it's cheaper by far to mine gold than to create it in a reactor or a particle accelerator.
Just to point out, the process you would need to go through to make gold, isn't chemistry.
Making gold through chemistry is Alchemy and is impossible. :-)
Making gold through chemistry is Alchemy and is impossible. :-)
By using Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)...
I haven't been keeping up recently on all this somewhat controversial research surrounding the-science-formerly-known-as-cold-fusion, and this may be beside the point of this thread, but haven't they decided that, while something is taking place to produce energy, it really isn't nuclear reactions? And so they need to come up with a new term and acronym. Or is this something else?
It would be to expensive to produce it (gold). By the time it ever got cheap enough to produce, Bitcoin will probably been replaced by something else.
Also Scammers grab all the coins and eat them.
LOL. I knew the analogy was going somewhere and it didn't disappoint.
What D&T said, plus:
One should not forget. Bitcoins consist of the "coins" themselves as a structural concept AND value which is assigned by trust. In a way Bitcoins are analogue to chocolate candy coins.
Miners just produce the structure of coins, so they produce the tinfoil wrappers.
Users produce the value of the coin by trusting the coin, so they produce the chocolatey gooey center.
So if Miners produce tinfoil wrappers that users don't like, users won't put melty delicious chocolate in them.
Also Scammers grab all the coins and eat them.
One should not forget. Bitcoins consist of the "coins" themselves as a structural concept AND value which is assigned by trust. In a way Bitcoins are analogue to chocolate candy coins.
Miners just produce the structure of coins, so they produce the tinfoil wrappers.
Users produce the value of the coin by trusting the coin, so they produce the chocolatey gooey center.
So if Miners produce tinfoil wrappers that users don't like, users won't put melty delicious chocolate in them.
Also Scammers grab all the coins and eat them.
That's the point: Bitcoin has rules - of which the limited supply is one - which can be changed by the miners, because they are not based upon some unchangeable laws of the universe...
Many if not most of Life's games, including money, have undergone rule changes, which did not make them an entirely new game, and did not lead to their immediate abandonment or demise...
Many if not most of Life's games, including money, have undergone rule changes, which did not make them an entirely new game, and did not lead to their immediate abandonment or demise...
Please learn how bitcoin works. If after the subsidy cut to 25 BTC a miner (or group of miners, or even 100% of miners) produced a block which had 50 BTC subsidy (or 20 trillion BTC subsidy) the rest of the network (AKA NON-MINERS) would reject that block as invalid. By the protocol rules the block is invalid. Miners can produce anything they want (even blocks w/ 20 trillion BTC subsidies right now) but if the blocks aren't seen as valid they are worthless. What some miner's do doesn't change the fact that the existing blockchain (w/ the existing rules and existing clients and existing miners who stay on board) will continue to exist. Nothing miners do prevents user from accepting the Bitcoin (defined by the rules that exist now), or prevent other miners from solving blocks according to the rules that exist now.
Quote
Hopefully, by the time the miners get too full of themselves to do that, there will be a P2P currency that doesn't involve "mining", and is based on rules that really cannot be changed.
The rules are merely a protocol; they can always be changed. It is impossible for them to not change. Even advocates of proof of stake don't make outlandish claims that the protocol can't be changed. A protocol is merely a set of "rules" that users agree to. If the users unanimously change the rules then they change. Period. If some fraction rejects the change there will be a fork in the network. The way mining works ensures the barrier to such a successful change is extremely high. However if 100% of users, 100% of developers, and 100% of merchants all agree to a change and all existing clients are updated to the change it is simply impossible to prevent said change. If some x% of users, x% of developers, and x% of merchants agree to a change the rest don't the network will fork into two competing protocols (sets of rules). May the best rules win!
Bitcoin is a consensus but it isn't just a consensus of miners it is a consensus of all users (stakeholders). As an example say some minority of miners create an incompatible fork (lets call it inflate-a-coin). Now MtGox could either accept deposits in the original Bitcoin or this new fork? Why would they change. A bunch of miners producing a fork of Bitcoin used by nobody, valued by nobody, and accepted by nobody doesn't really have any value does it? How will user's "see" blocks produced by inflate-a-coin? Well they would need new clients? Why would they upgrade? Why not just keep using the same client. If places they want to to buy and sell things use the existing protocol and their exchange uses the existing protocol, and their current software uses the existing protocol why would they suddenly change to an inferior coin?
So to have a successful change would require not just a super majority of miners agreeing to the change but also a super majority of developers, and a super majority of users (who would need to install the new forked client), and a super majority of merchants, exchanges, service providers, eWallets, hardware manufacturers (someday if hardware wallets become part of the ecosystem). Even then it is a fork it just happens to be almost EVERYONE (not just miners) is using the new fork.
The idea that miners can simply force a change on the masses is as simplistic and incorrect as gold miners forcing people to pay good money for sand coins so they can sell more coins. Sure if everyone (or some sizable majority) in the world agreed sand coins were worth $1700 per oz then it would work, otherwise the gold miners would simply have lots of unsold sandcoins. Likewise miners trying to force a change in the minting rate without global acceptance would simply have a lot more useless worthless alt-coins.
Which is worth more; 25 BTC per block of "real Bitcoins" valued at $x or 5,000,000 BTC per block of "fake Bitcoins" valued at $0?
Someone finding a profitable way to harvest gold from seawater seems more likely.
please give it a try (when you'll need a good laugh or run low on wtf moments). here, some pearls I reposted elsewhere that can give you an idea what to expect:
most people are so ingrained with traditional scientific theory that they have no room in their philosophies for such a totally revolutionary concept.
The resonant metal alloys of transdimensional plasma ships are developed using precision multi-stage temperature and frequency programs that convert base metals into alloys (above) containing all of the precious metals, rare earth elements and trace amounts of every other element on the periodic table - many in crystallized or metallic states not yet conceived of by Earthly scientists. Polarization of the final products is achieved by the micro-layering of perpendicular grain patterns formed within the crystals.
Cold fusion advocated are firm believers in, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." most people are so ingrained with traditional scientific theory that they have no room in their philosophies for such a totally revolutionary concept.
The resonant metal alloys of transdimensional plasma ships are developed using precision multi-stage temperature and frequency programs that convert base metals into alloys (above) containing all of the precious metals, rare earth elements and trace amounts of every other element on the periodic table - many in crystallized or metallic states not yet conceived of by Earthly scientists. Polarization of the final products is achieved by the micro-layering of perpendicular grain patterns formed within the crystals.
Jump to: