Topic: What if gold is produced in lab? (Read 6466 times)

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.

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

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

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.

Gold pooping bacteria:

http://uptweet.com/story/Gold-pooping-bacteria--_155

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.

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?

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!

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

do your damn research fool!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Your grandchildren's great-grandchildren will be long dead by the time gold mined in space is that inexpensive, if it ever reaches that point.

We'll get $8/Oz gold if we go to space and mine out the asteroids there, there's billions worth of precious metals that have been surveyed in just one or two, don't need a lab, that said, I think that the dollar will have collapsed by the time we get into space anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347

Jon Stewart even did a segment on it where he got a physicist he knew to come along and he announced it wasn't bullshit

"Scarce" means the quantity available is less than the amount we would consume if it was free.

In normal circumstances air isn't scarce because we aren't physically capable of breathing more of it than exists. Most products are scarce because if they become cheaper to obtain we'll use more of them.

Gold would still be scarce. Remember, it would require resources (equipment, individuals to build the equipment, and their time) to produce the gold. Time is money!

Are you suggesting that lab diamonds are cheap? that's simply untrue, lab diamonds are often more expensive.

Kurzweil is a pattern recognition specialist and transhumanist philosopher, not a radiophysicist/chemist.

Also that is a completely different thing from "Lets make some gold".

http://www.kurzweilai.net/nasa-video-on-lenr-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-a-clean-form-of-nuclear-energy

This is on Ray Kurzweil site.

With new technologies impossible becomes possible. Sooner or later gold (not radioactive) will be created in the lab with very low cost using LENR technology.  I am not going to argue with you, just do your own search about LENR.

Is not everything about LENR a hoax. 

This is a hoax that's being colported since the 60s.

Not too far into the future gold will wort almost 0...

http://www.freeenergysystems.com/LENR_Can_Potentially_Transform_Tungsten_Into_Gold/

There are so much advantages Bitcoin has:

Gold

- We don't really know how much Gold is on existence and how much more will be found on the future
- Is hard to really probe the Gold is real Gold ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/19/new-york-jeweler-duped-into-buying-100g-worth-fake-gold-bars/ )

Bitcoin

- We know exactly how much Bitcoins are has been generated and how much will be generated in the future.
- We can easily verify Bitcoins are valid checking on our local nodes' Block Chain or any other website ( blockchain.info, etc )

So in my opinion Bitcoin is much much more superior then Gold in this aspect.

Indeed, it could collapse gold value, and give BTC a nice boost, but I bet we are very far from this.. Gold has already been produce in very very small quantity, in some particule accelerator experiment, but quantities so microscopic, and a vast amount of energy and time is needed.. Dont remeber the numbers, but it's look like hundred thousands dollar for a fraction of a gram of gold...

I'll try to find the article !

Screw it, I already have my spaceship ! I ll have a look and let you know what I find.

Indeed. Let's make some wikispeed-style spaceships and start interplanetary gold mining 

Not pedantic, neat.

Not to be pedantic, but more just for general science interest, heavier elements weren't produced during the big bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
It wasn't until the first population III stars began appearing (and exploding) a couple hundred million years after the big bang that heavier elements like gold began to be produced.

Sorry, astronomy buff. I find this stuff interesting.

You mean the other way around, right?
If everyone has it I would not pay the same amount of time and resources, even though it costs a great deal of energy to create it. The price of production would eventually go down, as it gets cheaper to make it, given enough time and specialized people with the right tools.

Yeah you caused me to look up sythentic diamonds.  It seems making synthetic diamonds (especially high quality, large size, good color, small defects, etc) is still pretty difficult to do.  It isn't like they have a diamond press which can crank out thousands of 1CT flawless, C color diamonds per hour.   They grow bunch, throw away most of them and then grade them like "natural diamonds".  So you get a mix of rarer higher quality diamonds and less rare lower quality ones.

Interesting stuff.  I learned it is actually very difficult to grow white diamonds in a lab so they cost more while colored (blue, etc) diamonds cost less.  The reverse is true for mined diamonds (where colored diamonds are far more rare then white diamonds).


Shows how scarcity of gold (or anything) is really just artificial scarcity (limited by the constraints of technology at the time).  For fair comparison Bitcoins' scarcity is equally artificial it just happens to be by consensus of participants rather than elemental rarity.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-space-asteroid-mining-idUSBRE83N06U20120424

Yep, I understand and agree with the sentiment. I think diamonds are stupid in the first place, and much prefer colored stones, as those actually have a free market around them.

Anyway, lab created gold or not, I'm getting ready for $8/Oz gold 

The price will go up since that's a more expensive way of getting gold!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course you can at a couple million dollars an ounce.  Tungsten slugs are far easier and cheaper though.

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?

How do a user decide what fork to be on?

From Wikipedia:


(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. :-)

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.

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.

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.


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.

Cold fusion advocated are firm believers in, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

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.

I too believe the bitcoin rules could be changed, little by little, similar to the transition from the gold standard to pure fiat as we have it today.  But it takes decades to boil a frog that way without it jumping out of the cooking pot, so at least we'll have a few decades of "good money".

Perhaps, to you "it would be like saying" that, but i am not going to waste our time on this pedantic debate, which has happened here before, including scenarios under which the miners would change the Bitcoin rules...

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... 

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.

I think that Physics behind nuclear reactions is relatively well understood - producing gold in that way is not financially viable (and by that I mean millions of times more expensive than mining it from the ground).

I did not check the links, but presumably you are talking about cold fusion. In that case, it is complete crackpottery, meaning that it will never work, as that would break fundamental laws of Physics.

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.

You know what this means don't you? Time to go out to space to find a new even rarer metal!

How do the other miners mine without the cartel's blessing? You are dismissing the cartel by assuming that it does not exist.

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).

Doubtful.  Diamons aren't a unified structure.  It is the presence of inclusions and other abnormalities which are used to determine if a diamond is natural.  Also the lab made diamonds are getting better and better so a diamond marked natural may actually not be.  Diamonds also have the advantage of a monopolistic cartel.  Since 90%+ diamond pass through the cartel they can be marked with the origin. 

Gold on the other hand is just gold.  You can melt it and reform it.  Take 10 oz of gold coins, melt them  and make a 10 oz gold bar and you can change the form completely but it is still 10 oz of gold.  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. 

It shouldn't.  Hg 197 (isotope of mercurcy) captures a neutron to become Hg 197 which decays rapidly to Au197.   Most of the unstable isotopes of gold have a half life in seconds so the quickly will decay to non-radioactive "non-gold".   If you produced "gold" in a lab and it was radioactive the portions which were radioactive are either non-gold or soon will become non-gold.  In refining the non-gold elements can be separated out. 

Of course all this is academic, IIRC the cost to produce 1 oz of gold is on the order of millions of dollars.  It is simply easier, cheaper, and faster to just dig it out of the ground.  Still if lab created gold was ever economically viable you may need to "age" the gold.  By letting the gold sit for say 5 years before refining you could cause 99.999999999% of the unstable gold isotopes to decay to non-gold.

If someone finds (or already knows) a way to do this in a very cheap way, he/she/they won't inform you about it. If you're trying to produce something in lab you should start with platinum-190


Maybe, but if it's done correctly it'll be hard to find out if it's natural gold or man made gold.


If that'd happen many people would sell their Bitcoins. If you're not efficient at mining you have to leave the game.

Yes, until maybe the miners consolidate into an oligarchy/cartel, and decide that the transaction fees are not enough for their "labor", and decide to increase block rewards again, or just continue them indefinitely... 

Hopefully, by that time, there will some better P2P currency.

Human nature is unlikely to change as fast as Bitcoin might change money.

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.

I doubt anybody is interested in yeast colored silver ; ) that's what he's selling.

but making gold is indeed possible in machines like the large hadron collider. One atom at time. An ounce every 50 million years.

If this was done on a scale that could be manufactured I would bet you would have a second classification similar to man made diamonds.  A lot of men would be happy to buy man made gold for their ladies. 

Ah yes. Good old champion and his gold making machine that only works when he's around. Never get's old.

http://www.sharonlbegley.com/all-that-glitters-isn-t-chemistry

You could indeed make gold in a lab, and I believe it has been done on the atomic scale. Doing it on a manufacturing level though would take an incredible amount of energy (far more then the cost of mining gold) as you would need to essentially be splitting atoms to get an atom with the right atomic structure. But it is possible.

Thanks for sharing, and yes, bitcoin would probably be the only resource scarce enough for trading in the future.

By using Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Nickel transmutes into copper producing large amounts of heat. Although the physics behind this phenomena is not yet understood completely there is a lot of information on the web.

Here is some:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSVTg_yfwgg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/

What if LENR is used for creating precious metals like gold, silver or platinum with low cost?

http://www.drjoechampion.com/Procedure.htm

Then bitcoin would be the only medium of exchange that has a limited supply.



What do you think?