Why do many people call Bitcoin "digital gold"?
The image of the logo displayed on Bitcoin resembles Gold, but not gold, the posture and shape resembles metal and is colored gold, but not gold, nowadays people don't want to bother in calling something, if the object resembles silver, gold, bronze they will say as they see it, to make it easier to pronounce and remember.What you to know, Bitcoin is not physical, besides that Bitcoin can only be obtained when the internet is active, while real gold is in the bowels of the earth, does not need the internet and gold is physical, not imaginary, gold is a precious metal item, Bitcoin cannot be replaced as gold, that will not happen.
The nature of gold is unlimited and inexhaustible as long as the earth still exists, Bitcoin only has 21 million coins, if 21 million people in this world buy Bitcoin, Bitcoin will run out.
As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)
This is Satoshi's description of some properties of Bitcoin, and this post was found by other friends on the forum. When I saw this passage, I was really stunned. This is exactly the kind of state I envisioned.
