Tin is malleable. Why isn't tin more valuable than gold?

How much gold supply is used for conductive purposes vs gold bars or jewelry?

Aggies1322 said:

---

ac04 said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

ac04 said:

---

its value can be measured against anything you want. USD is just the most convenient for now.

---

Change it to the Euro, or peso, or yen. All of those are considered unsound money - so it's always going to be measured against one unsound currency or another. How is it hedging against that?

---

it is steadily increasing your purchasing power by protecting it from debasement. if you held the fiat instead, your purchasing power is guaranteed to decrease. how is that not a hedge?

---

Because it operates more like an investment vehicle with no underlying assets. If I bought a dollar in bitcoin today, there is nothing assuring me that it won't be worth 10 cents tomorrow.. whereas I can relatively accurately track the rate of inflation against that dollar.

---

the "no underlying assets" point has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its a hedge. its a finite asset being priced against an infinite asset. its not complicated.

look, if steadily losing 4-5% of your purchasing power every year is more palatable to you than holding an asset with 100%+ CAGR over 15 years because you're scared of volatility, definitely don't buy bitcoin.

TexasRebel said:

---

That's where scarcity comes in.

How much easier is it to come by copper than gold?

(It's also worth investing in copper)

---

Hold on, your argument was about usefulness.

You can't argue that scarcity is a feature for Gold, but then dismiss it when discussing BTC.

p-townag said:

---

You're exactly right, it is. If I save $10 over 100 years, inflation will decrease the value of that $10 to less than $1. So the value of your money wasn't able to be transferred across the time frame of 100 years.

---

I can definitively say that $10 will be worth $10 in 10,000 years.

p-townag said:

---

If I buy 0.1 bitcoin for $670 today and save it over 100 years, its value will be AT LEAST $670 in 100 years and likely much much more.

---

Will it?

La Bamba said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

That's where scarcity comes in.

How much easier is it to come by copper than gold?

(It's also worth investing in copper)

---

Hold on, your argument was about usefulness.

You can't argue that scarcity is a feature for Gold, but then dismiss it when discussing BTC.

---

We're not. This is between copper and gold. Both made of matter; atoms.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Tin is malleable. Why isn't tin more valuable than gold?

How much gold supply is used for conductive purposes vs gold bars or jewelry?

---

You're not familiar with space travel and high precision research, huh?

TexasRebel said:

---

That's where scarcity comes in.

How much easier is it to come by copper than gold?

(It's also worth investing in copper)

---

It continues to get easier and easier for both. There has never been more gold mined in history than there was last year. We continually increase the amount of gold mined every year.

TexasRebel said:

---

p-townag said:

---

You're exactly right, it is. If I save $10 over 100 years, inflation will decrease the value of that $10 to less than $1. So the value of your money wasn't able to be transferred across the time frame of 100 years.

---

I can definitively say that $10 will be worth $10 in 10,000 years.

p-townag said:

---

If I buy 0.1 bitcoin for $670 today and save it over 100 years, its value will be AT LEAST $670 in 100 years and likely much much more.

---

Will it?

---

I'm not trying to be mean, but you continue to display your ignorance. The purchasing power of $10 (or, said another way, the value) WILL MOST DEFINITELY NOT have the same purchasing power/value in 100 years.

You're starting to make me think I should just ignore you from here on out. If you don't understand basic economics or logic, this is a pointless conversation.

I asked why gold was valuable. You included utility in the form of conducting electricity. But gold was valuable before that.

The reason gold is valuable is because it requires energy to get in conjunction with its scarcity and preservability.

Those are the three fundament value propositions to gold. Which bitcoin shares.

But we're not creating it. It exists. It will run out.

If a meteor made of gold hits the earth the price will drop, but the utility will not.

Can you answer the question or just deflect? It's your own opinion the value proposition for gold includes its conductivity. So how much of the gold supply is used for that? Remember this is your own stated opinion.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I asked why gold was valuable. You included utility in the form of conducting electricity. But gold was valuable before that.

The reason gold is valuable is because it requires energy to get in conjunction with its scarcity and preservability.

Those are the three fundament value propositions to gold. Which bitcoin shares.

---

This is it, but Bitcoin adds in the feature of easier to store, and easier to transport/transact.

So it is equal or even superior to gold in the ways in which makes gold valuable.

TexasRebel said:

---

But we're not creating it. It exists. It will run out.

If a meteor made of gold hits the earth the price will drop, but the utility will not.

---

Things that are created can't have value or utility?

And that's a ridiculous assertion. We will both be long dead before we ever run out of gold. We will be mining asteroids before it's even a local concern

Gold was valuable before advancements with electricity because it can also conduct heat well.

While copper does conduct heat slightly better, it corrodes, and copper corrosion does not conduct heat as well.

Is the Internet valuable? Is software valuable? Can either of those two things provide value?

What if there was a software that could fix monetary debasement? Would that be valuable? How much would that be worth? Well I guess it's worth 21 million x $68,000 USD at the moment.

If you're not comfortable with 5-10% swings, then Bitcoin and others are probably not a good fit for you. My BTC investment at one point was down -60%, but I was a believer and kept picking up a little bit at a time. Now I am up 55% and believe I will have doubled my investment in about 4-6 months.

So how much of the gold supply is being used to conduct energy?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Can you answer the question or just deflect? It's your own opinion the value proposition for gold includes its conductivity. So how much of the gold supply is used for that? Remember this is your own stated opinion.

---

Not quite as much as should be because copper is easier to come by. wtf is the point of this question?

Software is only as valuable as the data input.

It's your stated opinion gold is valuable in part because it's conductive. How much is the gold supply is being used for that? It's your opinion, can you defend it with stats or is based not in reality?

If gold isn't being used for that then it's not part of its value proposition get it?

TexasRebel said:

---

p-townag said:

---

You're exactly right, it is. If I save $10 over 100 years, inflation will decrease the value of that $10 to less than $1. So the value of your money wasn't able to be transferred across the time frame of 100 years.

---

I can definitively say that $10 will be worth $10 in 10,000 years.

p-townag said:

---

If I buy 0.1 bitcoin for $670 today and save it over 100 years, its value will be AT LEAST $670 in 100 years and likely much much more.

---

Will it?

---

jesus christ, he is clearly talking about purchasing power when he mentions value. fiat currency is horrible at transmitting value across time.

use gold as the scarce asset in the example instead of bitcoin so you can imagine holding it your hand, which seems to help you a lot. 100 years ago, an ounce of gold was something like $20. so imagine that one person chose to invest in gold and another person chose to hold dollars instead. now that we're here in 2024, which asset did a better job of transferring its value across time?

gold is historically good at transferring value across time due to its scarcity, but it is bad at transferring value across space (before you get stuck here, that means from your house to new york city or london, not into outer space). because of this, it became too slow for modern commerce and fiat became the most used money. but fiat has one major flaw, while it is much better than gold at transferring value across space, it is unbelievably bad at transferring value across time because the people in control inevitably make too much of it.

bitcoin is good at transferring value across time (best performing asset of the past 15, 10, 5 years) and it can be transmitted basically anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

TLDR if i lost you along the way: gold is good at moving value across time, but bad at moving value across space. fiat is good at moving value across space, but bad at moving value across time. bitcoin is good at both.

So much for Ags looking out for other Ags. They want to take their chances elsewhere, best of luck. As if the hindsight length and view at this point isn't enough.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's your stated opinion gold is valuable in part because it's conductive. How much is the gold supply is being used for that? It's your opinion, can you defend it with stats or is based not in reality?

---

It's not opinion.

ac04 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

p-townag said:

---

You're exactly right, it is. If I save $10 over 100 years, inflation will decrease the value of that $10 to less than $1. So the value of your money wasn't able to be transferred across the time frame of 100 years.

---

I can definitively say that $10 will be worth $10 in 10,000 years.

p-townag said:

---

If I buy 0.1 bitcoin for $670 today and save it over 100 years, its value will be AT LEAST $670 in 100 years and likely much much more.

---

Will it?

---

jesus christ, he is clearly talking about purchasing power when he mentions value. fiat currency is horrible at transmitting value across time.

use gold as the scarce asset in the example instead of bitcoin so you can imagine holding it your hand, which seems to help you a lot. 100 years ago, an ounce of gold was something like $20. so imagine that one person chose to invest in gold and another person chose to hold dollars instead. now that we're here in 2024, which asset did a better job of transferring its value across time?

gold is historically good at transferring value across time due to its scarcity, but it is bad at transferring value across space (before you get stuck here, that means from your house to new york city or london, not into outer space). because of this, it became too slow for modern commerce and fiat became the most used money. but fiat has one major flaw, while it is much better than gold at transferring value across space, it is unbelievably bad at transferring value across time because the people in control inevitably make too much of it.

bitcoin is good at transferring value across time (best performing asset of the past 15, 10, 5 years) and it can be transmitted basically anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

TLDR if i lost you along the way: gold is good at moving value across time, but bad at moving value across space. fiat is good at moving value across space, but bad at moving value across time. bitcoin is good at both.

---

p-townag said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Why must it continue to increase in value? <crickets>

You're stuck playing checkers on a chessboard.

Companies that facilitate transactions don't do it for free, which is already a problem. The cost just gets hidden in the item price; by law. There isn't a business in existence that wouldn't prefer to ditch the transaction fees. Why would anyone want to make them permanent?

---

It must increase in value because it has a use, which creates demand. Price is set by supply and demand. The supply is absolutely fixed, yet as more and more people adopt it and demand it, the price will go up. Simple economics.

Because when something has value, people are willing to pay for it. So people will continue to pay the transaction fees because it's worth it.

---

But it doesn't have a use.

It's literally just a digital collectible. Bitcoin just like an NFT.

It's too expensive to transact so will never become adopted as a widespread form of payment. This flaw nullifies all of the attributes that make it desirable. Maybe you'll see it one day.

Trading is taking place off of the blockchain, making it pointless. The primary value proposition was not needing a trusted third party. The market has evolved in a way where trusted 3rd parties are required.

It has become like digital gold because it's not going to be used as a currency.

But gold has industrial uses that create a floor for the price even if nobody cares to own it as an inflation hedge.

Bitcoins don't have any industrial use.
It's extremely volatile.
It's marketed by exchanges and other Bitcoin holders for their own self interest in generating trade activity and raising demand.

It may be the first digital asset class, but it still produces nothing new of value.

My thesis is that slowly people will catch on that it's just a digital collectible and the price will stagnate and just go sideways indefinitely with volatile trading action. There is clearly a base of holders with a religious like belief in it, and so I guess they'll be around to keep it from going to zero.

I saw some potential in crypto in the past, but my position has evolved as it became increasingly evident that it's simply a digital collectible with no value proposition to drive demand.

Its original value proposition was its ability to be transacted without needing the oversight of government or banks. That's become pointless because it's too expensive with Bitcoin, so people trust their banks and credit cards processors enough to prefer them to Bitcoin.

Being anonymous was also a bonus that created demand which has gone away for Bitcoin. And blockchains like Monero that provide anonymity have been removed from exchanges.

Bitcoins two main attributes for its demand, low cost peer to peer transfers, and anonymity, are no longer applicable.

What's left is a wave of greater fools buying it only because "number go up."

I think its price stands on a foundation of sand. It's become increasingly centralized. Early adopters will forever promote it because it's profitable for them. They want someone to keep buying their digital tokens at high prices, so they've built up a lot of hype and hollow abstractions to convince people to buy it.

And as for the ETFs, there are thousands of ETFs that I don't see any need to own them or their underlying. Crypto ETFs included.

Gold conducts electricity and doesn't corrode. Useful for electronics, useful for jewelry, useful for platings.

Gold's desirability for industrial uses precedes its adoption as a currency.

Same thing with people hoarding and trading Tide. The fact people will need it in the future is why people accumulate it.

Bitcoin isn't needed for anything. It may have all of the other desirable attributes as a currency like durability and ease of storage and divisibility, and pseudo-fungibility, but it lacks a foundation for its demand in the first place.

I'll help you since you can't answer the simple question.

8% of gold is used in technology.

Gold has a market cap of 14.5 Trillion.

Why is that the case when only 8% of the supply is utilized for utility purposes? What is driving the value for the 92% of gold sitting there doing nothing?

bmks270 said:

---

p-townag said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Why must it continue to increase in value? <crickets>

You're stuck playing checkers on a chessboard.

Companies that facilitate transactions don't do it for free, which is already a problem. The cost just gets hidden in the item price; by law. There isn't a business in existence that wouldn't prefer to ditch the transaction fees. Why would anyone want to make them permanent?

---

It must increase in value because it has a use, which creates demand. Price is set by supply and demand. The supply is absolutely fixed, yet as more and more people adopt it and demand it, the price will go up. Simple economics.

Because when something has value, people are willing to pay for it. So people will continue to pay the transaction fees because it's worth it.

---

But it doesn't have a use.

It's literally just a digital collectible. Bitcoin just like an NFT.

It's too expensive to transact so will never become adopted as a widespread form of payment. This flaw nullifies all of the attributes that make it desirable. Maybe you'll see it one day.

Trading is taking place off of the blockchain, making it pointless. The primary value proposition was not needing a trusted third party. The market has evolved in a way where trusted 3rd parties are required.

It has become like digital gold because it's not going to be used as a currency.

But gold has industrial uses that create a floor for the price even if nobody cares to own it as an inflation hedge.

Bitcoins don't have any industrial use.
It's extremely volatile.
It's marketed by exchanges and other Bitcoin holders for their own self interest in generating trade activity and raising demand.

It may be the first digital asset class, but it still produces nothing new of value.

My thesis is that slowly people will catch on that it's just a digital collectible and the price will stagnate and just go sideways indefinitely with volatile trading action. There is clearly a base of holders with a religious like belief in it, and so I guess they'll be around to keep it from going to zero.

I saw some potential in crypto in the past, but my position has evolved as it became increasingly evident that it's simply a digital collectible with no value proposition to drive demand.

Its original value proposition was its ability to be transacted without needing the oversight of government or banks. That's become pointless because it's too expensive with Bitcoin, so people trust their banks and credit cards processors enough to prefer them to Bitcoin.

Being anonymous was also a bonus that created demand which has gone away for Bitcoin. And blockchains like Monero that provide anonymity have been removed from exchanges.

Bitcoins two main attributes for its demand, low cost peer to peer transfers, and anonymity, are no longer applicable.

What's left is a wave of greater fools buying it only because "number go up."

I think its price stands on a foundation of sand. It's become increasingly centralized. Early adopters will forever promote it because it's profitable for them. They want someone to keep buying their digital tokens at high prices, so they've built up a lot of hype and hollow abstractions to convince people to buy it.

And as for the ETFs, there are thousands of ETFs that I don't see any need to own them or their underlying. Crypto ETFs included.

---

You lost me at "it doesn't have a use." I've spent 20 replies going over the use in great detail. I disagree with so much of the above that I am just not willing to type a response to it. I'd be happy to discuss over the phone if you want to DM me though. I'm not avoiding your argument, there's just too much to unpack in your post that it would be exhausting to go back and forth through text. Like I have said many times, though, we will see whether or not it continues to succeed. All signs point to it doing just that.

So you think golds entire value proposition is it may be needed one day? 14.5 Trillion in value for that? Lol ok man, I can't do this anymore.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I asked why gold was valuable. You included utility in the form of conducting electricity. But gold was valuable before that.

The reason gold is valuable is because it requires energy to get in conjunction with its scarcity and preservability.

Those are the three fundament value propositions to gold. Which bitcoin shares.

---

It's shiny, durable, and rare, that's why gold was originally desired by humans.

Status symbol due to its rarity that won't corrode, oxidize, or rust and become ugly. So great for platings and jewelry combined with rare gem stones.

Bitcoin lacks the status symbol appeal because it cannot be worn or displayed.

bmks270 said:

---

Gold conducts electricity and doesn't corrode. Useful for electronics, useful for jewelry, useful for platings.

Gold's desirability for industrial uses precedes its adoption as a currency.

Same thing with people hoarding and trading Tide. The fact people will need it in the future is why people accumulate it.

Bitcoin isn't needed for anything. It may have all of the other desirable attributes as a currency like durability and ease of storage and divisibility, and pseudo-fungibility, but it lacks a foundation for its demand in the first place.

---

Yeah hate to break it to you, but people don't invest their wealth in Gold for its "industrial" purpose or industrial potential.

We've already been over this in copper example.

Perhaps you should store your wealth in toilet paper, you know, since it has never ending industrial use.

Someone can post their bitcoin address if it's really about showing off wealth

I've studied all of the arguments. Listened to lots of lectures and podcasts, including very articulate Bitcoin pumpers like Micheal Saylor. I just disagree with the value the Bitcoin advocates place on it. I see other technology that is faster and cheaper.

Digital gold is the closest analogy in my opinion but lacking an industrial use case. Maybe simply being digital makes up for that in the minds of many people, but I simply disagree and put more weight in the need for a foundational industrial use than the Bitcoin advocates.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

So you think golds entire value proposition is it may be needed one day? 14.5 Trillion in value for that? Lol ok man, I can't do this anymore.

---

No, I think that's why it was originally adopted and hoarded, and evolved into a currency.

There is a market for collectibles like watches, art, baseball cards, etc. So yeah there can be a market for Bitcoin too. But I don't think it can ever be a durable or stable one.