I have physical gold today without waiting for anyone. I also have some gold vaulted & digitally transferrable. Some sources I trust very little like Perth Mint and only have a limited amount there. Other sources I trust more - but still not absolutely.

As to why not Bitcoin: my problem with fiat is that it's just a trade token without anything real or substantial to give it value. I feel this applies to cryptos (including Bitcoin) as well.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Is accurate record-keeping valuable?

My point, at greater length nostr:note1h0yq5rsfrg8lu78pmn7zg460nj240zd2ch8lx8rd4zt95lxdf35s2lktgd

Something scarce, cannot be counterfeited, can be sent to anyone, anywhere, anytime, without permission at the speed of light has no value? ๐Ÿค”

These are all secondary though. The original, base-level reason Bitcoin has value is that perfect record-keeping has value and energy has value, and the exchange of energy for perfect record-keeping can only be settled in bitcoins.

Why not some other crypto?

For example, take Bitcoin, change the code to recognize a new Genesis block, make no other changes and bam - Bitcoin 2, with exactly the same properties as Bitcoin.

Obviously this cannot have value or Bitcoin is not really scarce. But every *objective* argument for Bitcoin applies fully to Bitcoin 2. Only temperamental arguments about the pre-existing network effect (and the like) can distinguish them.

You mean like BCH, BSV and countless other forks? I have a feeling you are one of them people buying fake Louis bags in Chinatown. ๐Ÿ˜†

I thought they changed something functional?

"Something"

Let me stop you right there

Bitcoin is not some thing. The accounting units don't exist even in computer memory - only the block chain & UTXOs exist. When you "send" me 5 sats (pretending this is on-chain) you are creating a new UTXO and invalidating the old. So there is no "thing" which is sent, or scarce, or immune to counterfeit.

Arguing semantics is fun for you? ๐Ÿ˜†

It's not semantic, it makes bitcoin a currency rather than a money, which makes it an irredeemable currency just like fiat, which makes it worthless.

You can redeem your Bitcoin for immutable record-keeping created through energy expenditure, math and cryptography

At what rate?

The most free and open market rate that ever existed

When you realize you are watching the order book for blockspace buyers and energy sellers worldwide come to global consensus every 10 minutes without any central authority or trusted third party itโ€™s really a sight to behold

https://mempool.space/

That's a tremendous caveat.

Usually redemption means a fixed rate.

For example US citizens used to be able to exchange $20 in bank-notes at their local bank for a 1tz gold coin (ie actual $20).

The fixed rate meant that the paper was merely a stand-in for gold.

Now the US dollar is still kind-of backed by gold - the US Mint sells gold & silver coins for US dollars (or more precisely Federal Reserve Notes). This is the issuer "redeeming" its notes.

But the Mint does so at arbitrary "free market" rates, not at a fixed rate, so the dollar/FRN is not a stand-in for some fixed weight of gold.

Similarly, if Bitcoin can be used to store data at some fluctuating market rate, it cannot be a stand-in for a fixed volume of data storage. Rather, the data storage is yet another service that can be purchased with Bitcoin and not the ultimate source of value.

Thereโ€™s no need for a derivative to trade at a fixed rate against the underlying: insurance is the perfect example. The cost of car insurance goes up as you rack up accidents, but the automobile insurance still derives its value from the fact that it can pay for damage your car causes. We donโ€™t all pay the same rates to insure the same cars because our driving records and ability are not all the same. There are many variables. However, car insurance is still a derivative of cars and drivers.

The variable exchange rate, though, highlights the primary argument against Bitcoin as a usable money today: the volatility.

As long as the exchange rate for energy and immutable record keeping is volatile, so too will it follow that the relative value of the token of this exchange versus the rest of the worldโ€™s goods and services will be volatile.

So, Iโ€™ll concede that a bet on bitcoin is a bet on the eventual stabilization of this blockspace market, and that a permanently volatile blockspace market might lead to a permanently volatile (and thus unreliable) money

If Bitcoin can never be stable, then its upward trajectory might still make it a risk-on asset for young people saving for the long-term, but it wonโ€™t be a day-to-day medium of exchange and certainly canโ€™t become a unit of account.

I expect, though, as so many other Bitcoiners, that as the dollar becomes a less reliable medium of exchange (CBDC, censorship, etc) and a less reliable unit of account (entrenched double digit inflation) people might consider alternatives and that this decay of the dollar might coincide with a general stabilization of the Bitcoin ecosystem as more participants and more capital join the party.

I recognize this is a bet on an uncertain future, but I feel comfortable making it with the available knowledge Iโ€™ve accumulated about all this stuff, and especially considering the drawbacks of the many possible alternatives.

Said shorter: itโ€™s a tremendous caveat if and for as long as the market for blockspace/energy is volatile. If that market stabilizes (as Bitcoiners predict) then so too might the price (relative value against everything else).

The risk/reward proposition of bitcoin is that there is tremendous upside because this stabilization appears so uncertain to the vast majority of people.

The first person to cross the glass bridge is probably an engineer who crunched the numbers and concluded it wouldnโ€™t collapse. But even as he takes his first steps, the outcome is uncertain.

The entire system is whatโ€™s scarce and immune to counterfeit.

As well as the blockspace and the energy expended to mine it

You have gold today which you cling to hoping that someone somewhere will start being honest.

Gold has been defeated by paper gold. You point out that you hold it with disparate custodians. You donโ€™t think theyโ€™d collude? Do you really think if hyperinflation occurs that you wonโ€™t get cheated? You think the state will just say โ€œok we lost this one I guess we wonโ€™t strongarm gold custodians like we have countless timesโ€.

I have a little gold in vaults that might get stolen. I'm at peace with that possibility. I have a little gold at home that might get stolen - over my dead body.

Correction: you have a little gold in vaults that *will* get stolen the minute you profit.

You have gold in your home that you will have no ability to use or transact with because itโ€™s not divisible and requires exorbitant fees to transport.

Bitcoin > gold

Some of my gold I hold in fractions as low as 1/1000tz

So not only is it divisible, it has already been divided.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldback

The energy that is spent securing the network, is that โ€˜realโ€™? Or the cryptography and math that defines the protocol? Is it the digital nature you worry about? In which case is an mp3 recording โ€˜realโ€™? Or a photo? I can copy that a million times, bitcoin is the invention of digital scarcity (amongst other things), is this not something with value? Property and ownership in a digital age? Money is a technology of sorts and technology evolves. Much of what you say is sensible and ๐Ÿ’ฏ for generic โ€˜cryptoโ€™ bit not Bitcoin. Itโ€™s a red flag for me when anyone conflates the two