People buy gold because, over the long run, gold has traditionally had a stable value.
But that is just another way of saying that in the long run, gold does not appreciate or depreciate. "Stable" means "it doesn't change a lot". And an asset's value has to change in order for you to realize a gain on it.
But gold's value doesn't change that much, in the long term. Therefore, gold is not a way to make money. At best, gold is a way to preserve your money. This has been true for thousands of years, which is why we all have confidence that gold can preserve our wealth.
cf. with Bitcoin. We do not have thousands of years of experience with it. You can't make pretty jewelry out of bitcoin. Bitcoin is not an excellent conductor of electricity, like gold is.
Bitcoin has value by consensus gentium. It has less backing it than any fiat currency on earth. At any time, countries could ban its use. Advances in decryption will eventually render it unworkable.
It mystifies me how anybody who is afraid of fiat currency could be so comfortable with bitcoin.
> It has less backing it than any fiat currency on earth
Amusingly HN commentators have been saying exactly the same thing since the launch of Bitcoin and they've been wrong the whole time.[^0] It's crazy how people are unable to update their priors or recognize the dissonance between their mental model and reality. Oh well.
And those monetary properties are based on proof-of-work.
> At any time, countries could ban its use. Advances in decryption will eventually render it unworkable
You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean it literally. These are not points a serious knowledgeable person attempts to make.
You can't "ban" mathematics or code. And being code, cryptographic protocols are continuously updated. In fact, we added new cryptographic primitives to Bitcoin just 2 years ago, which you would know if you were actually honestly knowledgeable about what you're talking about.
Handwaving about cryptographic advances only tells me that you don't actually study cryptography. Perhaps you read a luddite talking point somewhere and were gullible enough to believe it?
> It mystifies me how anybody who is afraid of fiat currency could be so comfortable with bitcoin.
And that information asymmetry is what creates a market: those who understand an asset better own it and profit from it while those who don't or can't hold a less valuable commodity. That's how wealth is transferred to more knowledgeable people from less knowledgeable people in every aspect of life.
Anyway, Satoshi wrote:
"
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work.
The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.
Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.
" [^1]
Bitcoin's supply can't be manipulated. It's permissionless, censorship resistant, a non-custodial bearer asset, independently auditable, decentralized, programmable. It's the best form of money ever invented. That's all.
> cf. with Bitcoin. We do not have thousands of years of experience with it. You can't make pretty jewelry out of bitcoin. Bitcoin is not an excellent conductor of electricity, like gold is.
Central Banks don't buy gold because of the awesome chains and bracelets they will make nor because they want to have a supply of good wiring.
Throwing around Latin phrases doesn't make your point more credible.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value; all value is subjective and relative, which I think you know.
// It is backed by only thing rfst backs any form of money: the credibility of it’s monetary properties //
Of course. That doesn't mean that all currencies are equally soundly backed, now, does it?
Bitcoin doesn’t even have any intrinsic properties. Its properties are also set by consensus genius.
// you can’t ban mathematics or code //
You can’t ban physical laws either, but somehow we manage to have speed limits. You can’t ban the laws of chemistry but somehow we manage to have laws banning drugs.
// . . . All value is subjective and relative . . . //
I'm sorry. I can't respectfully continue this conversation with you. It simply won't be productive for us because I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person nor that you have the technical knowledge to discuss these things competently.
I'll just end up annoyed and my goal in 2025 is to be less annoyed and less annoying online.
I main ffs, the United States president owns Bitcoin (and just launched his own meme coin) and the largest asset manager in the world has well capitalized spot Bitcoin ETF but you're still regurgitating anti-bitcoin talking points from a decade ago about bans? Grow tf up!
Nonetheless, thanks for the conversation and for your time.
// I can't...continue...I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person //
Exactly the right move. Don't waste any time with somebody who doesn't argue in good faith. Heck, these days, you have to worry about wasting time arguing with an LLM.
// Thanks for the conversation and for your time. //
You are welcome. here's a freebie: conversations on the internet never end in one person admitting they are wrong. Instead, as long as the two participants have rational reasons to disagree, they offer those rational reasons to each other. When one party runs out of such reasons, well...they insult the other guy and break off the conversation ;-)
Is this not the underlying argument for SBR? Buy and hold and have on your books something that has on paper appreciated, similar to Gold?