Bitcoin is not "digital gold." Gold has real value. It is used for technology (all computers have some gold in them e.g.) and jewelry, along with a thousand other real uses. It has been used for Jewelry for tens of thousands of years, because it is Real, and pretty, and has unique physical properties (thermal, electrical, lustre, color, resistance to degradation, etc.).
Bitcoin is used for exactly nothing except as an intermediary of exchange for barter, exactly the same as the Federal Reserve note. It has never been used for anything else, and it can't ever be used for anything else. It has zero value. Not one iota of value.
Gold has value regardless of if it is used as a currency. Bitcoin has exactly and precisely zero value outside of that usage. It can't survive in any world where any currency with actual value exists.
This is not me promoting gold as a good medium of exchange for barter. On the contrary, I think that is not the best path. This is me calling bullshit to "bitcoin is digital gold" propaganda that has nothing to do with reality and purposefully ignores all of the evidence and arguments against it for the sake of protecting the mind with how much people have invested in something completely without any actual value.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment except for one tiny little point.
Bitcoin has exactly and precisely zero value outside of that usage. It can't survive in any world where any currency with actual value exists.
I can think of exactly 1 good, mayhaps excellent use for Bitcoin or some other similar project, that being international trade and settlement, in place of something like SWIFT. Given that the nature of settling in gold requires that all parties involved in transporting have to be some degree of trustworthy, the nature of BTC's technology requiring very little trust to operate for both parties might be very attractive.
The technology behind digital currency, or NFTs, etc. can be used for all sorts of cool stuff, but that doesn't give it value because it takes nothing to make it do that work. Besides, other similar techs are better suited than bitcoin for all those projects, and again, they take very nearly zero resources to make it happen.
My point is would be that some BTC-like currency might be a good middleman for settle things in. You would only be using it as a stop between 2 differing currencies, and likely wouldn't have much exposure beyond the time it would take to swap back out.
Think like how companies might end up swapping from CAD to USD, and then from USD to Euros to pay their European supplier from their Canandian business' profits. It matters less that the USD has real value, and more that everyone involved is ok with USD, it's quick to liquidate once done, and is relatively quick to settle.
Bitcoin might not be the best for the job, but it certainly checks off a lot of the boxes.
I completely agree with you and I understand your point. My point was that this "use" doesn't give it value, because the resources don't actually get used up on the transaction. It is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool.
I say that because the use you suggest, and other uses for the technology are often suggested as "intrinsic value," justifying investment. Such uses DO give it value, but the value is so small it is effectively zero and will never increase.
I didn't think that you were suggesting that it would give them value as an investment. I was merely commenting on the fact that these uses don't do so, because so many people (who are invested in it) are confused about that.
Scarcity = value, and in any world where things are so bad we've fallen back to a materials physical properties to exclusively assign value, we'll have problems way worse than BTC losing worth. As long as civilization and the internet stands, BTC will always be considered to have value as only a limited supply exists, and people want in on that, regardless of any reductionist points that illustrate it's vulnerabilities.
None of the gold bars sitting in vaults are getting melted down to make electronics and jewelry. It's a method of storing value based on a multitude of human nature factors, as is BTC. Both have limited supply and attrition - industrial usage for gold, and permanent loss of wallets for BTC. It's a lot more complex than 'haha imaginary numbers, how stupid'.
The concept of 'actual value' being zero is correct, but to get to that point so many things need to utterly collapse, it's a meaningless point to make in the context of a society that will realistically continue on for the moment. That may well change, but until then it's ridiculous to write it off.
Oil is fundamentally worthless beyond a certain point of collapse if we forget how to make combustion engines and plastics. Uranium is worthless if we lose nuclear technology.
Gold just happens to be one of the lowest levels of collapse proof, because as you rightly pointed out it's shiny and pretty to look at. All the other uses came much, much later. Status symbol was first.
BTC is exclusive and pretty to look at on a screen, so as long as screens are here, that desire will remain and there's nothing you can do about it. To deny this fact is to deny human nature, and the foundational attraction to gold.
In order to understand why people who are "experts" do what they do, or why they might act contrary to the truth for the purposes of social manipulation, you need to understand that controlled opposition is everywhere.
Bitcoin is not "digital gold." Gold has real value. It is used for technology (all computers have some gold in them e.g.) and jewelry, along with a thousand other real uses. It has been used for Jewelry for tens of thousands of years, because it is Real, and pretty, and has unique physical properties (thermal, electrical, lustre, color, resistance to degradation, etc.).
Bitcoin is used for exactly nothing except as an intermediary of exchange for barter, exactly the same as the Federal Reserve note. It has never been used for anything else, and it can't ever be used for anything else. It has zero value. Not one iota of value.
Gold has value regardless of if it is used as a currency. Bitcoin has exactly and precisely zero value outside of that usage. It can't survive in any world where any currency with actual value exists.
This is not me promoting gold as a good medium of exchange for barter. On the contrary, I think that is not the best path. This is me calling bullshit to "bitcoin is digital gold" propaganda that has nothing to do with reality and purposefully ignores all of the evidence and arguments against it for the sake of protecting the mind with how much people have invested in something completely without any actual value.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment except for one tiny little point.
I can think of exactly 1 good, mayhaps excellent use for Bitcoin or some other similar project, that being international trade and settlement, in place of something like SWIFT. Given that the nature of settling in gold requires that all parties involved in transporting have to be some degree of trustworthy, the nature of BTC's technology requiring very little trust to operate for both parties might be very attractive.
The technology behind digital currency, or NFTs, etc. can be used for all sorts of cool stuff, but that doesn't give it value because it takes nothing to make it do that work. Besides, other similar techs are better suited than bitcoin for all those projects, and again, they take very nearly zero resources to make it happen.
My point is would be that some BTC-like currency might be a good middleman for settle things in. You would only be using it as a stop between 2 differing currencies, and likely wouldn't have much exposure beyond the time it would take to swap back out.
Think like how companies might end up swapping from CAD to USD, and then from USD to Euros to pay their European supplier from their Canandian business' profits. It matters less that the USD has real value, and more that everyone involved is ok with USD, it's quick to liquidate once done, and is relatively quick to settle.
Bitcoin might not be the best for the job, but it certainly checks off a lot of the boxes.
I completely agree with you and I understand your point. My point was that this "use" doesn't give it value, because the resources don't actually get used up on the transaction. It is a potentially useful bookkeeping tool.
I say that because the use you suggest, and other uses for the technology are often suggested as "intrinsic value," justifying investment. Such uses DO give it value, but the value is so small it is effectively zero and will never increase.
I didn't think that you were suggesting that it would give them value as an investment. I was merely commenting on the fact that these uses don't do so, because so many people (who are invested in it) are confused about that.
Scarcity = value, and in any world where things are so bad we've fallen back to a materials physical properties to exclusively assign value, we'll have problems way worse than BTC losing worth. As long as civilization and the internet stands, BTC will always be considered to have value as only a limited supply exists, and people want in on that, regardless of any reductionist points that illustrate it's vulnerabilities.
None of the gold bars sitting in vaults are getting melted down to make electronics and jewelry. It's a method of storing value based on a multitude of human nature factors, as is BTC. Both have limited supply and attrition - industrial usage for gold, and permanent loss of wallets for BTC. It's a lot more complex than 'haha imaginary numbers, how stupid'.
The concept of 'actual value' being zero is correct, but to get to that point so many things need to utterly collapse, it's a meaningless point to make in the context of a society that will realistically continue on for the moment. That may well change, but until then it's ridiculous to write it off.
Oil is fundamentally worthless beyond a certain point of collapse if we forget how to make combustion engines and plastics. Uranium is worthless if we lose nuclear technology.
Gold just happens to be one of the lowest levels of collapse proof, because as you rightly pointed out it's shiny and pretty to look at. All the other uses came much, much later. Status symbol was first. BTC is exclusive and pretty to look at on a screen, so as long as screens are here, that desire will remain and there's nothing you can do about it. To deny this fact is to deny human nature, and the foundational attraction to gold.
In order to understand why people who are "experts" do what they do, or why they might act contrary to the truth for the purposes of social manipulation, you need to understand that controlled opposition is everywhere.
A place to begin for that exposure is my report on the singular corporation that exists, and the single body of people who run it.