4 ms·

> Gold does not take the electricity resources of a large country to render it secure and make transactions possible. Except it does [0]. > Gold is pretty to

> Gold does not take the electricity resources of a large country to render it secure and make transactions possible. Except it does [0]. > Gold is pretty to look at and can be made into jewellery, not intrinsically worthless. The first argument is laughable, the second is simply incorrect. Oil is intrinsically worthless. It's worth something only if you can turn it into fuel, plastic or some other product for which there is demand. Same goes for gold. And although it's true that you can turn a piece of gold into a piece of jewelry that piece of jewelry will decrease in value over time unless it gains intangible value because of its history. Try buying a gold necklace and selling it the next day at the same value. Nothing has "intrinsic" value. All value is relative. [0] https://medium.com/@hillpot/bitcoin-vs-gold-which-hurts-the-environment-more-75193863dfb6#:~:text=(1)%20Gold%20Mining%20Requires%20More%20Energy%20Dollar%2Dfor%2DDollar&text=The%20bitcoin%20network's%20global%20power,132%20terawatt%2Dhours%20per%20year https://medium.com/@hillpot/bitcoin-vs-gold-which-hurts-the-....

maclured 6y ago
> Oil is ... worth something only if you can turn it into fuel, plastic or some other product for which there is demand. Same goes for gold. You clearly don't understand what "intrinsic value" means if you believe this. The very fact it can be fabricated into something of value gives it some intrinsic value.
- iexplainbtc 6y ago
  > The very fact it can be fabricated into something of value gives it some intrinsic value. That's a plain contradiction. Oil is valuable because there is demand for products manufactured with it. In a world where there's no demand for gasoline, plastic or any other derivative of oil the "intrinsic value" of oil is zero, which proves there is no such thing as intrinsic value that isn't relative to a market. Just to be clear we're discussing commodities and not company stocks, for which there is a very specific definition of "intrinsic value", according to fundamental analysis at least. I'm pretty sure you're the one who's confused, but ok.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please omit personal swipes from your comments, and please don't post in the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - iexplainbtc 6y ago
      Apologies @maclured. Thank you @dang!
- dang 6y ago
  Please omit personal swipes from your comments, and please don't post in the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
notahacker 6y ago
> Except it does [0]. That energy is used in production, not securing the existing stock of gold. With the very significant consequence for gold's "store of value" role that if environmental activists succeed in curtailing gold mining, gold owners would see their gold go up in value, not transactions becoming incredibly difficult and prone to fraud and a price crash. (But FWIW I'm not saying that gold mining to use as a "store of value" isn't also wasteful) > It's worth something only if you can turn it into fuel, plastic or some other product for which there is demand. Same goes for gold. I'm sorry to hear you find the aesthetic preferences of virtually every culture in history and the role they have played in promoting gold as a symbol of wealth laughable. You'd be surprised how much harder it is to enthuse them about the aesthetic properties of Bitcoins though. And no, oil or gold is not "intrinsically worthless" because it is possible to use oil or gold for purposes other than exchange, and thus people value them for those use cases independently of beliefs about their future price. > And although it's true that you can turn a piece of gold into a piece of jewelry that piece of jewelry will decrease in value over time unless it gains intangible value because of its history. Try buying a gold necklace and selling it the next day at the same value. And yet gold necklaces of a given design are invariably more scarce in supply than Bitcoin! Almost like the demand side of the equation actually matters! Luckily, people do not buy gold necklaces solely because they believe gold necklaces will go up in price, and are not motivated to sell them as soon as they fear the price will fall in future. The same does not apply to Bitcoins, because unlike Bitcoins, people hold necklaces for the intrinsic pleasure of having a shiny necklace.
- iexplainbtc 6y ago
  > That energy is used in production, not securing the existing stock of gold. Safes and transportation equipment have to be built too. And we already have layer 2 infrastructure that minimizes the amount of energy spent to secure transactions on chain. It needs a lot of work, sure, but it's not unfeasible for Bitcoin to use a fraction of the energy used today, at some point. Furthermore mining gold requires mining equipment to use whatever source of energy is nearby or ship expensive tanks of fuel and/or batteries. With Bitcoin you could set up a mining rig where there's a source of energy that would otherwise be left unused. Meaning we could be using a lot of renewable resources that would otherwise be wasted to create and exchange value. > I'm sorry to hear you find the aesthetic preferences of virtually every culture in history and the role they have played in promoting gold as a symbol of wealth laughable. I don't and you took what I said out of context. Of course aesthetic properties are important. But quartz is arguably "prettier" than gold in most cultures. Gold is scarcer. That's why only considering the aesthetics is laughable. > And yet gold necklaces of a given design are invariably more scarce in supply than Bitcoin! Gold necklaces of a certain brand. Not any custom designed necklace. It's an important distinction. A brand is a very real and important source of intangible value. And a brand can be related to a company's IP or to other less predictable events (think Banksy). > because unlike Bitcoins, people hold necklaces for the intrinsic pleasure of having a shiny necklace. You seem to be unaware of how many people hold Bitcoin just because they like doing so (think GME and WSB). A strong niche of Bitcoin holders has ties with libertarianism and, therefore, attributes a non-zero intangible value to it in terms of it being an instrument against totalitarianism and governments in general.

maclured 6y ago

> Oil is ... worth something only if you can turn it into fuel, plastic or some other product for which there is demand. Same goes for gold. You clearly don't understand what "intrinsic value" means if you believe this. The very fact it can be fabricated into something of value gives it some intrinsic value.

iexplainbtc 6y ago
> The very fact it can be fabricated into something of value gives it some intrinsic value. That's a plain contradiction. Oil is valuable because there is demand for products manufactured with it. In a world where there's no demand for gasoline, plastic or any other derivative of oil the "intrinsic value" of oil is zero, which proves there is no such thing as intrinsic value that isn't relative to a market. Just to be clear we're discussing commodities and not company stocks, for which there is a very specific definition of "intrinsic value", according to fundamental analysis at least. I'm pretty sure you're the one who's confused, but ok.
- dang 6y ago
  Please omit personal swipes from your comments, and please don't post in the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - iexplainbtc 6y ago
    Apologies @maclured. Thank you @dang!
dang 6y ago
Please omit personal swipes from your comments, and please don't post in the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

notahacker 6y ago

> Except it does [0]. That energy is used in production, not securing the existing stock of gold. With the very significant consequence for gold's "store of value" role that if environmental activists succeed in curtailing gold mining, gold owners would see their gold go up in value, not transactions becoming incredibly difficult and prone to fraud and a price crash. (But FWIW I'm not saying that gold mining to use as a "store of value" isn't also wasteful) > It's worth something only if you can turn it into fuel, plastic or some other product for which there is demand. Same goes for gold. I'm sorry to hear you find the aesthetic preferences of virtually every culture in history and the role they have played in promoting gold as a symbol of wealth laughable. You'd be surprised how much harder it is to enthuse them about the aesthetic properties of Bitcoins though. And no, oil or gold is not "intrinsically worthless" because it is possible to use oil or gold for purposes other than exchange, and thus people value them for those use cases independently of beliefs about their future price. > And although it's true that you can turn a piece of gold into a piece of jewelry that piece of jewelry will decrease in value over time unless it gains intangible value because of its history. Try buying a gold necklace and selling it the next day at the same value. And yet gold necklaces of a given design are invariably more scarce in supply than Bitcoin! Almost like the demand side of the equation actually matters! Luckily, people do not buy gold necklaces solely because they believe gold necklaces will go up in price, and are not motivated to sell them as soon as they fear the price will fall in future. The same does not apply to Bitcoins, because unlike Bitcoins, people hold necklaces for the intrinsic pleasure of having a shiny necklace.

iexplainbtc 6y ago
> That energy is used in production, not securing the existing stock of gold. Safes and transportation equipment have to be built too. And we already have layer 2 infrastructure that minimizes the amount of energy spent to secure transactions on chain. It needs a lot of work, sure, but it's not unfeasible for Bitcoin to use a fraction of the energy used today, at some point. Furthermore mining gold requires mining equipment to use whatever source of energy is nearby or ship expensive tanks of fuel and/or batteries. With Bitcoin you could set up a mining rig where there's a source of energy that would otherwise be left unused. Meaning we could be using a lot of renewable resources that would otherwise be wasted to create and exchange value. > I'm sorry to hear you find the aesthetic preferences of virtually every culture in history and the role they have played in promoting gold as a symbol of wealth laughable. I don't and you took what I said out of context. Of course aesthetic properties are important. But quartz is arguably "prettier" than gold in most cultures. Gold is scarcer. That's why only considering the aesthetics is laughable. > And yet gold necklaces of a given design are invariably more scarce in supply than Bitcoin! Gold necklaces of a certain brand. Not any custom designed necklace. It's an important distinction. A brand is a very real and important source of intangible value. And a brand can be related to a company's IP or to other less predictable events (think Banksy). > because unlike Bitcoins, people hold necklaces for the intrinsic pleasure of having a shiny necklace. You seem to be unaware of how many people hold Bitcoin just because they like doing so (think GME and WSB). A strong niche of Bitcoin holders has ties with libertarianism and, therefore, attributes a non-zero intangible value to it in terms of it being an instrument against totalitarianism and governments in general.