4 ms·

"It turns out then, that the reason gold is precious is precisely that it is so chemically uninteresting." - Rare but not too rare - Easily distinguishable fr

"It turns out then, that the reason gold is precious is precisely that it is so chemically uninteresting." - Rare but not too rare - Easily distinguishable from look-alikes (most other precious minerals look like silver) - Soft enough to form into jewelry - Melts readily into coins / etc - Easy enough to mine - Doesn't tarnish (chemically uninteresting) Saved you a click. Here's your facebook post text: "If you were to collect together every earring, every gold sovereign, the tiny traces gold in every computer chip, every pre-Columbian statuette, every wedding ring and melt it down, it's guesstimated that you'd be left with just one 20-metre cube, or thereabouts."

valbaca 6y ago
Interesting there's absolutely no mention of its unique utility in the modern era for computing based on its high conductivity. Copper is good enough for most applications but for where quality matters more than cost, it's irreplaceable, no?
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  Copper is actually more conductive than gold. Gold is only used for contacts because it does not oxidize and that’s the only time it matters if there is an oxidative layer on top of your conductor.
- krustyburger 6y ago
  I have this sudden urge to buy some Monster cables from you.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  It’s not the conductivity that causes us to use gold plated contacts, it’s that gold doesn’t tarnish. Silver is more conductive than copper, but it’s only a few percent. For most applications it’s cheaper to just use a fatter copper wire than to use silver.
blacksmith_tb 6y ago
Just! That's a block of metal the size of a large building, weighing almost 400,000kg.
- MR4D 6y ago
  Did you mean tons instead of kg? 400,000kg is 1/40 of the weight of the main towers of the Golden Gate Bridge (the steel parts). [0] [0] - https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/statistics-data/design-construction-stats/#StructuralSteel https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/statistic...
  - bobby_bob 6y ago
    If you're looking a 20 x 20 x 20 meters of gold (i.e. 8000 cubic meters, not a 20m3 cube) then that's more like 154,000 metric tons. Which Wolfram Alpha helpfully confirms is approximately equal to the mass of all gold ever mined. There is some contention about this value, the World Gold Council posit 197,576 metric tons (and up to 3000 additional tonnes per year) [1], USGS suggest a cube with 28 meter sides, or 244,000 metric tons [2]. 400,000 kg probably comes from 20 cubic meters of gold (386,000 kg). [1] - https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-much-gold https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-... [2] - https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world
injb 6y ago
I've always thought there's one important thing that's always omitted from this list: it's the only thing of it's kind. Yes it's true that we have other metals that kind of have these characteristics, like silver, but there's always some key difference. Eg., there's a lot more silver, so you need a lot more of it than gold for a given value, and it can get pretty bulky. There's simply nothing else quite like gold. There seems to be just the right amount of it. So naturally I applied that reasoning to Bitcoin and concluded that it must be worth nothing in the long run - not because it doesn't tick all the usual boxes for a suitable currency, but because there's no limit to the number potential competitors, all of which tick the same boxes just as effectively. But so far I've been wrong. Really wrong! And I don't know why.
- PeterWhittaker 6y ago
  As have I, but our thoughts may matter less in the grand scheme. Cf https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/aspirational-store-of-value https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/aspirational-..., e.g.
- Jakobeha 6y ago
  Bitcoin does have one advantage: it was the first of its kind. Moreover, any other blockchain currency would have to go through the same value inflation as bitcoin: it makes sense to pick a currency where there are already a lot of coins, so that the price is more stable. If we can come up with a better currency (i.e. one that doesn't waste so much power), then Bitcoin might die. But I don't see it being replaced by some dogecoin, at least anytime soon.
- osacial 6y ago
  What this article is getting wrong is that gold is not used as currency in everyday use. You don't see anyone paying with small sized golden coins for one reason - gold is soft metal, that wears out easily. And gold is very recent currency in the history of humans - it became part of currency(with bunch of other metals), for those societies, that had metallurgy capabilities and could measure and cut metals and exchange them with other people - provided, they saw value in those metals(and valued work that has to be done to extract those metals). Currency by itself is abstract - it does not exist in nature(you can't see it in periodic table) and value is what we agree upon. If we can come to an agreement, that gold must cost something, then we can agree that also bitcoin costs something, as similar to gold, to make and maintain bitcoin, there must be some value put into it. There still exist stone currency in Pacific. They weight heavily - some of them are still used, even if they have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and no one can say if they exist, but people use them and have accepted that they still exist, so they are virtual coins, that are predating bitcoin by millenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones Gold as such means absolutely nothing in modern economy - the main unifying currency is work, that has to be done to generate product. Digging out ore and extracting gold or other metals costs manhours - if the work is done by robots, then they still need to use energy+hours. In the end final product is valued by how much you need to put effort into getting it. Same applies to gold - go and mine gold from contacts of electric appliances and see how much of your time and equipment it is worth.

valbaca 6y ago

Interesting there's absolutely no mention of its unique utility in the modern era for computing based on its high conductivity. Copper is good enough for most applications but for where quality matters more than cost, it's irreplaceable, no?

bananabiscuit 6y ago
Copper is actually more conductive than gold. Gold is only used for contacts because it does not oxidize and that’s the only time it matters if there is an oxidative layer on top of your conductor.
krustyburger 6y ago
I have this sudden urge to buy some Monster cables from you.
parsimo2010 6y ago
It’s not the conductivity that causes us to use gold plated contacts, it’s that gold doesn’t tarnish. Silver is more conductive than copper, but it’s only a few percent. For most applications it’s cheaper to just use a fatter copper wire than to use silver.

blacksmith_tb 6y ago

Just! That's a block of metal the size of a large building, weighing almost 400,000kg.

MR4D 6y ago
Did you mean tons instead of kg? 400,000kg is 1/40 of the weight of the main towers of the Golden Gate Bridge (the steel parts). [0] [0] - https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/statistics-data/design-construction-stats/#StructuralSteel https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/statistic...
- bobby_bob 6y ago
  If you're looking a 20 x 20 x 20 meters of gold (i.e. 8000 cubic meters, not a 20m3 cube) then that's more like 154,000 metric tons. Which Wolfram Alpha helpfully confirms is approximately equal to the mass of all gold ever mined. There is some contention about this value, the World Gold Council posit 197,576 metric tons (and up to 3000 additional tonnes per year) [1], USGS suggest a cube with 28 meter sides, or 244,000 metric tons [2]. 400,000 kg probably comes from 20 cubic meters of gold (386,000 kg). [1] - https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-much-gold https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-... [2] - https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world

injb 6y ago

I've always thought there's one important thing that's always omitted from this list: it's the only thing of it's kind. Yes it's true that we have other metals that kind of have these characteristics, like silver, but there's always some key difference. Eg., there's a lot more silver, so you need a lot more of it than gold for a given value, and it can get pretty bulky. There's simply nothing else quite like gold. There seems to be just the right amount of it. So naturally I applied that reasoning to Bitcoin and concluded that it must be worth nothing in the long run - not because it doesn't tick all the usual boxes for a suitable currency, but because there's no limit to the number potential competitors, all of which tick the same boxes just as effectively. But so far I've been wrong. Really wrong! And I don't know why.

PeterWhittaker 6y ago
As have I, but our thoughts may matter less in the grand scheme. Cf https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/aspirational-store-of-value https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/articles/aspirational-..., e.g.
Jakobeha 6y ago
Bitcoin does have one advantage: it was the first of its kind. Moreover, any other blockchain currency would have to go through the same value inflation as bitcoin: it makes sense to pick a currency where there are already a lot of coins, so that the price is more stable. If we can come up with a better currency (i.e. one that doesn't waste so much power), then Bitcoin might die. But I don't see it being replaced by some dogecoin, at least anytime soon.
osacial 6y ago
What this article is getting wrong is that gold is not used as currency in everyday use. You don't see anyone paying with small sized golden coins for one reason - gold is soft metal, that wears out easily. And gold is very recent currency in the history of humans - it became part of currency(with bunch of other metals), for those societies, that had metallurgy capabilities and could measure and cut metals and exchange them with other people - provided, they saw value in those metals(and valued work that has to be done to extract those metals). Currency by itself is abstract - it does not exist in nature(you can't see it in periodic table) and value is what we agree upon. If we can come to an agreement, that gold must cost something, then we can agree that also bitcoin costs something, as similar to gold, to make and maintain bitcoin, there must be some value put into it. There still exist stone currency in Pacific. They weight heavily - some of them are still used, even if they have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and no one can say if they exist, but people use them and have accepted that they still exist, so they are virtual coins, that are predating bitcoin by millenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones Gold as such means absolutely nothing in modern economy - the main unifying currency is work, that has to be done to generate product. Digging out ore and extracting gold or other metals costs manhours - if the work is done by robots, then they still need to use energy+hours. In the end final product is valued by how much you need to put effort into getting it. Same applies to gold - go and mine gold from contacts of electric appliances and see how much of your time and equipment it is worth.