2 ms·

I didn’t call it the future of money. Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role B

I didn’t call it the future of money. Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role BTC plays specifically.

lottin 5y ago
Gold isn't particularly attractive as a store of value. Historically it's lost value over long periods (see [1]). And bitcoin is likely to do worse than gold, because it's a purely virtual asset that relies entirely on a particular technology, and therefore is liable to become obsolescent eventually. [1] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_581,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a0...
- gonehome 5y ago
  I’m assuming good faith, but I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring and redirecting away to prove some existing conclusion. We’re talking about advantages and capabilities - specifically granted by crypto of which self-custody is a prerequisite (yes technically true of stock, but not indexes and not as comparable). Within that context it has advantages over other options and more capabilities. I’m not pretending it’s better at everything or it should be 100% of your holdings or anything like that, but it is better at some things and the new capabilities it provides are interesting and valuable. That chart is a limited slice of time. The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t really matter what you (or I) think, the market will play it out. I suspect you’re probably wrong, but we’ll see.
  - lottin 5y ago
    A "limited slice of time" comprising of the last 200 years. It provides pretty damning evidence against gold (and by extension against virtual commodities that are purported to be gold-like).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - gonehome 5y ago
      200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago). Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point. There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.
      - lottin 5y ago
        200 years is a lot. To put it in perspective, the Industrial Revolution started 250 years ago in England. But feel free to disagree, of course. The evidence doesn't care if you don't agree with it. It's still there, for everyone to see.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Took me a bit to realize you are the same account from the last thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271) You have a clear motivated reasoning bias (crypto = bad and useless) paired without understanding the basics of how crypto works. You don’t have conversations with people, you just ignore details that disagree with your pre-existing conclusion and focus on digressions you think prove your point (typically against a strawman argument I’m not making). Your submissions betray this bias too. Crypto (and conversation) is more interesting when considering the nuanced bits even if it may disagree with “your side”. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... You’re right about one thing though, the evidence is there for people to see.
        lottin 5y ago
        Why don't you address the arguments themselves, instead of attempting to discredit them by attacking the person who made them? That isn't exactly arguing in good faith, to use your own words.

I didn’t call it the future of money. Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role BTC plays specifically.

lottin 5y ago

Gold isn't particularly attractive as a store of value. Historically it's lost value over long periods (see [1]). And bitcoin is likely to do worse than gold, because it's a purely virtual asset that relies entirely on a particular technology, and therefore is liable to become obsolescent eventually. [1] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_581,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a0...

gonehome 5y ago
I’m assuming good faith, but I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring and redirecting away to prove some existing conclusion. We’re talking about advantages and capabilities - specifically granted by crypto of which self-custody is a prerequisite (yes technically true of stock, but not indexes and not as comparable). Within that context it has advantages over other options and more capabilities. I’m not pretending it’s better at everything or it should be 100% of your holdings or anything like that, but it is better at some things and the new capabilities it provides are interesting and valuable. That chart is a limited slice of time. The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t really matter what you (or I) think, the market will play it out. I suspect you’re probably wrong, but we’ll see.
- lottin 5y ago
  A "limited slice of time" comprising of the last 200 years. It provides pretty damning evidence against gold (and by extension against virtual commodities that are purported to be gold-like).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonehome 5y ago
    200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago). Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point. There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.
    - lottin 5y ago
      200 years is a lot. To put it in perspective, the Industrial Revolution started 250 years ago in England. But feel free to disagree, of course. The evidence doesn't care if you don't agree with it. It's still there, for everyone to see.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        Took me a bit to realize you are the same account from the last thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271) You have a clear motivated reasoning bias (crypto = bad and useless) paired without understanding the basics of how crypto works. You don’t have conversations with people, you just ignore details that disagree with your pre-existing conclusion and focus on digressions you think prove your point (typically against a strawman argument I’m not making). Your submissions betray this bias too. Crypto (and conversation) is more interesting when considering the nuanced bits even if it may disagree with “your side”. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... You’re right about one thing though, the evidence is there for people to see.
        lottin 5y ago
        Why don't you address the arguments themselves, instead of attempting to discredit them by attacking the person who made them? That isn't exactly arguing in good faith, to use your own words.