Comment: I hear what you're saying

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: there are plenty of things (see in situ)

I hear what you're saying

I hear what you are saying.

As far as metals go, I would say it has FAR FEWER industrial uses than most. (Maybe we should trade silicon instead??) And since its appearance is subjective, I fail to see how its appearance could contribute to it's "universal currency" status.

So basically what you are saying is that gold is valuable to people as a currency because it has properties are looking for in a currency. Durability. Scarcity. Infinitely divisible. Transportable. I don't disagree with you at all. I don't think gold is bad, and like many others here, I think it's smart to have some.


Bitcoin has all these same traits, plus some advantages over gold. Not only is it infinitely divisible, but it's more practical to use in small divisions over, say, gold shavings. Not only is Bitcoin transportable, but it's transportable at the speed of light via a TCP/IP connection, if you can manage to find one anywhere (sarcasm). Bitcoins cannot be destroyed... or smelted into other crypto-currencies. Bitcoins will never exceed 21 Million units, whereas gold is still being mined today, and could potentially be synthesized in a lab, once we figure out that whole "fusion" thing.

So basically what I'm saying is that the same things that make gold an excellent currency ALSO make Bitcoin an excellent currency... perhaps even more excellent than gold, but time will be the test of that.