Gold is shiny pebbles people are willing to pay money for. Crypto is spreadsheet cells people are willing to pay money for. Well, some amount of money -- mostly Tether though, which is likely in turn backed by the same crypto lol. It's really an open question just how much new real money is flowing into crypto.

It's all pretty clear in the settlement Tether signed [1]. Particular note are #17, #20, #36, #43-46

[1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlemen...

I don't know what the point of your comment is.

There is a need to have a medium of exchange for trade. Barter has its limitations. For all of history, people have created new forms of money for exchange. The primary characteristics you would need is scarcity, clear ownership, transferability and fungibility. Gold serves this purpose, and Bitcoin even more so.

The fact that gold is a shiny pebble is not adding anything meaningful to the conversation.

Neither gold nor bitcoin are particularly good for the purpose you are suggesting -- that's why gold was replaced with fiat currency. Because fiat currency was better. Bitcoin chasing after gold's position is unfortunate because of course, fiat is better than gold.

The characteristics you need for a medium of exchange are:

- fungibility.

- the ability to hold its value for exactly as long as you need to hold onto it. Any longer than that is a non-goal.

- stability/predictibility.

- the ability to adjust to shocks, and a changing population.

- low cost of transactibility.

Scarcity is a non-goal. Clear ownership is a non-goal except in as much as possession is 9/10th of the law.

Basically none of these apply to gold, and basically none of these apply to bitcoin. That's why nobody uses it as such.

The first use of gold as an exchange was 550 BC.

Our fiat money has been around since the 1970s with staggering blowups

Come back to me on 2500 years and we'll see who has the better track record.

Generally speaking we don't need to wait as long as the previous iteration existed to prove the new generation is successful.

For instance, I think it's fair to say e-mail is a success, even though the first postal system was established under Cryus the Great in 550 BCE in Persia. The first e-mail was sent in 1971. Are you saying we won't be able to declare victory on e-mail until the year 4492?

You are right! So I should invest in emails right? I'm sure emails will get more valuable as time goes on.

A useful currency is not one which increases in value.

Well I hear "bitcoin is TCP/IP" and for some reason people are trying to buy that lol, so can't lose.

Sure. I think people will be sending physical mail to each other longer than using pop3 smtp and imap

Obviously. However, that doesn't mean email isn't trivially an improvement lol. And it certainly doesn't mean we need to wait two thousand years to make that claim. C'mon now, that's patently ridiculous.

If you owned all the gold, people would still want to buy gold. If you owned all the Bitcoin, nobody would want to buy Bitcoin. The only value stored is the network of people pumping it, and the only question is how long it’ll take them to move on to the next thing.

> The fact that gold is a shiny pebble is not adding anything meaningful to the conversation.

Not the parent's argument, but TECHNICALLY speaking Gold as a shiny pebble can be used for jewelry, wiring, etc. It TECHNICALLY has utility.

Bitcoin has no inherent utility. ETH (and derivatives) on the other hand can power a smart contract which actual real business value, but the fact that it has a currency associated to it is generally meaningless.

yay, now it's at the whims of connectivity to a global computer network and cheap energy (not only in the past, but also in the future).