Re:I, Token: The untold story of the hole in Bitcoin's heart
by dsr_ on Saturday July 31, 2021 @06:32PM
(#28022068)
The intrinsic value of gold is its usefulness in electronics and jewelry. The same for silver and other natural resources: the cost to dig them out of the ground or grow them, process them and bring them to where you want them to be is exceeded by their economic usefulness.
The intrinsic value of a bitcoin is zero, and the cost of production is about 1.7 megawatt-hours.
Re:I, Token: The untold story of the hole in Bitcoin's heart
by jrm4 on Saturday July 31, 2021 @10:19PM
(#28023224)
Not electronics, historically, obviously. But this is important.
Gold became "gold" not because it was "useful" -- but almost precisely because it "wasn't." It was shiny, pretty, and scarce, and also NOT GOOD for tools. Its rise as a symbolic store of value is likely directly attributable to its lack of intrinsic value.
Re:I, Token: The untold story of the hole in Bitcoin's heart
by dsr_ on Sunday August 01, 2021 @07:01PM
(#28031036)
Iron pyrite is also shiny and pretty, and if it's not as rare as gold, it's still very pretty.
But nobody used iron pyrite for jewelry, much, because it's neither malleable nor ductile -- properties which make gold useful for wire and leaf, and later turn out to be important for electronics, too.
Re:I, Token: The untold story of the hole in Bitcoin's heart
by fuzzybear3965 on Saturday July 31, 2021 @06:36PM
(#28022092)
Apparently the fair value of gold when considering the manufacturing value is less than a hundred dollars an ounce. Other demand (store of value) drives the price up.
I think he's correctly pointing out a very human barrier to adoption. There's, for example, a reasonable argument that bitcoin might be like gold -- really valuable, but perhaps not as moveable as a currency. What the author is pointing out is that gold is different because it's shiny and pretty and you can shape into things -- and like it or not, that MEANS something, even if that something isn't easily captured in a rigorous (nerdy?) economic analysis.
I think the author would agree that it's too early to tell if the above "something" is a deal-killer or not, but it is certainly significant.