Interesting. What are the economics arguments for Bitcoin replacing gold? Does the “ease of transaction” of Bitcoin provide an implicit value over gold and is that factored into the price of Bitcoin as maybe a fixed value?
> Does the “ease of transaction” of Bitcoin provide an implicit value over gold...
I know this doesn't answer your question but it's still relevant. Currently Bitcoin is the most expensive, least convenient currency available. According to estimatefee.com it would take about a $25 fee in order to get your transaction through in an hour.
My point is that nothing about Bitcoin will ever really be "implicit" like it is with gold. Gold exists as it exists, cryptocurrencies only have the properties that are created by the developers, and/or are run on machines by participants in the network. In Bitcoin's case, the developers and the network have not been able to handle the load of all the transactions.
I used to be in the "Bitcoin is the new gold" camp. But after seeing what's happened with Bitcoin, I'm certain it's not that simple.
Should the slowed clearing rate actually reduce the value? Increased perceived value driving the price up / speculation actually causing a drop in value due to the system underlying Bitcoin?)
Gold is just non-scalable and is bound to die eventually. If you think about it, if you're going to start a new country and a new federal reserve, how much sense does it make to ship tons of gold to Mars for example?
Any store of value that makes sense for humanity in the long term has to be both digital and reflect the work/real value creation process that matters in the future. I'm not sure it's going to be bitcoin but it's definitely not gold.
