This is another common misconception: that the value of Bitcoin/gold is *purely* social. A big part of it is social, but to get there, the monetary asset needs to have the required properties first. Most importantly, unforgeable costliness. Other reqs exist such as portability.https://twitter.com/belowsearcher/status/1046486502954463237 …
-
-
"I don’t get the gold comparison; gold is scarce, but energy isn’t." There isn't some KWH/bitcoin relationship if that was what was implied. - Difficulty adjustment ensures *steady* supply - Distributed hash power ensures *fixed* supply
-
Not sure if that’s directed at me?
that quoted comment is someone else’s not mine. Also, difficulty adjustment only ensures steady supply in the subsidy era, it doesn’t do anything to the supply in post-subsidy era.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hmm maybe I misinterpreted this part of your first tweet. If I understand correctly, you’re comparing Bitcoin to gold because both consume a lot of energy to gather - is that correct? If so, isn’t it more logical to compare Bitcoin to gold based on their limited/finite supplies?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
