[ericb]

Most of the "value" of gold is by arbitrary societal agreement--there is very low natural use-driven demand compared to the froth from people using it as a store of value. That agreement, in a game theory sense, comes from the original time when participants coalesced around gold because it had the properties that seemed most appealing (limited supply, difficult to fake, measurable, transportable) as a store of value or currency.

Whatever alternatives may arise, the one that will be "most valuable" is the one that everyone thinks everyone else will want.

[MarcusBrutus]

Scarcity, fungibility, divisibility, durability are not societal constructs. Plus all metals have some inherent value. On top of that you have desirability which you could perhaps explain as a societal construct although I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche about valuing very smooth and shiny things (perhaps there is even an evolutionary explanation). At any rate a societal construct that has persisted for milenia across vast swathes of the globe is not your typical societal construct.

[ericb]

> a societal construct that has persisted for milenia across vast swathes of the globe is not your typical societal construct.

For sure, but until now, gold has not faced an alternative that beat it on a number of objective measures (portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability) so now we get to see the experimental result of what happens over time when there's an alternative that better meets the core use-cases that made it a good choice to a store of value.

Bitcoins have a base level of desirability even without currency use. They offer the ability to write (transact) on a public globally distributed time stamped, unforgeable verified data store.

The blockchain's a perfect place to store the hash of a document, for example, to prove it's existence as of a certain date.

[edblarney]

However much that is true - gold is still a physical product, impossible to reproduce, has some utility, it's a luxury item, and it has been established as a 'currency' for the last 5000 years. Which is a long time.

So aside from some nice properties, it's like the 'original bitcoin'. We really don't need another.

[dmichulke]

> So aside from some nice properties, it's like the 'original bitcoin'.

Plus you can buy it in China and sell it in Brazil all within 30 minutes.

> We really don't need another

You are saying that you don't need another. But, among others, a million Chinese do and beg to differ here.

[hugozap]

Gold divisibility is bad. Same for any other metal. This is one of the advantages of crypto currencies.