[andrewmcwatters]

The difference to me is that gold is a precious metal with finite tangible volume. It can be used to create goods. So, there’s value there.

But Bitcoin was designed to be a currency. Certainly the software is worth something. Or maybe nothing really. Look at other FOSS.

As far as a currency goes though? I don’t want my currency to fluctuate.

The idea of bargaining with an employer or client to pay me “more” this week versus last because the value of the currency dropped 11% is ridiculous.

Bitcoin is dead on arrival because it’s design doesn’t evade the central banking problem. A currency cannot have a limited supply when value as a production of labor is not limited.

[shawnz]

The intrinsic value of gold (i e. for jewellery/electronics uses) seems likely to be much less than the current market value of gold. So I don't think those limited use cases are a good explanation for gold's value.

Also, Bitcoin was not necessarily designed to replace every fiat currency for every single everyday spending use case and it's a strawman to imply that if it can't do then it's "dead on arrival". There are plenty of important possible use cases which don't presuppose the collapse of all fiat currencies.

Finally we don't really know the volatility of Bitcoin in the long term. It hasn't existed long enough. Looking at the price behavior in the first decade of its existence is not likely to give you a promising picture of any new asset class.