[Andrew_nenakhov]

I was answering to a person who said that RUB lost half of its value against USD in a span of a year. I just pointed that it is a part of a general trend, what do you find ridiculous about that?

Btw, 'a trillion times' is an understatement. Exact figure in 2014 was... 57 460 000 000 000 000 (fifty seven quadrillion four hundred and sixty trillion) times [1], and just add some more since that time. Still thinking that bitcoin is a risky currency, huh?

[1]: https://zhartun.me/2014/12/usd.html

[arcticbull]

Yes of course it's the risky investment. BTC has seen 3 drawdowns of -86% in the last couple of years, and also, what happened to XRP shows that the football can be deflated in seconds with the right SEC memo.

Currency isn't an investment. Currency has never been an investment. You're not supposed to hold currency. You're supposed to use currency to buy assets. A spot exchange rate means absolutely nothing. This is ECON-101.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Is gold an asset or a currency? Now it is definitely the former, but throughout history it was mostly an asset and a currency, with rather vague lines between them.

Bitcoin is not a USD replacement. It's more of a gold replacement: finite supply, great malleability, but with modern benefits regarding storage and transfer.

[arcticbull]

> Bitcoin is not a USD replacement. It's more of a gold replacement: finite supply, great malleability, but with modern benefits regarding storage and transfer.

This is an opinion that Bitcoin advocates throw out every time someone criticizes Bitcoin's ability to be a currency. As soon as someone criticizes its ability to be an asset, someone trots out that its actually been a currency this whole time. It's bad at both.

It's bad at both in no small part because it tries to bring back the asset-backed currency approach, which was dreadful last time around, and that's why it was ended.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> This is an opinion that Bitcoin advocates throw out every time someone criticizes Bitcoin's ability to be a currency.

This 'opinion' comparing Bitcoin properties to Gold appeared before Bitcoin antagonists appeared. It is part of a design.

[arcticbull]

The white paper is literally titled “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” and the first line of the abstract states “ A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.”

For this purpose it is abjectly poorly suited.

Neither the word “gold” nor “store of value” nor anything else of the sort appear in the abstract.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Well, I have read said whitepaper, but thanks for reciting it once again.

I have also read an extremely early mailing lists that appeared long before bitcoin started to get derided by critics like you, and guess what, it was those comparisson I'm referring to. And since you started reciting old texts, i'll go for it too.

Gold and Bitcoin are very similar in all their properties regarding use it as a wealth storage and transfer, with two stark differences: unlike Bitcoin, gold can be used to create physical objects. Like, a ring. Unlike gold, Bitcoin can be near-instantly transferred to another person. Everything else is irrelevant. Gold is valued not because it has some inherent value in it, the price depends only on belief that it has value. Same with bitcoin.