73 Reds

And with that thought in mind, the US government would be much better off with the backing of Berkshire.

Perhaps, but don't we all question the true value of Central banks? IMO gold is symbolic of what was considered important in times gone by rather than what is necessary today.

I think the answer is there is no driving need to replace gold because it is really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Gold goes back to biblical times. But when you consider what is truly important in life, evolution and prosperity, how does it measure up? To me gold does have a lot in common with BTC in the types of owners they attract. They both share an aura of being valuable but when really considering the issue, precisely for what? Neither is remotely necessary for survival, existence, or success and they both are easily replaceable.

Sure. Your air of supremacy is only exceeded by my amusement with it!

Well, as someone who enjoys work much more than retirement, the less assumptions and predictions necessary, the more reliable the results. Businesses with long, successful histories may ultimately fail, but their failures will happen over long enough periods of time so you have time to exit and you don't get badly hurt. Otherwise, the only assumptions/predictions you have to make is that history repeats itself and they continue to do what they've always done.

@James22 I like you but that might be the second silliest post I've read here.

All true. Yet assets on the balance sheet are not speculative - they exist and like anything else, their precise values may change over time. Most going concerns own cash - neither speculative nor difficult to value. Key employees prove their mettle and in most public companies, succession planning exists. As a fellow stock holder, you know the difference between speculating in stocks and speculating in BTC; its all a matter of degree.

You deserve credit for the expansive reply (really!). But dividends are not speculative. Neither are distributions. Neither is an income stream, intangible property rights, inventory, real property, ecosystems, key employees, etc..., etc... These factors differentiate our respective definitions of "speculation".

No bank or financial institution that I do business with accepts BTC for any purpose. And do you really want to risk a margin call on your deposit? The issue is speculation which is what BTC is, and forever will be in its present iteration. The difference between you and me is I'm not here telling everyone (or anyone) not to own it; just recognize it for what it is, and isn't. You, however are telling everyone they must own it or be poor. Perhaps the silliest comment ever posted here - which says a lot.

I don't agree with your premise that gold is the standard of value for all humanity. The World and humanity would do just fine if gold never existed.

Its a rather simple question. And you think I'm wrong. I get it.

Nah, they tout BTC as a "currency", "store of value" (whatever that means), "gold substitute", or the like. Again, in the real world anything used as a means of exchange for trade or commerce has to be sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose, regardless of time frame. Your question regarding locking up wealth applies more to you, as an investor and your willingness to speculate, rather than the bigger picture where BTC replaces fiat currencies, which is what BTC proponents are counting on.

When you leave fantasy land and return to the real world, I'll ask you the same question I posted yesterday: If you needed $XXX for a major project/acquisition 6 months down the road, would you be more comfortable holding T bills or BTC? If you work for just about any company in existence, one answer allows you to keep your job.

Yeah, it's really simple; when a company prioritizes anything but profits it becomes a worse investment.

Most for-profit companies don't hoard cash/fiat currencies. They either use it or distribute it to shareholders/owners who decide what to do with it. I don't believe inflation has much of an effect on working capital. Question: if you needed $XXX for a major project/acquisition 6 months down the road, would you be more comfortable holding T bills or BTC?

No; going concerns will benefit from blockchain technology. In fact they already do. That's the distinction.

@James you want to put words in my mouth. Just read the words I wrote. The internet was quickly adoped and has tremendous value but neither I, nor anyone else owns it. Going concerns (i.e. businesses) can use it to generate profits. Otherwise, we're going in circles. Not telling you or anyone what to own, or why. Just stating my opinion. Cheers!

The internet was adopted quickly. No one owns it and everyone uses it. Going concerns grew more profitable because of it.

Certainly technologies like Blockchain, AI, Quantum, etc.. all seem to have amazing uses and future value. IMO an artificial currency is not one of them.

For me the issue boils down to a simple premise: The dollar is a contractual, legal obligation by the issuer as to the note holder. BTC's value is subject to the whim of the last greater fool. I have far more faith in the former than the latter. There are also far better ways to hedge against inflation than BTC. The five or ten of you on this Board who disagree are clearly entitled to your opinions.

if fiat had zero inflation, for many folks savings would just be money in checking/savings account. The productivity increase alone will give them comfortable retirement. You write of BTC as if it has no risks and is the perfect solution to whatever issues you believe it resolves. On this we disagree.

I don't need to repeat the difference between a going concern and BTC.

BTC does not have an exclusive on what you deem a protocol. You're right about circular discussions.

@Viking thanks for the candid reply. We all should invest based on our own perceptions of what affects our investments. We all (myself included) post and react to tiny snippets in the form of posts of what is undoubtedly a much more expansive view of each poster on such issues. Personally, I have not, and don't plan to change anything based on what has thus far transpired. My outlook is considerably more optimistic than yours, particularly in the long term which is what drives anything I own for investment purposes. But like you, I believe there will be some excellent opportunities to deploy capital at much better prices in the near term. A balanced approach seems quite sensible.