Quote from: justusranvier on December 30, 2014, 05:54:01 PM

Quote from: adam3us on December 30, 2014, 11:21:14 AM

If nothing else for those who view bitcoin as gold2.0 (and I do myself)

What exactly do you mean by "gold2.0"

If by that you're talking about some kind of rarely-moving thing that acts as a store of value without being a medium of exchange, then what you want is impossible and trying to make it happen will destroy Bitcoin.

Yeah no axe to grind, or hidden motive, I just mean a better gold because its electronically transferable, instantly assayable, harder to seize. There was a famous economist who commented that bitcoin in his view ought to longer term start to track gold price because they fulfil potentially similar functions, and bitcoin is better in multiple areas.

I was inferring from cypherdocs earlier rejection of change (to eg support more tx/sec or other features that an extension mechanism would allow) that he prefers even the hoarding/large investor with few transactions type of bitcoin use over actual trade.

Thats also why I forwarded the link to David Krawisz's article as he argues that it is investors that drive network effect, and trade is following; rather than value driven by trade.

Another alternative future is where an altcoin grows due to offering easier extensibility than bitcoin. That maybe moderately unlikely given bitcoins network effect and huge lead, but its perhaps a risk. I think those are the main things to consider in a tradeoff analysis.

Adam

ps I edited the subject field. Actually I am not sure why this is in the "gold up" thread.