- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I've noticed that the Bitcoin diehards rarely try to talk shite about Gold anymore
Posted on 1/15/26 at 3:15 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 1/15/26 at 3:15 pm to David_DJS
Global gold discovery rates peaked in the mid-1990s, specifically around 1995–1996. A record number of major deposits were discovered during this time, containing more gold than any decade since.
Exploration spending has hit new highs several times since then, but the actual volume of new gold discovered has steadily declined, with most "new" additions now coming from expanding old mines rather than finding massive new ones.
Overall production has mildly increased since the 90s, but that correlates with economics/rising price/Technology - Which you did allude to.
Production will most likely peak soon as expanded old mines run dry, which will drive price higher as miners are forced to go deeper.
Exploration spending has hit new highs several times since then, but the actual volume of new gold discovered has steadily declined, with most "new" additions now coming from expanding old mines rather than finding massive new ones.
Overall production has mildly increased since the 90s, but that correlates with economics/rising price/Technology - Which you did allude to.
Production will most likely peak soon as expanded old mines run dry, which will drive price higher as miners are forced to go deeper.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 3:33 pm
1
Posted on 1/15/26 at 3:16 pm to Helo
Lol, I am still trying to understand your point. Is your point the future is going to take energy? You think sustaining bitcoin on the network is anymore energy intensive than anything else currently or in the future? If that is the case I don't know what to tell you. The future is coming and coming fast.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 3:24 pm to Helo
quote:I’ve never understood the “don’t use energy” narrative. Doesn’t that create growth in an industry which employs people? Don’t we need more of that?
A quick google search says ~95% so I assume that is correct. This actually makes my point that it is taking an ever larger amount of input to keep the 95% of bitcoins "alive" and mine new ones at the same time. That cost is only going to continue to climb.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:17 pm to FAT SEXY
quote:
Global gold discovery rates peaked in the mid-1990s, specifically around 1995–1996. A record number of major deposits were discovered during this time, containing more gold than any decade since.
That had as much to do with the application of new exploration technology as it did anything else. Moreover, there's semantics involved here - what is meant by "discovery"? Drilled out? But this isn't really my point.
quote:
Production will most likely peak soon as expanded old mines run dry, which will drive price higher as miners are forced to go deeper.
This is my point. You're looking at this statically, and gold mining/the gold market isn't static.
Maybe the quickest way to address this is with a question - don't we need to know what the price of gold will be to project production rates?
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:49 pm to Hitman67
quote:
Lol, I am still trying to understand your point. Is your point the future is going to take energy?
I don't have a point other than discussing differences between Bitcoin and Gold as they relate to ongoing resource usage to exist. Both require resources to create but only one to maintain.
Not sure what you mean by "future".
Globally the demand for power is increasing and recently that has started to accelerate dramatically.
That is unlikely to change anytime soon.
quote:
You think sustaining bitcoin on the network is anymore energy intensive than anything else currently or in the future?
I haven't made any such statement.
But if you want to compare Bitcoin usage to other power usage, a few highlights, (again from Google) says that globally, the Bitcoin network uses 175-240 Terrawatt-hours of electrical which is roughly equal to the entire electrical consumption of Poland. It uses .6-2.3% of total US electrical demand.
175-240 tWH is roughly 30-50% more than the entire aluminum industry uses worldwide.
Is it the most? Certainly not but it does use a notable amount.
As the "future" progresses, it will be interesting to see if some industries deemed more less critical than others will end up being rationed if power production cannot keep up with demand.
quote:
If that is the case I don't know what to tell you. The future is coming and coming fast.
Non-sequitur
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:50 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Maybe the quickest way to address this is with a question - don't we need to know what the price of gold will be to project production rates?
Now that's a fun thought experiment.
It made go off and wonder what the price of Gold would need to be to fully back current U.S. Debt
Debt: 38 Trillion
U.S. Gold Reserves: 261.5 million troy ounces (8,133 metric tons)
Divide 38 Trillion by 261 million and you get: $145,593.87/ounce
I was just curious about the numbers
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:01 pm to FAT SEXY
When were BTC and gold ever opposing assets? Do you mean to say, that gold bugs are now more confident to talk shite about the new kid on the block than 10 years ago because of the current 1yr charts of each? That seems like a more accurate assessment of what you're trying to do here.
I own both, I like both for different reasons.
I also have a hard time taking anyone serious in a crypto talk that brings up 1 of the 2 following points like fresh points that haven't been fleshed out a million times since 2010, it just makes the BTC opponent seem lazy and ignorant to me:
1. What makes it different than any other alt coin, why wont some other coin take over?
You can find this out for yourself in no time flat. My opinion is BTC has unmatched decentralization, security (The energy intensiveness actually plays a huge part in why it's so secure), and is absolutely finite on top of all of that while having massive first mover effects as well including an extremely transparent launch with no premining etc; being first is relevant. There's not even a founder to shape any narratives. In my opinion, and this is where I differ with a lot of cprytonites; how efficient or useful a coin and network are don't matter for "value". Being finite and unfrickable, while being desirable by people are value characteristics to me. I don't care how useful or efficient some random coin is if it's centralized to some extent and someone can just print/make more coins or change the protocol with a subsect of the community. Sure some other crpto can be a useful network, but why does that make the coins worth anything? You don't just sit on cash in your bank account, that would be stupid and it would lose value. There's no other crypto in the same class as BTC.
2. It's never going to be adopted. (whatever this implies, I call it the slidellcajun argument)
While some crypto people might act like this is the end game, it will never be. At best it will be some type of reserve layer or measuring stick. But who cares, I don't go to grocery stores and drop little chips of gold on the counter. That's not a requirement to be desirable, thus valuable. It's not possible to do enough transactions on the network for it to be an everyday currency that replaces everything else.... much in the same way we humans moved away from gold as a currency, because it's ultra inconvenient and does not have good properties for that purpose.
Really any "either or" discussion involving gold and BTC is pointless imo. You can have both in a portfolio, and if BTC bothers someone so much, don't own it. The necessity for some folks to go out and battle BTC indicates insecurity to me. You don't see this same type of behavior anywhere else in the investing world, even GME haters didn't have the staying power anti-BTC folks do; but many assets don't have the prior returns BTC has. I don't believe gold or BTC are going away anytime soon, so I guess we will be reliving this argument for the rest of time. I don't see it as a existential threat to GOLD but apparently GOLD people do. I'll continue to allocate wealth to both assets even though both assets have pro's and con's.
I own both, I like both for different reasons.
I also have a hard time taking anyone serious in a crypto talk that brings up 1 of the 2 following points like fresh points that haven't been fleshed out a million times since 2010, it just makes the BTC opponent seem lazy and ignorant to me:
1. What makes it different than any other alt coin, why wont some other coin take over?
You can find this out for yourself in no time flat. My opinion is BTC has unmatched decentralization, security (The energy intensiveness actually plays a huge part in why it's so secure), and is absolutely finite on top of all of that while having massive first mover effects as well including an extremely transparent launch with no premining etc; being first is relevant. There's not even a founder to shape any narratives. In my opinion, and this is where I differ with a lot of cprytonites; how efficient or useful a coin and network are don't matter for "value". Being finite and unfrickable, while being desirable by people are value characteristics to me. I don't care how useful or efficient some random coin is if it's centralized to some extent and someone can just print/make more coins or change the protocol with a subsect of the community. Sure some other crpto can be a useful network, but why does that make the coins worth anything? You don't just sit on cash in your bank account, that would be stupid and it would lose value. There's no other crypto in the same class as BTC.
2. It's never going to be adopted. (whatever this implies, I call it the slidellcajun argument)
While some crypto people might act like this is the end game, it will never be. At best it will be some type of reserve layer or measuring stick. But who cares, I don't go to grocery stores and drop little chips of gold on the counter. That's not a requirement to be desirable, thus valuable. It's not possible to do enough transactions on the network for it to be an everyday currency that replaces everything else.... much in the same way we humans moved away from gold as a currency, because it's ultra inconvenient and does not have good properties for that purpose.
Really any "either or" discussion involving gold and BTC is pointless imo. You can have both in a portfolio, and if BTC bothers someone so much, don't own it. The necessity for some folks to go out and battle BTC indicates insecurity to me. You don't see this same type of behavior anywhere else in the investing world, even GME haters didn't have the staying power anti-BTC folks do; but many assets don't have the prior returns BTC has. I don't believe gold or BTC are going away anytime soon, so I guess we will be reliving this argument for the rest of time. I don't see it as a existential threat to GOLD but apparently GOLD people do. I'll continue to allocate wealth to both assets even though both assets have pro's and con's.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:21 pm to Pendulum
Bottom Line: Any technology that can be cloned or mimicked isn't truly unique IMO. Hence why I'm not a believer in it.
Americans own 40% of Bitcoin, a lot of that is institutional holdings. Seems like a ripe scenario for a rug pull.
Americans own 40% of Bitcoin, a lot of that is institutional holdings. Seems like a ripe scenario for a rug pull.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:32 pm to FAT SEXY
Well i can agree with that, I would not argue BTC isn't way more susceptible to manipulation or a "rug pull" than Gold if just comparing the 2.
As of today, One asset is more about upside possibilities and the other, gold, is more about down side possibilities. Risk usually tracks with that.
As of today, One asset is more about upside possibilities and the other, gold, is more about down side possibilities. Risk usually tracks with that.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:39 pm to Pendulum
I will admit that the OP was mostly a brash shitepost meant to stir the pot.
In TD Parlance: A Shiny Hook
There was a flood of anti-gold propaganda though around 2020-2023ish, most of which was on Twitter and Reddit, not so much on forums like this.
In TD Parlance: A Shiny Hook
There was a flood of anti-gold propaganda though around 2020-2023ish, most of which was on Twitter and Reddit, not so much on forums like this.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:20 pm to FAT SEXY
quote:
Bitcoin is surrounded by more efficient altcoins. Why would we choose it over the others, or ones yet to be created?
quote:
This is the statement I'm waiting on someone to explain away. There's no logical argument against it other than saying "it was first, so it wins"
Altcoins sacrifice decentralization to achieve “efficiency.” For instance, they might promise faster transactions but do so by reducing the number of nodes or miners controlling the network, allowing a small group—often the founders or wealthy insiders—to capture control and manipulate the system for personal gain.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:45 pm to Pendulum
Its the first time in 15 years they have reason to boast their chest. Let them spike the football a little. We shall see where things stand over time
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:26 pm to Pendulum
quote:I read this and was like “yeah I agree” and then I realized gold has been the subject of a couple famous rug pulls.
Well i can agree with that, I would not argue BTC isn't way more susceptible to manipulation or a "rug pull" than Gold if just comparing the 2.
I love gold but it’s part of the proof of weapons system. It is only as good as the weapons that protect it. You own it until you don’t. Bitcoin is abstract so it can be owned by anyone.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:28 am to beaverfever
quote:
Bitcoin is abstract so it can be owned by anyone.
Gold can’t be owned by anyone?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 10:02 am to SlidellCajun
I think the point he's making is someone can just steal your gold if you are not strong, have a shitty safe, or as he put it nicely, don't have "proof of weapons" (definitely stealing this). However, even if you memorized your keys to your wallet, I bet you start squealing if someone's cutting off your toes. I'm not really sure there's a difference.
Although, it would be way easier to move a significant amount of BTC than gold obviously. Like say I'm not home, and I see burglers break into my house on my ring camera, I have my keys to my crypto wallets punched into steel plates which are in my safe in my closet. I could just move all that crypto in minutes, even if I'm on a different continent. I cant do anything to keep them from stealing gold.
Of course these are low % scenarios, which are kind of irrelevant but fun to talk about.
Although, it would be way easier to move a significant amount of BTC than gold obviously. Like say I'm not home, and I see burglers break into my house on my ring camera, I have my keys to my crypto wallets punched into steel plates which are in my safe in my closet. I could just move all that crypto in minutes, even if I'm on a different continent. I cant do anything to keep them from stealing gold.
Of course these are low % scenarios, which are kind of irrelevant but fun to talk about.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 10:06 am
Posted on 1/16/26 at 11:49 am to Pendulum
People can have their bitcoin stolen too.
It’ll likely get easier as quantum computing advances too.
It’ll likely get easier as quantum computing advances too.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 11:51 am
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:13 pm to SlidellCajun
I’m still shocked there haven’t been any stories about lost BTC after the palisades fire. It’s one of the wealthiest and tech savvy areas in the country, there had to be a lot crypto lost.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:37 pm to beaverfever
If we are at the point in societal collapse where gold is being defended from house to house apocalypse raiders then Bitcoin will be long forgotten.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:04 pm to FAT SEXY
quote:
Now that's a fun thought experiment.
It really is, and it's impactful on "peak gold" and goes to the heart of my statement that there will be more economic gold available for recovery in the future than there is today. Not less. An anecdote to explain some of this -
Let's say Newmont reports they have 100 million ounces of gold in proven/probable reserves. That figure does not come from "we have xx billion tons of ore at an average assay of .4 grams Au per ton = 100 million ounces" - - - that number comes from a) resource definition (drilling/assaying), b) metallurgical development where they figure out, based on mineralization (which can vary in a deposit) how much Au can be recovered, c) analysis of plant/equipment and potential for expansions and related capex, and d) the case assumption for the price of gold. Typically, a mining company will discount the case assumption for the price of gold relative to prevailing prices, so for example - when gold price is at $2500/oz, they'll go with an assumption of $1500/oz. This results in conservative estimates and projections.
So what happens when the price of gold hits and stabilizes at $5000? It isn't just that price is applied to the 100 million ounces. The number of ounces that are economically recoverable from the same volume of ore spikes. Same deposit can now yield 150 million ounces of gold rather than 100 million, for example.
And that's gold that hasn't already been mined. When the price of gold rises like it has the last few years, there's a lot of mine waste and tailings that become economic to treat and requires no mining.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News