With $2T it is in the range of the largest companies in the world. Google is $2.1T, Apple is $3.6T.
It is still roughly 10 times smaller than gold, which sits at $18T.
I find it hard to imagine that Bitcoin might not surpass gold. The gold market cap shows that there is a demand for $18T of storing value in an asset with low inflation. And Bitcoin is better than gold, as its inflation is going to zero. And it is easier to store, transfer and verify.
I would love to hear some opinions on why Bitcoin might not surpass gold in value.
Unfortunately, all the internet forums about Bitcoin that I have found are very low quality. I wish there was a Bitcoin forum as good as Hacker News. Or a general investment forum as good as Hacker News.
Why would anyone ever say "Oh, I'd rather store my value in that new crypto someone just came up with?".
The decentralized control and the size and health of the ecosystem is what gives a currency value. You cannot just "come up" with that.
15 years later, and there is still no use of bitcoin at scale for pretty much anything other than speculating and illegal activities. And even the speculating is not really a use of bitcoin, as 99% of it happens off chain.
Genuine question though - you say no single actor can mingle with the chain. My understanding was that somebody with >50% of hash power can do that. Isn't the case now ?
no use of bitcoin at scale
for pretty much anything
other than speculating
somebody with >50% of hash power
can do that
Regarding the second point, my understanding was that you can basically decide what's happening right ? Why you couldn't move other people funds around ?
What bonds have to do with it ?
my understanding was that you can
basically decide what's happening
Isn't this the single most important quality in order to be valuable over the long term?
The bitcoin network is highly optimised for this and nothing else in the world can compare.