Item — HN Reader

> It seems that that long history plays a really important role in today's value of Gold. It explains a big part of the 'semantic value'.

Indeed. Would the 'semantic value' alone without the other features be enough for gold to be that valuable?

History starts at some point. If so, does that mean Bitcoin could be as valuable in the long run (provided that the Internet infranstruture doesn't collapse and governments don't ban it) ?

1 comments

I think divisibility will get in the way eventually. What happens when over a period of 200 years enough keys are lost to where there are only 10 million Satoshis left in active circulation?

Surely by then people will move over to a new chain, be it a fork of bitcoin or a different one entirely with new features, and history will have to begin anew.

There are billions of ounces of gold out there, and ounces can be subdivided as small as technology will allow without any one else having to agree to a protocol change.

Then the unit that clients display and transfer will be nS (nano satoshis). Afaik, it's a very minor update to allow more decimal places.

> Afaik, it's a very minor update to allow X

Said every software developer ever, shortly before realizing that an entire ecosystem has been built upon X and any change would have to ripple through what is now our global financial system.

I commented to respond to this and deleted it, since I realized I was making some wrong assumptions. If you saw it, please disregard it.

I'm still not convinced the change doesn't require a hardfork, which would involve switching chains, right? I feel like the possibility of hard forks being necessary hurts bitcoin as a "gold replacement"