Hacker News Reader

That's not even remotely coherent. Value of gold is not in the fact that it was pulled out of the ground.

you don't understand reusable proof of work. If it didn't take energy to get more gold what do you imagine would happen to the price?

So the value of gold should be exactly the same as the value of silver or coal then?

I'm not sure how that follows?

If the value of gold is defined ONLY by the cost/effort/energy of mining it and the cost of mining silver is similar, then the prices should be similar and not orders of magnitude different per troy ounce.

how do you imagine that the cost of gold on the open market and the cost of mining the marginal ounce*risk diverges?

The cost of mining gold and silver is obviously not the same.

So it's not a pure energy cost of mining now?

do you imagine the energy cost of mining gold and silver to be the same? in this world, do you imagine that silver is unprofitable to mine or that gold is wildly profitable to mine? Maybe you should be buying gold mining stocks.

I'm fine on my investments, thank you.

Since silver is often the byproduct of mining gold, the energy price should be pretty close, I'd think...

Crypto-bros reinventing the (train-wreck of) labour theory of value is my favorite genre of HN comments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com