> The reason why gold has been the choice over most of human kind's history is that it has properties that make it suitable for money. It's scarce. It's difficult to make more of it. It's difficult to fake (until recently). It's easy to "hold". It's durable. But above all, it has a history of social consensus that it is the asset that is globally agreed upon to serve this purpose.
"It's easy to 'hold'" is literally true for precious metals, without quotes. And unless someone taints your stash with radioactive fallout or atomizes it, it's also relatively difficult to lose via Act of God.
Crypto?
It might just be the hardest asset class to "hold."
---
Also, all it takes for Bitcoin to lose literally all value is for miners to stop. While you might think the risk of this is zero, the risk is most assuredly higher than the risk of gold going to zero, which would only happen if all utility for gold disappears even outside its use as a store of value.
Why don't more people hold physical gold then? It's annoying to transport. It's difficult to prove that it's real. Someone can physically steal it from you. And it's certainly easier to hold large amounts if you're on the move.
The broader point here is that no form of money wins on all dimensions. While bitcoin is most closely compared to gold, it doesn't win on all fronts. I'll be first to admit that in my lifetime, I don't think people will find the idea of private key management easier than stashing a gold bar under their mattress. But the point is bitcoin represents a different point in the design space of money -- one that has characteristics and tradeoffs that make it particularly relevant in today's increasingly digital world.
> Also, all it takes for Bitcoin to lose literally all value is for miners to stop. While you might think the risk of this is zero, the risk is most assuredly higher than the risk of gold going to zero, which would only happen if all utility for gold disappears even outside its use as a store of value.
This like saying "gold loses most of its value of everyone suddenly decides its not worth what it is".
The miners are here ultimately because of the social consensus (and price) that has been building around bitcoin. This kind of thing doesn't just unwind overnight. It has been building for 15 years.
If you're holding gold and believing that there is similar risk in loss of social consensus, but you're saying "well at least it won't go to zero, i'll be able to get 15% out", does that really make it that much better as a store of value?
> Also, all it takes for Bitcoin to lose literally all value is for miners to stop.
And all it takes to regain (some value) is for a few people to mine again. The difficulty will adapt. There are bigger threats than that, but all miners stopping is not one of them.
(didn't downvote you - I appreciate the discussion)
"It's easy to 'hold'" is literally true for precious metals, without quotes. And unless someone taints your stash with radioactive fallout or atomizes it, it's also relatively difficult to lose via Act of God.
Crypto?
It might just be the hardest asset class to "hold."
---
Also, all it takes for Bitcoin to lose literally all value is for miners to stop. While you might think the risk of this is zero, the risk is most assuredly higher than the risk of gold going to zero, which would only happen if all utility for gold disappears even outside its use as a store of value.