I gave four ways it improves over gold in the first couple sentences. Easier to transfer was one.
I'm with you, in that I'm very skeptical Bitcoin could replace or supplement gold in that role. It's not impossible though.
> Easier to transfer was one.
I can hand you a piece of gold and the transfer is done. No 74 character address, no keys, no official public ledger of the transaction happening, just a transfer of value between two parties.
Moving gold across the ocean is expensive. You can only do it so many times before you've expended the full value of the gold. Bitcoin is much easier to move around by comparison.
Keep in mind the vast majority of gold holdings and transactions are between central banks.
Re:The Bitcoin Investment Thesis Is Broken
by mateuszf on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @02:26AM
(#31501216)
> I can hand you a piece of gold and the transfer is done
And how can I easily verify it's really 100% gold?
Really not easily. Bitcoin is superior in that way.
- Gold has no dependency on electricity, computers, or any energy source. Bitcoin ceases to exist without these things.
- Gold has a lot of practical uses and applications as a material. Bitcoin has none.
- Gold is a naturally occurring element. Bitcoin is not.
The only advantage I've ever been able to see is that Bitcoin ownership can be transferred electronically compared to gold that must be moved. However, being able to be moved electronically also means that it can be stolen electronically. A bad actor in North Korea has the potential to steal a person's wallet credentials and transfer Bitcoin out of their possession. They can't do this with physical gold.
Gold is not a perfect store of value - it doesn't serve a fundamental need like food or a blanket - but it has served it's purpose over the millennia and I don't see how Bitcoin is improving on it.