Listened to Luke Gromen on Tucker and was really disappointed he didn’t push back on Tucker when he said gold is more private than bitcoin because “you can move it anytime, anywhere”.
Except for when you have a large amount of gold and you have to hire a ton of armed guards and hope it doesn’t attract any attention.
I love Tucker, but he’s so anti tech without understanding any of it at all. He said that no one is working on making bitcoin private and shows “how much people lie” 🤦🏻♂️
Yeah man, that take was rough. Gold is private until you try to move more than a few coins and suddenly you’re starring in an action movie where you’re the guy getting robbed in the first five minutes. Tucker is great at calling out nonsense, but when it comes to tech, he’s like a grandpa trying to set up a Wi-Fi router, loud, frustrated, and refusing to read the manual.
i listened to that pod.
i must have missed that.
all i remember is him saying gold is more private than bitcoin because its value is based in itself, and transactions can occur without any record.
He did say that part yes. But I guess my gripe is what wasn’t said - gold is private in small amounts. But once you have any significant amount, it’s no longer as private or safe.
I was disappointed that Luke has spent so much time on Bitcoin podcasts and then didn’t offer any pushback when Tucker said clearly false things like no one is working on making bitcoin private (technically he said crypto, which is even more false, but I disregard all of that).
your underlying point of not wanting to carry around and use precious metals as an every day transfer of value, especially in large amounts is well taken, and i agree.
but honestly, considering that around 900 ounces of gold can fit into the average cigar box, and the current spot price being in the $2900 range, large amounts is relative.
As for the unconfiscatability of Bitcoin, this presumes a functional legal system, and doesnt take into account people who will threaten to cut off all your fingers and kill your relatives unless you give up your private key.
Ive been into bitcoin since 2010, and use it almost daily for real world transactions.
But ive also actually lived in a place where the government and economy had completely collapsed, and recognize the value of gold(and silver).
Ya I’m not saying gold is useless, just didn’t like that Luke didn’t make a case for how bitcoin has certain advantages. But overall, I think there is a lot to like about gold.
I had no idea you had lived in a country like that, that sounds super interesting (but also I’m sure awful to live through)
I thought it was the best Luke interview I have listened too.
It was still interesting and honestly I liked it better than his usual, but was disappointed he didn’t even try to fit something in.
I do think gold is more private than BTC.
I think BTCers look at armed guards and armored trucks as only a bad thing. Something that is easy to move can be a double edged sword.
For example, the ETH hack and all the other exchange attacks. To pull something like that off with gold or platinum would have taken a small army and much more difficult to pull off.
I hear that but is that privacy? Or inability to confiscate? ETH is its own thing. Done right, bitcoin can’t be confiscated either, at least not without a physical attack and coercion.
And on top of that, you don’t have to pay a small army to move it.
All I’m saying is, there are things about bitcoin that are positive when compared to gold. For literally no push back to be given to Tuckers statement was disappointing. But, I don’t think gold is useless and it certainly can be significantly more private, depending on the context.
