I actually don’t understand why goldbugs are so obsessed with the physical atoms of gold.
“Money” is a psychological phenomenon that arises in groups of humans. There’s no mandatory reason it needs to have a physical representation in the physical world. If that were necessary, we wouldn’t even be able to use fiat like we do today. It just would be impossible.
But no, indeed, we do use immaterial abstractions as money. We do it across the world every day. The problem is that there has not been, prior to Bitcoin, any way to rate limit the manufacture of these immaterial abstractions.
Incredibly, the same mathematical equation that solved this problem of limiting money creation also improved upon other desirable aspects of money - secure defense of the asset, ease and speed of transfer, ease and cost of verification.
Gold bugs insist that money needs a physical manifestation to be “real” but I don’t understand that logic at all. In fact, the physical manifestation of money introduces a host of downsides and security challenges that purely abstract money doesn’t have.
If we evaluate money as a technology, it seems unlikely we would return to an older technology that was replaced by a more recent one - we wouldn’t have adopted the more recent tech if it weren’t better at solving more of our problems. However, we may in fact adopt an even newer tech that solves even more of our problems.
I guess, in summary, that’s my question for you - what problem does gold solve that Bitcoin doesn’t? (Most times I see this comparison, it’s argued that gold has a 5,000 track record and Bitcoin has only 10 years. To which I would simply say… I’m not going to be living in the last 5,000 years, but rather the next 50. Which tool is going to be more useful to me in that timeframe?)
As always I appreciate the debate and I’m sorry that this particular forum is going to lead to uneven sides 😅