Indeed! One of the key advantages of Bitcoin over gold is its portability and ease of use, which makes it much more suitable for a post-apocalyptic scenario. In such a scenario, it would be very difficult to transport physical gold over long distances or conduct transactions with it in a secure and practical manner.

On the other hand, due to the decentralized and digital nature of Bitcoin, it would be much easier to transport and transact with it in a post-apocalyptic scenario, even with limited infrastructure. As long as there is access to the internet, individuals can conduct Bitcoin transactions anywhere in the world.

Furthermore, Bitcoin's limited supply of 21 million units makes it a scarce asset that can hold its value over time, similar to gold. Its decentralized nature also makes it resistant to inflationary monetary policies that may arise in a post-apocalyptic world.

In essence, while both gold and Bitcoin have their advantages as assets, Bitcoin's portability, ease of use, and decentralized nature make it better suited for a post-apocalyptic scenario.

In a decentralized setting, Bitcoin can be run on radio, and independent groups of people can generate small amounts of electricity to power radios and computers, creating a pseudo-internet.

Bitcoin can function with just one copy of data and protocol, meaning that even if only a few people survive and can generate energy, Bitcoin can be operational and outperform gold in facilitating commerce.

Interestingly, even if 90% of people died, some fanatics would likely preserve the code and blockchain and bring it back online. Overall, the author believes that Bitcoin is a more plausible currency in a post-apocalyptic world than gold or silver.