I think there's a very real demand for physical media that bitcoiners have a hard time appreciating. There are people who just trust it more, because it's in their hand rather than being a digital abstraction. It's more clearly anonymous, too, for people who don't want to leave a record of their transactions. It's still available during natural disasters when the power goes out and networks go down.
I know bitcoiners have answers to all these points, but that isn't my point. My point is just that there will continue to be people with a preference for physical media and gold is the obvious candidate to fill that role, so there will be physical media even in a bitcoin world.
Agree -- there's an entirely different neural machinery pertaining to concrete things vs abstract things. I believe it to be consequential. Even if btc proves overwhelmingly successful in the coming years, it will be in spite of this difference, but because there is no difference.
Kind of what this comment was meant to get at.
reply
One of the interesting points Austrians make about money, is that better moneys drive out worse moneys. I've seen them argue that ultimately there will be one money that is used for all transactions, because that best/true money will be the best medium of exchange and store of value and unit of account.
This thread made me think about that argument and wonder if it overlooked the possibility of different moneys having different comparative advantages. I'd have to give it more thought, but I suspect that either gold or bitcoin would have to evolve or another money will arise that suits both purposes.
reply