[aaronwalker]

> * being physical is actually an advantage (easier to secure in a way that they can understand and verify). *

Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government -- both of which make it a worse store of value. It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin. In fact, we know exactly what Bitcoin's total supply count will be, whereas with Gold we do not. If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

[zirgs]

A tiny amount of gold costs a shitload of money. 1kg of gold costs around 60k eur. More than most people have in savings. No problems to transport something like that if you don't brag that you own it.

But the same applies to BTC. Telling others that you own a large amount of it is not a good idea. It can be stolen in various ways too. Like by an exchange that's owned by a trustworthy and altruistic billionaire.

It's been 14 years and BTC is not even close to mass adoption.

Even my mom knows what it is but has no need or interest to use it.

What would make "normies" switch to BTC if they haven't already?

[kavalg]

I don't think it is so simple. There is already a EUR 10k limit on the amount of cash that you can carry across EU border without declaring it. In case of violations the money may be confiscated. I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).

[Symbiote]

So the use case is evading tax, money laundering etc.

Glad we got to the point eventually.

[int_19h]

Yes, absolutely. Also evading sanctions, buying prohibited goods etc.

To remind, most people in the world live in countries with oppressive governments.

[aaronwalker]

> evading tax, money laundering etc.

And evading oppressive governments. Disobeying the law is not always a "bad" thing.

[int_19h]

That is exactly the practical case for BTC, yes. But note that this is about moving money from point A to point B, not storing it.

[aaronwalker]

> * I would assume that the same would apply for gold above some reasonable value (e.g. a really big gold necklace :) ).*

Whereas with Bitcoin, it is much more difficult to confiscate it because it's purely information. You might be trusting the manufacturer of a hard wallet to protect the privacy of your seed phrase, but once you memorize it no one can forcibly take it from you.

[zirgs]

OK and why would you choose not to declare it?

I think you meant external borders, because there are no border checks between Schengen area countries.

[int_19h]

> Because gold is physical it is not easy to transport, and can more easily be seized by the government

For most people, the more immediate threat is not the government seizing it, but robbers and/or scammers. Defending against robbers isn't that hard, especially if you have so much money to park somewhere; but more importantly, it's well-understood. OTOH the average level of technical literacy makes malware and scammers much more dangerous, and Bitcoin is far more exposed to both.

The usual retort is, "just learn how to secure it properly, it's as easy as this 20-point list". When it comes to mass adoption, this is kinda like pitching Vim + LaTeX to Word users. It doesn't matter that you can secure Bitcoin better than gold, if you know what you're doing, because most people do not and will not.

> It is also worse because its supply growth rate is higher, which means that if you hold gold you are losing more value every year (absent changes in demand) than if you hold Bitcoin.

You can't realistically assume "absent changes in demand" IRL, making this point completely moot.

On top of that, scarcity is not the determinant of value in and of itself. It's easy to make tokens of which there's a limited supply, but it's much harder to convince everyone else that they're worth using. But, for gold, that part is already done, and this consensus has been stable for literally millennia. Bitcoin is still in a consensus-building stage, and it's not even clear whether it'll ever be achieved at all, much less how long it'll take.

> If BTC gains mass adoption, then it will be the best store of value that we have.

So, BTC should be mass-adopted because it is the best store of value, but it can only be the best store of value if it's mass-adopted?

BTW, I should be clear that I'm not anti-Bitcoin or anti-crypto in general - I just think that speculating on it is neither productive nor safe. Unfortunately, that's also 99% of all the economic activity in the ecosystem right now. Hopefully that bubble will burst eventually, and it'll go back to its crypto-anarchist roots.