[aqueueaqueue]

Gold is more strategic because it has proven its value over millennia.

Bitcoin is still choosing which University to attend, and on his first date.

Bitcoin is a brand not a fixed tech. Remember when it forked?

Don't believe that Trump couldn't order Bitcoin to mint for the US. How? He is a master power broker and Bitcoin is centralized and run by humans. It is not an independent entity like, for example a coronavirus or an idea that cannot be tamed.

The big bitcoin buyers are then USA and Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy). The miners incentivised to operate in the US. The US government can now say to the coder: well, (clicks fingers), take this $10m and do what we say or don't and we will make you illegal and under arrest.

This would be well within Trump's MO and comfort zone.

[sadeshmukh]

Bitcoin is by definition not controlled by one party. It is in all involved interests for that not to be the case, since it would immediately lose all value were it to happen. You know, slavery has also been around for millennia, but I don't think it should make a comeback.

[aqueueaqueue]

The point about being around for millennia is more about how do you measure a system where value is placed by faith. Longevity is a measure of faith. Unlike slavery, there is nothing inheritly bad or likely to change about gold any more than about bitcoin. Intact gold is backed by physics - you cannot fake it. Gold is gold. Bitcoin is one of many cryptocurrencies. Happened to be the first but that is the only distinction vs. Say litecoin.

Bitcoin is not as democratic as you suggest. Mining pools have power. Decisions get made. People are involved. It is like saying the US is not controlled by definition because there is Congress. But those people make decisions and can be heavily influenced by those with money.