Bitcoin Forum

GoldMoney's James Turk interviews Félix Moreno de la Cova, who is a studied economist, trader and GoldMoney contributor. They discuss the idea of currency competition and talk about the pros and cons of Bitcoin and digital gold currencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk

Great exposure for Bitcoin to GoldMoney goldbugs! Turk seems less hostile and more fair to Bitcoin versus his previous pronouncements.  Someone needs to tell him how Bitcoin is not a threat to GoldMoney, but potentially a complementary hard commodity he could sell right alongside digital metals, as well as a more convenient deposit/withdrawal method for customers.

A blog post with some summary and commentary:




 - http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/31942156510

He will eventually have to backtrack on those words, I'm sure of it, it was smart of him to give himself an exit via the word "probably"...it's a no-brainer extension to his business to allow Bitcoin interoperability...once customer demand is there, he will have no choice but to accomodate it.

I think in explaining Bitcoin to the PM crowd and those who have a strong preference for 'tangibility' - we need to properly explain the ability to hold a 'private key'.

If you know you have the only physical copy of a private key - then you have something 'tangible'.
It is the *only* way to gain access to the value, which is destroyed if it is lost - so it is fundamentally different from say holding the accountID etc of some centralized account.

Casascius coins are a pretty good way to get this idea across - along with printable bitcoin notes etc.

Exactly tangible doesn't have to mean physical but often the PM crowd uses the world tangible when they really mean physical.  Bitcoin may not be physical but it certainly is tangible.   Math and cryptography give it tangibility.  If I have the private key to an address which has 100,000 BTC I have tangible control over that wealth.  Now someone may say well what if someone attacks you and steals the key?  The analogy would be what if someone attacks you and steals the key to your vault of gold?

Oh, hello ...

A multi-page thread on this video, started about a week ago when the interview was announced.:

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109409.0

According to m-w.com , definition of TANGIBLE:

1
  a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
  b : substantially real : material

2
  : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>

3
  : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

In definition 1a, I don't think the definition of "tangible" applies to bitcoin.  I think bitcoin satisfies 1b, 2 and 3.  

This a crucial conceptual link that needs to be made, it is going to be a stretch for anybody who has little knowledge of physical location of computer files (e.g. in RAM on disk, clipdrive, etc), bit representations of numbers and understanding of what private keys are.

Now the next big jump once those foundations are in place; since the tangible private key can be copied ad infinitum, is how the blockchain ensures that the locked "mail box" that holds the bitcoins that fits the private key 'cannot' be tampered with, since it is secured by the power of the bitcoin mining network.

Once led through this chain of logic, the thinking gold bug gets it. Doesn't mean that other hurdles aren't still there and some are more personal hurdles besides ... how confident are they managing securely their own private keys?, securing their computers generally? ... anonymising themselves on the Internet so they can benefit from private transaction capabilities? ... it goes on, each individual has their own concerns and reasons for acting :)

At this stage, for a portion of wealth that needs to be stored, it is still simpler to dig a hole in the ground somewhere and bury gold, than 'do the satoshi' ... that's not to say that it will always be like that or there aren't other advantages of one over the other. It's a competition and horses for courses ... I just don't see it as one or the other.

Problem is that Turk could have a defensive reaction towards such a definition of tangibiity.

Gold is tangible in the sense you've just described.  But gold in GoldMoney's vaults is not.

This remember me about this quote from The Scorpion King

and then

i am actually suprised goldmoney brings up bitcoin.

their business model is in itself fine but butcoin shows many weak spots in
counterparty risk
legal risk, confiscation
(remember e-gold)
online transactions, merchant integration

my guess is since many smart people are goldbugs they will eventually all diversify to bitcoin.

> Questioner: When will I be able to fund/withdraw my GoldMoney Holding with bitcoins?
> Turk: Probably never.

You have to understand that Turk has worked hard for his legitimacy. Goldmoney can only be funded - in either direction - from a bank account that bears the name of the account holder. And in addition, to get a goldmoney account you must also pretty much prove your identity and address. This is quite the opposite of bitcoin. The government would not allow a service like goldmoney unless they knew exactly who was buying and selling and unless they also knew that it coul not be used for transferring funds between people. Actually you used to be able to do this with Goldmoney, but (if my understanding is correct) not any more. The same is true if you buy or sell large quantities of gold bullion. You must register for the privilege, or the transaction cannot happen. This is just how it is, and I am sure this is why Mr Turk says this. I am talking about the Uk government here, but governments are not so different in this regard.

Yes, they are strangling commerce and trade to a standstill with their capital controls.

Ask the former Soviet Union how top-down capital resource allocation worked out for them.

This was a great interview. James Turk reveals the solution to his own 'stumbling block' with Bitcoin when he says that money is a 'tool of the mind to communicate value'. Bitcoin is such a tool and it is backed by its superiority over other inferior currencies and payment methods. Ultimately, the demand for Bitcoin will be derived from all the things you can do with it that you can not do with other currencies, or things that you can not do as well with other currencies.

Excellent video and article - it's neat to see "a rich guy / gold person" start appreciating the ideas behind BTC and his openness toward it.

If he's asking for physical / tangible proof, what about the Casasicus physical coins then?  That's about as physical as you can get today ;)

kickass thanks. Now my article and another interview: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=111945.msg1211508

Bank CEO mentions Bitcoin, "We're interested in seeing where we can step in"

I thought the A2A goldgram payments between accounts was withdrawn?

Some people were wanting to trade Goldmoney GG for Bitcoin but it got withdrawn I thought?


I think Turk is right in saying that Bitcoin is less tangible than gold only because:

1) gold has a few uses other than currency, no matter how small
(but then... you might say Bitcoin has other uses by proxy - by not mining you can use CPU for something else)
2) gold is easier to visualise. The Cassius coins change that a little but not by much. Then again... what is gold if people aren't testing it properly?

 However, I think Bitcoin is more tangible than Goldmoney.com - I think the private key makes it more tangible than the legal system making Goldmoney... possibly unless you have visited the vaults and meet the big minimum requirements for allocated bars.

 Bitcoin's tangibility is complicated. On the one hand you have a lot of real people backing the blockchain and believing in AES256... on the other it can't really be touched can it?

It's the new way :)