He could have used a cold wallet and hidden that somewhere.  I think he got careless and arrogant maybe.     Both items can be stored elsewhere.

The 70bn world market for gold is really tiny, I think bullion exchange must amount to more then that.   70bn is the revenue of a large global corporation.    


Gold has not failed to store value.   Its risen in the last five years, it is a long term asset and maybe thats inconvenient for most people.   I can easily see bitcoin as best for small transactions but for life savings I'd still rate gold.     To try and argue against more then 3000 years of successful use and storage of value is futile almost comedic
Of the last 15 years gold has fallen in value just one year which was the last year.
  We do have exceptional financial events occurring and I expect eventually more will rely on it again to avoid some of that large political influence we have in national currencies.   70bn is really small, Bonds are traded by the trillions every year and out rank even shares.  Any trend is probably best represented in the largest market.
When gold is 700 or 7000bn traded per year I think the price would reflect better peoples use for it

In your link


So the guy made a mistake, he failed to pull out a bog standard household magnifying glass when spending thousands of his cash.  It would have taken him 60 seconds to ascertain by the sounds of it.   The intricate designs they often put on those coins often are not purely for show but to demonstrate workmanship, a bit like the holograms on some paper money.
   Theres been some big antique faking scams also, the value was far higher then a coin.   Everything is subject to deception, mostly gold is the easiest to check I think

Seems he was talked into a bad deal, sad to hear but gold is hard to duplicate.  Confidence tricks happen often with all sorts of goods and most quality is harder to verify then gold.
  On top of that, watch this video for another tester kit that makes clear which gold coins are not minted purely to spec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB4yyS-fDk

That logic betrays itself surely, if in a month he intends to once again use the bitcoin then why would he ever sell to begin with.   Monero would need to be superior for at least that month of use in order to be worth a purchase to begin with.    Seems to rely on the greater fool theory and if he gambles for a month he could gain.  The point is if in a months time,  if that bitcoin is worth having then the current price should accumulate greater use this month and the following months and price will recover.
  We have expression of much doubt and still the fallout of mtgox or similar restrictions to bitcoin this year.  His main thoughts should be if Bitcoin can surpass such failings and succeed in holding value longer term, the market price is really secondary to that.

  The main thing is whether the trend for BTC is up or down, over the years we have a trend up and so decide if that trend was valid or hype, a one off event or competition from Monero or other various currencies now makes BTC redundant

The base rate is so low now that is a minor consideration, the debt itself as its created causes a greater monetary base then otherwise would be the case.   So in absolute terms, inflation has occured right away and eventually if it matches productive increases then its justified, the debt is repaid the economy is larger, however failed investment is deflation.
Deflation will occur when the debt defaults, there is a reverse effect that now the new money (included on bank sheets as an asset) is no longer in existence, there is less money available.

If you have less of something the price naturally rises, I think a weighing scales works here as if you remove a bag of sugar it rises (as does price rise with less volume of sugar in the total economic market).  In 2008 the dollar rose greatly in value even though alot of debt defaults were occurring in housing and the banks themselves were in great trouble (and the banks were worth less).   However these assets formerly counted performing debt, registered as Tier 1 capital by the banks ceased.
 They had used Tier 1 as their fractional reserve source for business and customer lending, normally dollar should rise in value as less were available.   We do not have a capitalist system, so our central bank created far more dollars then have been lost from default

Says gold is valued as its scarce.   There are far rarer elements, this is the not its most importance feature, it has many more.   Tungsten is similar weight for example but as a pure metal it fractures.  Gold represents wealth and to some extent it satisfys the demands of the wealthy for opulence perhaps.  Dollars are tokens for IRS and government bills, they sate governments thirst for a cut of its nations commerce without outright confisication or royal charter type diversion.
  Bitcoin has no outright demand, this remains a problem that no great powerbase gains from its existence;  so to continue btc is desperately relying on its users, miners to actually need it not just sell it

Gold is part of barter, it is not often used or needed absolutely by either 'tribe'.   It is just useful for this purpose of exchange, it is so divisible, compact, fungible and so on.  The slight case for jewelary or other uses is secondary, I would rate it as a kind of barter.   We obviously vary in our use of this medium, I would rather exchange for oil most of the time however that would be much slower and costly to do.   Bitcoin also, its there to transfer value I dont especially want it otherwise so I relate that as barter but more accurate then using oil or less fungible goods like food perhaps [ the oldest markets and exchange or barter surely were food or cattle markets?]

The value of money relies on the production and exchangeable worth.  So national currency should rise with the exports and productive capacity of that nation.   I agree supply and demand applies but at some point its use determines its value.
USA exports money but it does not export goods net, so why are foreign governments or people even willing to hold and use its money.   I think its has become increasingly reliant on political and military influence.   As the only remaining superpower, the regime of the dollar is reliant on nations which do export and support dollar use such as Saudi Arabia.   

A big problem I think is self bias in the estimation of GDP and also under estimating inflation as an adjustment to growth.    In 2007 when USA was in recession, at the time this was not stated only in later revisions was it acknowledged that the economy was in decline.
Current job growth could be as a consequence of increasing part time work which relates to legislation subsidising the labour cost of shorter worker hours compared to full time work.  Is there any accuracy is recording that effect

BTC volume was reported as greatly falling in a national newspaper, apparently it was well researched though I dont have it here now.     Volume and market size is falling ? which would seem to match your 2000 marker comment

I simply dont believe it and I do mean simply because it seems a straightforward argument to say we obviously have inflation.     Many governments, some of the largest even are running defecits and so they are increasing their debt and in turn the size of their national montary base.
So I take that debt as money, I know its not treated as such and its unlikely someone will convert 1 trillion of debt directly into paper notes to go use on a high street.   However if they did it would immediately realise what is already in play, that we do have inflation of many national currencies.
  The money is not being exchanged for goods however so I presume this is why we have the fear of deflation.   What is actually happening I think is lower trade per capitia and a kinda sinkhole effect where debt is being contained and money supply restricted, lower velocity of money.
 
   If all the banks stopping lending this would be deflation as in effect less money is available and so I think the debt situation is similar.  
It does not stop inflation (of the monetary base) being true, one day it will happen like an avalanche.   The only alternative is to vaporise that debt by default, then we may have true deflation.
As a counter I will point to the prices of extremely high worth items such as rare art or unique classic cars perhaps, there is no deflation in these markets and they are relevant as they match the standard unit sizes of $100,000 that a treasury bond deal would be done in.
   I would much rather take the Dino Ferrari then debt which yield so little.  e.g. The EURO overnight rate just went sub-Zero

We could go as high as 1600 before assuming gold has done anything but meander within a malaise.


Heres a shorter term trend that might lead to some gains forming or vice versa
https://twitter.com/BrendaKelly_IG/status/504938028423716864

Eugenics made up a large part of stupidity of world war two.  Its fairly clear to me that the potential of human beings far outweighs their physical limitations and so crime or success is not largely from dna.  Mostly we are all related not limited by where we're born but limited or enabled by our early circumstances as we grow

Technology is a large part.   Pre industrial revolution most of society was spent just raising enough food to thrive and now we've gone way past in most countries.   I think we have the same amount of crime but less need for violence to succeed in that task maybe.   Look at how many are trying to earn just by swindling online, even crime has developed into something more sophisicated

Government could do anything in theory but the history of that is not all gold was taken.    Just your average person kept most gold as jewellery I think and this was allowed.
The richer types with actual bullion made sure to keep their gold outside the borders of USA.

   The government could take property besides gold and some might point out various cases where they are already trying to do this.  Some of the Bundy land case aspects are not unique where the government seeks to confiscate, it can be done purely on suspicion of law breaking.
On mass I think default is more likely then confiscation.   The biggest thing now is that government backs most housing debt, they hold the deeds so I wonder if under pressure the modern equal to gold would be to use property or the mortgage terms gainfully.
  Still I dont see that working, they didnt take jewellery in the 30's and its really outlandish to think the government would use all that housing debt against people to pay their bills.   Default is most likely imo and printing


I dont see this happening either.    Theres not enough gold in the world to back the amount of dollars now.   People say this is why the price will rise (then theres enough) but they are handing out power to which ever countries hold gold (produce or generally export).
So this could only be done by those in power globally, Washington wont force these terms on themselves.  They'd empty fort knox trying to back dollars,  I think Nixon's administration foresaw that

They'll keep on with QE till it fails and then it'll be a default on the terms of the debt.  A haircut they call it, the creditors lose out  (a large section of which are USA federal welfare funds, pension, etc)

Guild was coming in the region of 50% about a year ago but the difference was they started ramping up their charges to discourage users from continuing to join where ghash seemed to not care about the potential dangers.  Its worrying anyhow that it could be a personal choice in the hands of so few at the top of what is supposed to be a distributed network


Good graph but take a special case and its possible a nice set of options purchases could have performed better in 2013.  That could be considered closer as its an all or nothing kind of thing and thats how many consider btc, to be potentially expiring at zero in some future scenarios

Capitalists of either wing could read some books or articles by some of the names listed below.   You could probably just type their names into youtube and get some old tv clip, Milton Friedman being one of the most famous.

Theres always Adam Smith: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, generally referred to by its shortened title The Wealth of Nations.   Or you could simply look up comparative advantage, just read an explanation of that.  I reckon that covers alot of complaints or pleas for protectionism and why it makes every part of society poorer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Libertarian_theorists



If we could get free energy I could believe in no more money.   But theres always going to be something people cant get and want and barter is too inefficient so theres money even if all people were rich.
I think we already transformed what money means.  It used to be very close to food and to own production was money or wealth, its not ridiculous now that money could relate to more digital type wealth however I think our current money is a bit corrupt hence bitcoin is valid and needed innovation ?  (even if did fail it was a system with merit)

Platinum is not superior in terms of a monetary metal.    Theres a few reasons that add up but the major would be platinum is actually useful and thats ironic but it matters because platinum is used as a catalyst metal so it is part of the industrial cycle.
So the rate of car production or concern about pollution even is going to affect our monetary base ? It immediately starts to unbalance the flow of money.  
We want to get away from overt influence of one section of the economy over all others, right now we are on the merry go round that is the melodramatic bs of Washington politics

Also platinum is not as well distributed geographically.   At one time they would fake gold coins by using platinum to fill in the spots in a thick coin.   It got expensive because we started using it for something beyond jewelary.   I believe Russia has very large deposits available where as theres gold on every continent pretty much.

Ben bernake says gold is not a reliable base for money as mining varies but Im willing to guess it does not differ as much as dollars do.  When gold supply increases, it does relate to some work or innovation and its not impossible there are multiple benefits from that mining technology applicable elsewhere in the economy.  

The main criticism of government or federal reserve policy is that its not representing advancement of human knowledge in any way.  The flow of money derives from trickery and efforts to boost consumer confidence and there are no secondary benefits to printing money.  All you can argue is government stability is increased short term and what about long term when the debt must be repaid or the dollar value is realised in the price of goods in exchange.   What we have then will be massive instability and price volatility, no benefit from politics will exist then as it represents not production applicable elsewhere but waste and consumption of value, a default then becomes a positive because it stops ever larger government.
 Gold is ironic in that it stops excess like we have now, not because its productive but because it is so hard to produce it is valued and yet it is not used; hence it is a store of value

I think that relates to bitcoin, also not a useful product just by itself but it enables commerce where both customer and vendor would have no reliable secure exchange.  

The main failing was not derivatives but that government backed the funding of questionable mortgage debt.   If wall street or any private company screws up it'll fall over, but when government backs something it becomes a giant that crushes anyone who stands in its way and in the end it trips up anyway

Maybe securitization is bad but if it is questionable then its very likely rated as such.   The problem stems when people dont question or rate debt that could fail realistically

Theres often a really harsh spike down, where people are having to sell because they have no choice.   That is a perfect opportunity, like a fire sale.  Buy when people dont even want to sell and its obviously too cheap but they got no choice anymore.  
A large part of modern market is hot money or leveraged to speculate.  When people get that wrong is when you see the sharpest moves occur.   Really this doesnt mean silver is bad to hold but on that day or period of time however long, it'll be cheap from that flood or flush out of speculators.   All the people who never wanted to own just bid for price rise then now are selling

It can go the opposite way such as when VW was shorted before a takeover. 

The crash jpm always seemed a bit silly.   Who really needs silver so where it'll spike naturally.  Im not sure but I think quite alot of consumption of silver declined with photography switching to digital.
So 2011 followed the QE2 autumn announcement by the Fed.  I would guess it was related to that as alot of bubbles seem to circulate fed or gov policy such as Fannie mae.

I think 10 to 20 for silver this year, I dont think it'll really take off.  I do see silver as a bull market eventually as it is a monetary metal and we have an avalanche waiting when or if there is a reversion away from debt to solid trade again.  Today still the world favours politics over business but since the net effect of government is self depreciation not profit for its backers, its a cost and an increasing one.  If that is true we'll see this endless debt eventually collapse.
 I would rather say 2015 as a guess and they will maneuver onwards in 2014.  Increasingly the arguments will be hollow and fail, the only other alternative is war and a giant state control as in ww2

Just that dynamic alone is probably the most important thing to consider in the next five years.    You know they could raise rates but still lag inflation and so have no real effect and this is very likely to happen.   We have a large political influence so any raising of rates is quite certain to lag behind actual increases in monetary base.     There is so many factors pointing towards this and we have like a sleepy dead head reaction to the quite apparent danger.   Raising of rates effects government very badly, it increases the deficit.   Then USA has the lowest turnover time of its debt in the world, it has the largest amount to deal on every occasion also.  Yet it lacks the figures to support such a large debt overhang.

 So the influence on rates from this is massive and obviously going to lead to interest rates not being a reason for gold to go down.  I know thats the perception and I wont argue thats not the reason gold fell recently or any other time.   But at some point the real momentum in the situation is a lack of currency integrity on multiple fronts, dollar will be weaker then gold and thats why its a buy.   I wouldnt invest or hold for other reasons or speculative.                
Similar reasoning could have been applied to the housing debt 10 years back maybe.   Renting was cheaper then buying, even if capital appreciation was real for housing owners the underlying efficency supported the case for selling that asset.  So at that point housing debt vs dollar (or gold or whatever currency base you prefer) was weaker outlook.   Ag

Put it this way if its cheaper to get a machine to do it, or self service pre package the goods and let customers warm it up then they will go this way.   People just have the wrong perspective about why a business even exists.   Why not setup a fast food cooperative and then the workers will determine their own costs, pay and profits together.  

If people want to paint it as evil company making billions, treating people like slaves then why wouldnt any competition be possible.  All Im interested in is an open fair trade system, Ive worked in catering and its dam hard work but there is no monopoly on beef cooking and sticking it in some bread?

Governments forcing something to be true is a real negative, for the business, for the people working, for capitalism.   Just increase freedom and open competition and it'll raise prices for the cost of labour.  Stick a legal chain and ball on companies and it eventually causes unemployment, its sad to see people calling for it

There are on the verge of realising an automatic fries and burger machine, coincidently there are many popular protests for fast food workers to receive unprofitable rates of pay.  Hence they invest in machines and reduce ongoing costs, that is what a business will always do and its not about being evil or whatever because business is not charity

Theres no doubt right away today thats a rubbish bet for Schiff.     If bitcoin fails and the amagi guy has to pay 3 dollars for a btc or less, then its hardly much of a penalty.  
If schiff loses and bitcoin is worth 100k then its going to sting a hell of a lot more

edit just spotted that, makes alot more sense

The only extra point is that gold is also likely to rise if bitcoin did go up that much but its not certain. So schiff holding gold is not going bankrupt but its very true that bitcoin could rise significantly more.   Just in terms of supply, gold is likely to be mined to a greater degree and as the price rises then its supply increases as it becomes worthwhile.
Thats not a bet, we know today that is for certain.  If gold rises I know there are thousands of mines just ready to open and start returning ounces and they arent bothering now as its expensive but the gold is there.  Various reasons, could be the mine is flooded and needs alot of pumps.  
  Switch to bitcoin and again its not a bet, we know the supply is fixed and the price cannot increase the amount in fact there are less BTC mined every year.    
So his bet is more like one made as if the protocol will be broken, is he a crypto specialist? nope


So its a crap bet and really schiff is being absolute and a bit reckless on a subject he is not learned on.   Who is his tech advisor, never heard him mention one.  He is great on fundamentals but when he says BTC must fail because its not backed by anything, is he forgetting dollar is increasingly just a cotton rag with a promise on it and we been using it for decades in that state.  Even if btc were to fail, it might take twenty years to play out and price will rise meantime for five years; very possible

Silver is industrially influenced to a large extent
Bitcoin is transactional and velocity biased
Cash is fiat, politically compromised to serve a welfare state majority (most are in debt not holding cash net, often even large companies)
Gold is called useless but is beholder to nobody and distributed across the world widely, it cannot be degraded.

You cover all bases and I guess you got bills to pay in cash so I wont argue but 25% on each I think is also incorrect.   We are going to be flooded with cash, you are likely a creditor to your employer paying in cash and of what worth (over a year) you cant be sure; so its a rotten leg on your chair to sit

To rollback the chain they are first going to have to own alot of coins and be big investors in their total numbers and consensus.     Large amounts of capital invested in a product is just a traditional source of power in a normal capitalist system.   Right now in fiat we have democracy and corruption of capital by politics but a plain old currency system should revolve around respect for those with most to lose from its demise.   Is POS flawed by allowing that Im not sure, the people who use and hold nxt decided it would be a negative, last I read

As soon as the bonds give any rights they can do that.   All they got is a promise.    They can shut down the government deficit maybe, force raise interest rates and cause alot of fuss but who wants to spend billions making enemies with no profit.  
I'd buy some gold with those bonds asap, likely its a proxy for elements of the EU