Peter Schiff toally misses the point on Bitcoin

[manuel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI

Maybe if he argued silver vs. bitcoin he might have a point but the "uses of gold" like jewelry and tiny gold wire are not significant compared to the total supply.  Gold makes good money because it expands in supply very slowly (and then maybe up to only a point) and because it doesn't get "used up".  It is not a commodity people "use" like Silver.  Same goes for Bitcoin.  Maybe the amount of Bitcoins that get lost might be analogous to the gold that gets "used up".  Gold jewlry can always be turned back into coins too.  Plus I think he mixes up cause and effect.  People sought after gold as jewelry because it was money - they didn't make it money because it looked good as a ring!

Bitcoin is a lot closer to gold than he gives it credit for.  Both gold and bitcoin have different pros and cons but they certainly each can do things that the other cannot.

Anyone else?

[1714194375]

1714194375

[1714194375]

1714194375

[theonewhowaskazu]

His entire argument effectively boils down to "the human race has a collective hard-on for gold." 

[drrussellshane]

Pride is his problem, methinks.

He knew about Bitcoin early, but scoffed, and now I think he feels like he needs to stick with his original supposition.

I scoffed at Bitcoin at first too, when I briefly heard about it a while back.

At today's prices, I reckon that it cost me about $126,000,000! 

[kireinaha]

Peter, if you`re reading this, I`ll debate you over bitcoin. Mono y mono, you catch what I`m saying, mate? Meet me at the McDonald`s outside your recording studio, 7 PM. We`ll settle this like real men.

[XBBlade]

Peter, if you`re reading this, I`ll debate you over bitcoin. Mono y mono, you catch what I`m saying, mate? Meet me at the McDonald`s outside your recording studio, 7 PM. We`ll settle this like real men.

Haha epic answer to this stupid video ^^

[xavier]

Well.... he does have a point

1. Gold , around for 4,000 years

2. Bitcoin , around for 5

****

1. Impossible to destroy gold

2. Possible to destroy bitcoin (51% attack)

****

1. Gold is legal , accepted and recognized worldwide

2. Bitcoin is legal is most countries but illegal in some , also not accepted worldwide

****

1. Gold is fungible

2. Bitcoin is not fungible (coin validation)

****

1. Gold can be transacted 100% anonymously

2. Bitcoin cannot be 100% anonymous (but can be anonymized pretty well - perhaps to 90% - if you are clever)

[kireinaha]

Just came back from McDonald`s and surprise, surprise bitch boy Peter didn`t show up. Does that mean I win the debate by default?

[bryant.coleman]

Well.... he does have a point

1. Gold , around for 4,000 years

2. Bitcoin , around for 5

That doesn't mean anything. Just because BTC is new, you can't say that it is not reliable.

1. Impossible to destroy gold

2. Possible to destroy bitcoin (51% attack)

It is possible to destroy "the value of" gold. Only around 200,000 tonnes of gold have ever been mined during the past 4,000 years. That's why it is having such high value. What if someone suddenly discovers a previously unknown source of gold weighing a billion tonnes? Gold will suddenly become worthless. Here is the advantage of BTC. The number of BTCs will remain constant at 21 million. Unlike the amount of gold available, it can't be increased.

51% attack is near impossible.

1. Gold is legal , accepted and recognized worldwide

2. Bitcoin is legal is most countries but illegal in some , also not accepted worldwide

Although BTC is quite new, it is already recognized in countries such as Germany and S Korea. More will follow.

1. Gold is fungible

2. Bitcoin is not fungible (coin validation)

Gold is fungible now. But that doesn't mean that the case will be same in the future.

1. Gold can be transacted 100% anonymously

2. Bitcoin cannot be 100% anonymous (but can be anonymized pretty well - perhaps to 90% - if you are clever)

Surprising. As far as I know, BTC transactions are much more anonymous compared to those involving gold.

[theonewhowaskazu]

1. Gold can be transacted 100% anonymously

2. Bitcoin cannot be 100% anonymous (but can be anonymized pretty well - perhaps to 90% - if you are clever)

That's hugely noob. Your other points were twisting reality too, but this is just so blatantly bad I don't know what to say. You have to transact face-to-face, or have somebody give the gold in your stead resulting in counterparty risk. If you're willing to accept counterparty risk, you can do the exact same thing in Bitcoin, for much less cost. If you're not willing to accept counterparty risk, Bitcoin does everything pseudoanonymously which is FAR MORE ANONYMOUS than physical face-to-face delivery.

[impulse]

I think one of the principal mistakes he is making is that he assumes it is necessary to "cash out" in order to profit, as is the case, more or less, with gold. This is of course, erroneous. Fiat to bitcoin can be a one way valve for those who are willing to spend their profits in bitcoin, which is more possible and popular every day. There need not be a rush to the exits.

[AnonyMint]

I think one of the principal mistakes he is making is that he assumes it is necessary to "cash out" in order to profit, as is the case, more or less, with gold. This is of course, erroneous. Fiat to bitcoin can be a one way valve for those who are willing to spend their profits in bitcoin, which is more possible and popular every day. There need not be a rush to the exits.

Bitards are ignorant.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349869.msg3747555#msg3747555

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349096.msg3744842#msg3744842

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3745278#msg3745278

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161

[xavier]

1. Gold can be transacted 100% anonymously

2. Bitcoin cannot be 100% anonymous (but can be anonymized pretty well - perhaps to 90% - if you are clever)

That's hugely noob. Your other points were twisting reality too, but this is just so blatantly bad I don't know what to say. You have to transact face-to-face, or have somebody give the gold in your stead resulting in counterparty risk. If you're willing to accept counterparty risk, you can do the exact same thing in Bitcoin, for much less cost. If you're not willing to accept counterparty risk, Bitcoin does everything pseudoanonymously which is FAR MORE ANONYMOUS than physical face-to-face delivery.

If you sell gold to me today , there is no physical record of it , or record beyond you and I acknowledging the transaction (or any physical records we may individually choose - optionally - to keep)

If you sell bitcoin to me , there has to be a physical record with the sender/receiver and the time and date of the transaction that is permanently stored and available to everybody in the world. There is no choice about that

Because of this , gold is more anonymous than bitcoin.

I accept that it may be more *difficult* to transact gold, since one has to exchange it physically. However, if you wanted to be completely sure your transaction could not be traced and anonymity was paramount, it would be better to use gold.


EDIT: Thinking more about it , I guess actually it might be possible to just physically swap private keys. Even so , the item would contain a record of all previous transactions that had been publicly made using it. Gold could never do that

[AnonyMint]

Thanks. Sorry no time. Only those willing to dig due diligence deserve to be prosper. Spoon feeding is for the masses, and they are always the losers in every investment.

physically swap private keys. ... Gold could never do that

Swapping keys does not protect against prior owner of a key double-spending it.

[theonewhowaskazu]

1. Gold can be transacted 100% anonymously

2. Bitcoin cannot be 100% anonymous (but can be anonymized pretty well - perhaps to 90% - if you are clever)

That's hugely noob. Your other points were twisting reality too, but this is just so blatantly bad I don't know what to say. You have to transact face-to-face, or have somebody give the gold in your stead resulting in counterparty risk. If you're willing to accept counterparty risk, you can do the exact same thing in Bitcoin, for much less cost. If you're not willing to accept counterparty risk, Bitcoin does everything pseudoanonymously which is FAR MORE ANONYMOUS than physical face-to-face delivery.

If you sell gold to me today , there is no physical record of it , or record beyond you and I acknowledging the transaction (or any physical records we may individually choose - optionally - to keep)

Um yeah, other than the fact that you physically had to visit the shop. What are you "selling" the gold for? Drugs? And how do you plan to advertise your 'shop'? And whats to prevent somebody from waiting in the door to conveniently jump the first guy to walk in to physically transact the gold? What the absolute heck are you trying to keep secret? Give me a practical example of a transaction that would be more secret if you did it in Gold than Bitcoin.

Its funny how you say 'physical record' when the record of Bitcoin is about a million times less physical than walking into a god damn shop.

If you sell bitcoin to me , there has to be a physical record with the sender/receiver and the time and date of the transaction that is permanently stored and available to everybody in the world. There is no choice about that

And what's so bad about some esoteric transaction hidden in a billion other transactions? And if you are so intent on it being secretive then just mix the transaction for god's sake.

Because of this , gold is more anonymous than bitcoin.

yeah that makes perfect sense.

I accept that it may be more *difficult* to transact gold, since one has to exchange it physically. However, if you wanted to be completely sure your transaction could not be traced and anonymity was paramount, it would be better to use gold.

Because its so much easier to track a piece of information (private key) to the person who knows that information (assuming you can even track the transaction between 2 addresses which can be easily mixed) as opposed to the face of the person who just handed you a physical chunk of gold to a name.

[charleshoskinson]

Peter doesn't seem to understand that information actually has value. He makes me a sad panda.

[manuel]

EDIT: Thinking more about it , I guess actually it might be possible to just physically swap private keys. Even so , the item would contain a record of all previous transactions that had been publicly made using it. Gold could never do that

Unless one of you mined the coin...

And what about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouo7Q6Cf_yc

[hieroglyph]

I've listened to Peter a fair amount and I'd say he isn't going to admit bitcoin is as good as gold because he has alot of money invested in gold.  I could be wrong but that just seems like the most logical/obvious reason.