Peter Schiff vs. Barry Silbert: Gold and Bitcoin

[pushups44]

Here's a great debate between gold bug Peter Schiff and bitcoin bull Barry Silbert:

https://youtu.be/zN0NIcghT0g

I thought Schiff did a great job pointing to the historical value of gold, though I tend to side with Silbert in this debate. While I am much more bullish about bitcoin than gold, I believe gold is money and a form of insurance to economy uncertainty. I felt Silbert could have done more to rebut Schiff's point about the environmental costs of bitcoin mining.

[CryptoBry]

I thought Schiff did a great job pointing to the historical value of gold, though I tend to side with Silbert in this debate. While I am much more bullish about bitcoin than gold, I believe gold is money and a form of insurance to economy uncertainty. I felt Silbert could have done more to rebut Schiff's point about the environmental costs of bitcoin mining.

As for me, both gold and bitcoin each has their own strengths, advantages and weaknesses as well. Now, if I have more funds to invest, I would go for both though since bitcoin has proven to be more moneymaker than gold I tend to give more space for it. However, its good thing to see a debate on this topic so that we can highlight both and an investor can see both sides of the coin before jumping into anything. You can go for gold...you can go for bitcoin or much better go for both...the most important thing is that you go for something.

[franky1]

a better explanation / debate would have been along the lines of (ill quote myself from other topic to save time)

gold sits on 2 markets. the commodity market (mined and sold for industry/product creation)
                                  the asset market(bought and sold for speculative prices for investment)

putting aside the commodity utility and concentrating just on the asset market. gold is similar to bitcoin.
both assets have an upfront cost for mining.
gold has excavators, sluice machines and diesel
bitcoin has asics and electric.

to interupt and add to this point. gold is actually more environmentally damaging than bitcoin
imagine a flat piece of gold rich land, vs the large quarry/hole in the ground after gold mining.. big impact
imagine a warehouse thats empty before bitcoin mining vs a empty warehouse after bitcoin mining..no impact
also the whole diesel(gold) vs hydro(bitcoin) impact

anyway lets get back to it

because it costs X amount to mine these assets give the assets a good underlying bottom value. where people refuse to sell below,
after all if it cost pennies to mine gold and nothing to mine bitcoin. those getting the mined assets would be happy to sell at any price and still profit. but would refuse to sell for less than the cost price of obtaining it.

im not talking about the market price. im talking about the hidden underlying value without the speculation.
for instance even when bitcoin was $20k it had a underlying value everyone refused to sell at of ~$5800
for instance with gold at $1200 it has an underlying value everyone refused to sell at of ~$900
the difference between the underlying value and the market price is the speculation based on utility value and hype

the utility/hype of both are ~$300 spculation for gold(33%) $2000 for bitcoin(33%)
as the video mentioned the utility demand for gold only rose a few percent even though cell phone production grew 500% which shows the amount of gold going into industry is coming down.
as for bitcoin the utility demand is on the increase. people wanting to use bitcoin for ETF, futures, remittance, retirement plans. bitcoin has more acceptance as currency with merchants

anyway lets get back to it

USD is just paper and is dirt cheap to create a $100 bank note. and digital USD is just created from people signing credit/mortgage agreements(more ink and paper). so USD has no real upfront creation cost.
USD's value comes from its utility value.. which is things like laws such as minimum wage laws where in some US states a $10 bank note is worth 1 hours labour, but state to state this is variable as some states have $7.50 some have $15

USD is also inflationary. today for $2 you might b able to buy a loaf of bread. in 50 years $2 will get you only a slice of bread
where as gold and bitcoin are deflationary. in the future the odds are you can get more goods and services than the past.
USD as shown just by the variance of minimum wage has a bad value measure as each state cant b equal so USD is bad for international valuation/transfer
where as gold/bitcoin both have a measure that values it at the same internationally

[Genemind]

I don't think it's justifiable to compare gold with Bitcoin.
People have been debating which one is better.
As for me, they are incomparable since they are different in so many ways.
They're different physically and they both play an important role in terms of investment.

[BitHodler]

I like Peter Schiff's stance on the economy in general and the money printing schemes of central banks, but his anti Bitcoin attitude is based largely on being a salty gold bug because Bitcoin threatens his wealth that largely consists of gold.

It's not healthy to rehash the same non arguments, which he has been doing even when Bitcoin's price hovered around the $100 mark. Just look at his Twitter account, it's being flooded with Bitcoiners pointing him at exactly that.

I'm not anti gold, and I don't see why both Bitcoin and gold can't coexist, but him not allocating a portion of his holdings to Bitcoin is the biggest mistake of his life. Trash talking Bitcoin since it was $100 and being wrong all the time must hurt....

[kryptqnick]

Here's a great debate between gold bug Peter Schiff and bitcoin bull Barry Silbert:

https://youtu.be/zN0NIcghT0g

I thought Schiff did a great job pointing to the historical value of gold, though I tend to side with Silbert in this debate. While I am much more bullish about bitcoin than gold, I believe gold is money and a form of insurance to economy uncertainty. I felt Silbert could have done more to rebut Schiff's point about the environmental costs of bitcoin mining.

Thanks for sharing this debate. I think that people usually don't change their mind after such events, but they can help make up the minds of those who don't stand anywhere on this matter yet. I wanted to point out that the historical value of gold is only a partially valid argument because there've been cases in history when too much gold appeared somewhere, causing devaluation, actually. Schiff says Bitcoin is like fiat, but that's incorrect. And while gold has some value in itself, it is also mainly valuable because people believe in it. I am soo on Silbert's side here. Schliff is rude and conservative.

[mk4]

I'm 50-50 on who I'm siding with on this debate. Personally, while I'm a bitcoiner, I also like gold; due to the simple reason that it's one of the most stable and liquid assets we currently have. Whereas, Silbert was pretty much anti-gold on the debate. I liked Erik Voorhees' arguments a lot more on his debates with Schiff as he has a more sort of "balanced" approach on his arguments, as he also likes gold.

Seriously though, why can't we have Andreas Antonopoulos to debate Peter Schiff? Schiff would get massacred.

[gentlemand]

Why does everything have to be so binary?

Personally I think gold's a load of boring, staid bollocks that I'd only bother with as a paperweight. At the same time I totally understand why people would consider it over BTC and I really don't think there's much overlap in the type of person who'd consider either. Even better they can have a dabble with both.

[mk4]

Why does everything have to be so binary?

Personally I think gold's a load of boring, staid bollocks that I'd only bother with as a paperweight. At the same time I totally understand why people would consider it over BTC and I really don't think there's much overlap in the type of person who'd consider either. Even better they can have a dabble with both.

Pretty much my thoughts. Silbert was against gold hence I didn't like his stance, not like Voorhees'[1] stance. There was definitely a conflict of interest for both Silbert and Schiff that they had to defend their asset no matter what simply because they're incentivized to do so.

Bitcoiners can be gold bugs too. As both advocate for these assets because both are simply against fiat in the first place.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8R71WGO3qU

[deisik]

Why does everything have to be so binary?

Personally I think gold's a load of boring, staid bollocks that I'd only bother with as a paperweight. At the same time I totally understand why people would consider it over BTC and I really don't think there's much overlap in the type of person who'd consider either. Even better they can have a dabble with both.

Pretty much my thoughts. Silbert was against gold hence I didn't like his stance, not like Voorhees'[1] stance. There was definitely a conflict of interest for both Silbert and Schiff that they had to defend their asset no matter what simply because they're incentivized to do so.

Bitcoiners can be gold bugs too. As both advocate for these assets because both are simply against fiat in the first place

I don't think they are so much against fiat

In other words, I wouldn't add religious undertone to it (kind of) which you seem to imply here. Gold and to a lesser degree Bitcoin can be considered a hedge against fiat devaluation, not that they are an enemy of fiat or a competitor to it (even if some think gold is still money). And while gold is an indisputable king of this kind of hedge (as it hedges against anything that could lose value before gold itself does), Bitcoin is a hedge against weak currencies in local economies (despite its volatility)

[Ailmand]

I thought Schiff did a great job pointing to the historical value of gold, though I tend to side with Silbert in this debate. While I am much more bullish about bitcoin than gold, I believe gold is money and a form of insurance to economy uncertainty. I felt Silbert could have done more to rebut Schiff's point about the environmental costs of bitcoin mining.

As for me, both gold and bitcoin each has their own strengths, advantages and weaknesses as well. Now, if I have more funds to invest, I would go for both though since bitcoin has proven to be more moneymaker than gold I tend to give more space for it. However, its good thing to see a debate on this topic so that we can highlight both and an investor can see both sides of the coin before jumping into anything. You can go for gold...you can go for bitcoin or much better go for both...the most important thing is that you go for something.

I agree to this, both gold and bitcoin has their own advantage and dis adavantage. Some people chooae to invest in gold since it is more stable than crypto, on the other hand the market volatility and risk of crypto market makes it more profitable for some people. Each has their own unique characteristics making it fit for investment depending on people's preference in regarda to investments.

[drumamat]

Me at all seems why to compare 2 different things absolutely different on their properties.It seems to me that bitcoin has many more useful properties.Now comes the digital age and bitcoin has in this period of time the greatest value than gold.

[Shenzou]

Here's a great debate between gold bug Peter Schiff and bitcoin bull Barry Silbert:

https://youtu.be/zN0NIcghT0g

I thought Schiff did a great job pointing to the historical value of gold, though I tend to side with Silbert in this debate. While I am much more bullish about bitcoin than gold, I believe gold is money and a form of insurance to economy uncertainty. I felt Silbert could have done more to rebut Schiff's point about the environmental costs of bitcoin mining.

I think that i agree with Schiff here, and i will always be sided with gold in terms of how viable it is and will stay so until the end of time, gold has an actual physical existence and a limited supply and they can't produce more gold like with fiat and it is available at any time, unlike bitcoin which totally tied to the internet if you pull the plug on it it dies, it is true that modern world requires modern technology and things to adept to it, and that is why gold bitcoin should just coexist together.

[xWolfx]

Why does everything have to be so binary?

Personally I think gold's a load of boring, staid bollocks that I'd only bother with as a paperweight. At the same time I totally understand why people would consider it over BTC and I really don't think there's much overlap in the type of person who'd consider either. Even better they can have a dabble with both.

I believe the exact same thing. Why is always black or white? - Why not both sometimes and sometimes other options?

Both are pretty cool in their own ways. However, the second answer describes something really important about the environmental costs of gold that people is not really seeing because it's not that simple to calculate like Bitcoin's cost is.

For example, in Venezuela you can lookup pictures of how the green space is looking now and how it was before due to all the totally  unregulated mining they are performing and counting the ones not with the ones at charge doing it too while they hide. It's all about profit and zero about environmental concerns.

In the case of Bitcoin, solving the clean energy problem would solve the environmental costs of it since it will only need electricity. However, with Gold it won't be that easy.

[TimeBits]

Put me in the debate, I would destroy both sides with Time, although that lady at the very start might distract me a little from my points.  

I do have to give Peter credit, Gold will be needed in the future, Gold demand will only go up, same with land, they are the two best investments you can buy into. The problem with making Gold the money supply though is that we need it for space programs in the future. The other problem with gold is that they seized it before here in North America, More people hold bitcoin than gold these days.

but both of these things run into this problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7TLFyK_3Pk (Watch what happens with limited supplies)

[TimeBits]

Let`s say fiat died off, what would be a better measure for goods? gold or bitcoin?

TIME.

[1Referee]

I don't think it's justifiable to compare gold with Bitcoin.
People have been debating which one is better.
As for me, they are incomparable since they are different in so many ways.
They're different physically and they both play an important role in terms of investment.

I don't think they're all that different to be honest.

Main difference is that Gold is physical and enjoys some degree of industrial demand. Gold would have more industrial demand if the price wasn't so insanely high, where if the price of Gold goes x2 in the coming 5-10 years, that means there is even less industrial demand. If you believe that Gold will keep going up, then you're basically running out of ammo in terms of using its industrial demand as argument to stimulate your pro Gold narrative.

Most of Gold's demand comes from speculation and the use as store of value. So does Bitcoin. Both are being mined, one physically, the other digitally. In both cases it can't be done for free on a large scale. In both cases people want to park their wealth in something that can't be confiscated by governments, but they go wrong in the way that most of their Gold is held in bank vaults. Bitcoin makes that aspect easier and way cheaper.

[franky1]

Let`s say fiat died off, what would be a better measure for goods? gold or bitcoin?

TIME.

agreed an hours minimum wage labour should be a measure.
for instance
america has $10 measuring as 1hour 20minutes in one state. but only 40 minutes in another state (minimum wage $7.50-$15)

however if we had a token measured as 1 hours labour. yea the fiat value may be volatile state to state. but each person no matter where they live can work the same physical time for the same token. this would then normalise the volatility of fiat where every state then is forced and agree's that an hours labour is the same

bitcoins price($8500)
many dont realise that bitcoin in a U.S state of $15min wage. means someone has to work 566 hours to get 1btc
many dont realise that bitcoin in third world of $0.05min wage. means someone has to work 170,000 hours to get 1btc

things need to change so no matter where you are you know minimum labour is equally valued

[TimeBits]

Let`s say fiat died off, what would be a better measure for goods? gold or bitcoin?

TIME.

agreed an hours minimum wage labour should be a measure.
for instance
america has $10 measuring as 1hour 20minutes in one state. but only 40 minutes in another state (minimum wage $7.50-$15)

however if we had a token measured as 1 hours labour. yea the fiat value may be volatile state to state. but each person no matter where they live can work the same physical time for the same token. this would then normalise the volatility of fiat where every state then is forced and agree's that an hours labour is the same

bitcoins price($8500)
many dont realise that bitcoin in a U.S state of $15min wage. means someone has to work 566 hours to get 1btc
many dont realise that bitcoin in third world of $0.05min wage. means someone has to work 170,000 hours to get 1btc

things need to change so no matter where you are you know minimum labour is equally valued

I see you coming around brother Frank <3

[gentlemand]

Let`s say fiat died off, what would be a better measure for goods? gold or bitcoin?

TIME.

Time is the only true currency of value which is why The Man would never encourage its use to measure against the crap they're trying to sell you. With dollars at least there's some abstraction to take your mind off what you're squandering.

If it's actually staring you in the face every time you part with your Time then you're suddenly going to become a lot more discerning.