The Bitcoin or Gold psyop is silly and the debaters on both sides are usually clueless.
Why wouldn't you own both Bitcoin and Gold? They are both assets outside the system and have different advantages/disadvantages.
To mention some of gold's advantages (because everyone here already knows about Bitcoin's advantages):
(1) Physical gold has no public ledger.
- No historical chain of custody anchored in a global database.
- Evidence of holdings is fragmentary: vault records, invoices, eyewitnesses, maybe customs records.
- Outside that, the state has suspicion, not a cryptographic audit trail.
- The "omniscient ledger" simply doesn’t exist.
(2) Harder to geofence at scale from a screen.
- Once it is in your physical possession, there is no equivalent "app store ban" or "node-liability" lever that instantly makes it unusable for most people.
(3) Gold has no "core devs", no client politics, no mempool policy.
- "Protocol" = physics, metallurgy, and a scale.
- There is no equivalent of a small GitHub group with agenda-setting power.
- There is no "v30" for gold. No client upgrade that suddenly increases storage risk by 1200x.
- Coordination burden is basically zero at the "how it works" layer.
(4) No need to defend a node/mempool ecosystem.
- No nodes.
- No mempool.
- No UTXO set to bloat.
- You don't need an army of volunteer maintainers to keep "gold full nodes" defensible.
- Less coordination tax, fewer sociotechnical attack surfaces.
(5) Gold expropriation requires physical enforcement, not just data + policy.
There is no universal gold UTXO set or "travel rule".
Expropriation requires either:
- Knowing where the gold is (vault, safe deposit box, storage facility).
- Or house-by-house enforcement with massive manpower/legitimacy cost.
In practice, enforcement tends to focus on:
- Formal channels (vaults, dealers, banks).
- Border crossings.
- Declarations above thresholds.
@Daedalus also opened my eyes to some very significant issues regarding Bitcoin hardware wallets.
TL;DR - I'd imagine the government has access to the vast majority of seed phrases.
From what I've researched, getting this risk to zero is extremely hard (if not impossible). It can be minimized with multi-sig, heterogeneous devices instead of trusting any single black box.
Just one of the many issues are "secure" elements in which many wallets store the seed phrase.
A secure element (SE) is:
- Closed-source silicon + firmware
- Designed and signed off by a tiny number of entities
- Certified by processes you don't control (Common Criteria, labs, NDAs)
- Distributed at scale into "secure" devices (wallets, phones, SIMs, payment cards)
Secure elements are perfect for creating choke points where keys & identity cluster:
- Centralized design
- Long lifetimes
- Hard to inspect physically
- Wrapped in "security" narrative
So if you assume a serious state-level adversary wants that lever and can get it sometimes, the right prior is:
- "Treat any closed-source Secure Element as potentially backdoored if you're defending against a nation-state"
That's not the same as "we know for a fact every Secure Element is backdoored". We don't. Lacking verifiable proof is exactly what makes this such an asymmetric control point.
Dice-based seeds fix RNG trust, not key exfiltration. If a device ever sees the full seed, a malicious Secure Element/firmware can leak it later.
The only real structural defense is collusion forcing:
- Heterogeneous multi-sig (different vendors + DIY),
- Multi-source entropy (XOR’d seeds),
- Passphrases kept off the compromised device,
- Independent stacks for different key shares.
There is no neat solution that makes you "immune to NSA". The best you can do is:
- Make mass, silent theft via one corporate/vended rail impossible,
- Force any serious adversary into messy, noisy, manual operations if they want you specifically.
A state-level actor can plausibly:
- backdoor RNG/nonces,
- exfil keys via signatures,
- coerce vendor into "minor tweaks",
- intercept shipping,
- or just use host+legal leverage.
(6) Gold doesn't need electricity, internet, DNS, app stores, or routers.
- You can transact in a blackout.
- You can pay a smuggler without any digital evidence.
- You don't care about packet filtering or "crypto port" throttling.
There are many more examples of where Gold has an advantage over Bitcoin.
And of course, Bitcoin has many advantages over gold (teleportability, shock convexity in a specific Great Taking scenario, programmability for complex, conditional arrangements, granularity in price discovery, verifiability, etc.).
That's the point, gold vs bitcoin is a stupid debate.
BTC sovereignty is mathematically elegant but socially expensive and perimeter-fragile.
Gold sovereignty is technologically dumb but perimeter-resilient and legally fuzzier.
Both are useful, but for different failure modes of the system.
The same exercise can be repeated for Bitcoin and Monero. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (31)
Thank you for the shoutout. Too many blindly trust "secure elements" or "trusted computing". This is a dangerous idea as FOSS advocates will often point out.
Gold, yes. BTC is a ponzi, it should be apparent to all. The Epstein papers reveals enough of how it has been taken over.
Can you send me all your sats then please?
He was talking to CSW 😂
Just look up the definition of a Ponzi. Maybe with the exception of zapping. It is hard to find any intrinsic value except the Ponzi it self (more people putting their money into the scheme).
It's all true, but in practice it's difficult. And if it's very hard to use it, there's no network effect.
Nodes and wallets are a tradeoff. If you're a Goldsmith, you are your own "node". If you build your safe with metal plates from the ground or buy one with cash only, there you have your "wallet".
You could move to a place where people like gold. India. That would solve the network problem, maybe.
In the past people (retail) dealt with all that stuff... the introduction of a necessary third party (government) standardizing coins was very successfull, no doubt. All issues above was kind of solved, network effect grew exponnentially with such a success, that the physichal mean (coin) became too value dense.
Really enjoying your comments. Great provocation 👍
I'll stick to bitcoin. It depends on a comprehensive amount of different humans, universal, easily "checkable". By itself it makes it more robust.
Gold is different, there would have to be a local group of enthusiasts. And they can physichally betray you. Just need of them to do it.
☝️🔥🔥🔥😌
😳🤯🫡…another thought provokingly electric post from @Control-Plane Capital ….even when I think I disagree I often find myself reassessing my point of view (for the better)…one of the best feeds on nostr …imho
If u don’t follow this npub I think ur missing out 🤷🏽♂️
Thank you sir, appreciate the kind words! 🫡
This is a very good comparison. It baffles me too how people see this as a binary issue. A lot of things baffle me about how online communities see things.
What are your thoughts on Tether accumulating all that gold and the idea that their gold-backed stablecoin will eat into bitcoin's value-proposition (to a degree), whereas bitcoin doesn't really have a way to eat back.
They logically had to move towards gold because bitcoin‘s market capitalization isn’t large enough to support tether’s market cap at this point.
So they needed to buy treasuries or gold sounds to me like they made the right choice
Tether could have assets increase in value versus the dollar they could have treasuries that pay a tiny dividend, or they could become a bank and attempt to issue tether in a fractional reserve fashion. Those seem to be the options on the table and becoming a bank was never gonna be a real option.
Good points, all!
Tether is basically the government, so they do what they're told.
If they were told to stack gold, it indicates that the Controllers want to direct capital away from Bitcoin and toward gold right now.
Central banks + Tether + various sovereigns = strong revealed preference.
The other buyer in size of BTC (MSTR) also got disciplined very heavily (from margin increases to unrealized capital gains tax fud to index removal fud, to S&P 500 rejection, etc.) at a time when MSTR had an mNAV of about 2 (meaning they could issue shares to stack lots of Bitcoin in an accretive way).
So they basically implicitly told institutions: "stay away from Bitcoin, buy gold".
Bitcoin's current value proposition is a store of value with regulatory overhang and a Great Taking hedge.
Unless Bitcoin is private by default (no special mode), I don't see a scenario in which Bitcoin's value proposition becomes mass, non-custodial Medium-of-Exchange.
Which basically means that we have to hope that the Controllers allow for Bitcoin to go up in fiat terms and remains a store-of-value, so that they don't alienate the masses into Monero, physical alternatives, etc.
So far it hasn't worked in the post-ETF era and I have a feeling that we have a wave of Quantum FUD on the horizon, but what can you do.
If you get this cucked, you kinda have to wait for your turn or take a stand and there are too many simultaneous attacks for the community to coordinate a coherent response (coordination tax).
When governments capture "error assets" such as Bitcoin, they use the "Honeymoon → Normalization → Harvest" playbook because the plebs always fall for it.
New financial tech follows the same arc: big sweeteners at launch, normalization once everyone is on board, and then the quiet fee/tax/regulation harvest.
In other words, you pay people with higher fiat prieces whilst you paperize and capture so that they associate regulation with "winning".
The incentives flip as soon as enough users are corralled.
Bitcoin's honeymoon phase was very short (mostly pre-ETF) which indicates to me that they already know they have us by the balls, so they didn't have to pull out the big sweeteners.
The deeper into the Paperization game Bitcoin gets, the more they'll fuck with us.
Most Bitcoiners still don't understand that the 21M cap doesn't mean much if most people don't self custody.
The protocol can cap issuance at 21,000,000 BTC.
Markets can create claims on far more than 21,000,000 BTC.
Bitcoin's 21M cap is a protocol invariant, not a shield against synthetic supply created by ETFs, funds, wrappers, futures, structured notes, and rehypothecation.
And you are right… monero and physical gold for example look much more promising than this clown show we are witnessing here 🤪
Simon Dixon has the best take I heard so far on the global “financial” all over situation. And this shit show is really proving his points…
I hope he will be right on his last point “at some point they will not be able to hold the price down anymore…”
But then there is also the topic of privacy for btc transactions… also a shit show atm.. jeff booth says fedimints will solve that… can they really?
Such good analysis.
I don't see any problems with tour reasoning.
Long ago, bitcoiners theorized that bitcoin couldn't be captured like gold because it could be easily teleported. May I remind you even Monero has this characteristic.
Well, seing nowadays short term price action, we are kind of frustrated with this gold like numb behavior, aren't we?
If we cannot succed, I'm afraid any other variation of descentralized crypto currency would have the same fate 😒
Maybe we just need a shake out, something that briefly incapacitates this cancer that derivative markets are. Maybe it's how bitcoin succeds from now on: periods of boredom followed by higher price plateaus.
Any talk of privacy on Bitcoin without fundamental changes to L1 is all cope at best or willfully deceit at worst. There have been propositions to add confidential transactions (already proven with liquid to work on the codebase), silent addresses (only work on like 2 wallets), payjoins (not mandatory or default and very janky and slow). All of these optional half measures basically serve to check the box for maxis but ultimately make no change to the protocols privacy.
The issue I see with bitcoin is it can't just keep shaking out people and expecting new cohorts to line up to take the place of the cohorts that got shook out.
Feels like there's just not a curious buzz around bitcoin anymore, like a rock band that for the first time is struggling to fill seats on tour.
That's all just personal vibes, not sure if the numbers support, but strong vibes.
You're completely correct. Practically everyone in retail already knows about Bitcoin. They know they can buy it on Robinhood or via IBIT or whatever. They know it goes up, it's digital gold, etc.
The next buyer needed to be corporate and state treasuries so the Bitcoin community was pushing hard for that the past few years. Didn't really happen, smoke and mirrors.
So if treasuries aren't buying, and retail is losing interest, who do you sell to?
Same. OTOH, what other "roots" moviments are different? What others don't lose steam eventually...?
Linux? Maybe, but I think this recent migration is fed by Microsoft/Windows being worse and worse... In my opinion is that what we need, a radical/ofensive move from the government that makes bitcoin a clear scape, not just NGU.
It's not an opinion, it happenned in Venezuela, Nigeria, Lebanon...
Pain is the best teacher for the majority.
You don't u use it when is needed. Let the others dumbly trade it!
Thanks, this puts some nice packaging around my thoughts.
Who indeed?
in kind redeption + no cap gains tax would have the exact opposite affect
hopefully gov will realize that the more US citizen hodl the better, just like China encourages their people to buy gold.... it could happen
I’m thinking this is why u buy and self custody hard assets more for ur last name than ur first name🤔…the financial powers that be can control things/prices until they can’t😳
…when the plebs are willing to circumvent the system (accept/have a preference for BTC or precious metals over usd/fiat for settlement) the paper losses (shorting/manipulating scarce assets) for the too big to fail guys start mattering 🤡🌎
…I’m an idgit and wrong about a lot but I figured 10 years ago I’d like to store all wealth not necessary for future survival in non fiat assets (the thinking goes that anything that could be taken from u in a divorce (wealth on paper) can be taken by the “stakeholders”…ie “great takening”…altho i was unaware of the term great takening until very recently )🤦🏽♂️🤯
…I’ve still have not seen anything to change my mind🤷🏽♂️
…any thoughts on why/where I’m wrong?
I agree. That's why I'm buying a house, more land, and more of the things I've noted in this article (
)
I have to write more on this but based on what I've researched, I don't see how they don't rug most people with a Great Taking type event in the next few years (e.g. 5-7).
Maybe I'm a doomer, but a Great Taking type event is already legal in every country in the world. Legalizing it took a lot of resources over many decades.
So they can definitely rug, the question is when. Maybe I'd outperform if I just kept all my money in a brokerage account, but it's akin to picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.
What are the best "Great Taking" (expropriation) hedges
Anything inside the custody/tiering chain (bank deposits, brokerage assets, CSD-registered securities, pooled gold, mortgages, money funds) is clai...
Really good points! Thanks! Recently been pondering on the significance of Intel management service in cold/tails PC handling the seed.
Could ad for bitcoins pros: Only one you can take with you and smuggle through hard controls in times of distress.
There's a lot of misconceptions in this post I'd like to address.
1. The state has suspicion regarding bitcoin as well, nothing more. There's no identity on the public ledger, the government is relying on heuristics to 'track' any coins they 'identify' as yours. A single tx and the deterministic link that it's really still you holding the keys is gone.
They have a strong suspicion in this example case, sure, but when it comes to the state it doesn't matter. They will ruin your life over any suspicion. How are you buying the gold in the first place without generating any suspicion? Peer to peer? You can do that with bitcoin much easier.
2. 'Geofencing' bitcoin is just flat out false, can't happen. Go ahead and look at transaction counts in every single country that's ever tried banning it. 'App store bans' or anything like that is just completely ineffective. Much more effective is just... the real world we live in where no one will transact in gold because it is slow, cumbersome, expensive, not verifiable, hard to move physically, hard to divide into smaller units.
3. Bitcoin actually has no 'core devs' either. Bitcoin Core, the client, does. That's just one way to run bitcoin. The best encapsulation of bitcoin, the protocol, development is the consensus ruleset, which is IMPOSSIBLE to change. This is a nuanced point, but it CANNOT be changed. Any change is a fork that you don't have to participate in. So stuff like 'client upgrade that increases storage risk by 1200x' is illegitimate.
4. Node maintenance is trivial and distribution of nodes is already massively overkilled. Any attack on node runners in a legal jurisdiction would activate the antifragility of the network globally. You also are never required to upgrade a node/client software because the system is backward compatible. So the 'requirements' for this pose zero systemic risk.
5. What? Absolutely ridiculous FUD. And even if it's granted truth, you already gave the answer to the problem with multisig solutions. This makes bitcoin expropriation 100% physical same as gold.
6. Gold doesn't need society. Ok, you win this one!
segwit was a softfork that increased the storage size/risk by 4x
there are numerous ways a softfork could ruin the network, ie an OFAC softfork, etc
if a country bans Bitcoin the number of users will drop. It simply adds more friction to getting access to Bitcoin, like when it's removed from brokers/exchanges. But I'm not sure what the original OPs point was
Storage size sure if you are running a node, “storage risk” to Bitcoin holders is another concept entirely that doesn’t apply in any way I can think of, and I think that was OP’s intent.
A soft fork could be damaging yes, luckily there’s extremely heavy contention for even thoroughly reviewed and low risk changes and that will only become more true with time.
Jurisdictional friction, yeah, but again even with maximum friction applied it’s still easier to onboard and transact bitcoin than it is gold.
The main point everyone is missing is that it's not your coins if it's not your keys.
People trading Bitcoin on exchanged and paper gold on the stock market are simply putting money into a scam, eventually they will get rugged.
Physical gold in your possession > paper gold
Self custody Bitcoin > custodial Bitcoin
Cash in your hand > debit in the bank
It's not Bitcoin vs gold.
It's self custody vs you will own nothing