Topic: James Turk's Q&A with GoldMoney followers includes section on Bitcoin (Read 5274 times)

That's what we think will do well in the future. Although, a cryptocoin that's more focused on payments instead of value transfer like Bitcoin is, would do much better in day-to-day operations.

^This

Gold has a few thousand years of history behind it... that amount of momentum counts for a lot in human events.

OTOH saving in gold and paying in bitcoin would be an extremely powerful and flexible combination.

I think that the guys at http://coinabul.com/ have the right idea. Mr. Turk should take note. After all, he does not believe in fiat dollars or euros but still accepts them in payment...

echoing OP comments.

Someone should write him and say "I know the dollar is backed by nothing, but would you consider accepting them anyway. I imagine some potential customers would appreciate it and you can always trade the dollars for things that you do like."

I tend to agree. Every currency needs a mirror. The fiat currency experiment resulted in the FRN and Euro. Now that the Euro is evaporating and the debt situation the world markets has reverted back to gold and the FRN. Gold and Bitcoin could match that relationship in a bi-commodity standard like gold/silver.

It seems gold is best at transferring value over time while Bitcoin is superior at transferring value over distance. Sure, more of the systems need to be built out but it can clone and graft much of the current infrastructure like the new BitInstant Credit/Debit card.

that's ok then.  it'll be our secret.

I always thought that this reworking of Exter's pyramid by gengix was really insightful in showing how gold and bitcoin relate to each other.  Gold is the best tangible money.  Bitcoin is the best intangible money.  Each is a mirror image of the other, sitting at the top of their own category.  They do not compete, they complement.

Don't know what you are talking about.

Now maybe you'll understand my joke?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1104189

aha, it's a small btc world after all.

Dude...

sunnankar=Trace mayer

and also centralized.

Yup.  Take almost any goldbug article, do
 $ %s/gold/bitcoin/g 
and what you end up with makes nearly perfect sense to a bitcoiner.

Turk has his well rehearsed talking points and rarely much more in my observation.

----

On a slight tangent, I was on a long drive recently and trying to think up ways to describe Bitcoin.  I've always advocated formally (whatever that means in the Bitcoin world) the term 'money' when talking about Bitcoin for a few reasons.  Here's my description which takes the form of a comparison:

 - Fiat:  A centrally managed accounting system backed by the law.

 - Bitcoin:  A distributed accounting system backed by cryptography/mathematics.

 - Gold (physical):  A distributed accounting system backed by physics.

I wonder if Turk would or could grok that?  I've always held that Bitcoin and gold are so close to one another when contrasted with fiat that for a lot of conversations they can be considered identical.

LOL well said

It's like the Mises Institute decrying government fiat at every opportunity, yet accepting it gratefully, and not yet accepting free market bitcoin currency.

He is; much, if not all, of his online material is available for purchase via Bitcoin.

The owner of runtogold.com, Trace Mayer (who also owns HowToVanish.com), is very close to Mr. Turk. I don't expect anything negative coming out from the site. 

I think I read once before that Mr. Mayer was quite positive and supportive of bitcoin.

Charlie Shrem of BitInstant came up with the blood and veins analogy or at least it was the first time I heard it (on a phone call a few months ago). I have been using it ever since because it is so accurate and easy to understand.

Additionally, Mr. Turk should separate his personal beliefs from business practice. As the chairman of GoldMoney he should be concerned with his fiduciary duties and not strutting around as some religious zealot with a particular philosophical agenda. In this case, he has a customer that has a particular need and is asking if GoldMoney will provide a service for that need and he told the customer to go pound sand because it conflicts with his philosophical assertion.

It does not matter what Mr. Turk's personal belief is about whether Bitcoin has value as an asset (obviously it does and the market says so because millions of dollars worth trade every day) and the market does not give two craps what Mr. Turk's opinion is. A good businessman would have responded something like, "Well, that depends on whether we can provide a service customers demand and make a profit. Currently we have not had enough customers demand Bitcoin integration to justify making the investments required."


Mr. Turk's argument is logically flawed and he is completely missing how the Bitcoin source code has solved the double-spend problem. Plus, his arguments beg the question: What is tangibility? He tries to solve the double-spend problem with auditors, a trust company, etc. or in other words corporate governenance and segregation of duties. But only particular people are allowed to enter the vaults and verify the bullion. On the other hand, Bitcoin solves the double spend problem with source code that is available for anyone to review. Therefore, GoldMoney's system is closed source were double spends are possible while Bitcoin is open source where double spends are impossible (or the risks can be more easily calculated).

Bitcoin: A New Commodity Created To Serve Market Demand
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/bitcoin-a-new-commodity-created-to-serve-market-demand/

This position is not compatible with his later statements about fiat currency. Fiat currency is tangible too because it is made of paper, steel, copper, nickel etc. These are tangible commodities.

The point Turk is missing is scarcity. Gold has more value than paper because it is much scarcer. And that is why bitcoin has value, because it is scarce.