Topic: Peter Schiff vs. Barry Silbert: Gold and Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 394 times)

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)

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

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'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.

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.

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....

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.

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

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
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 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

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.

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.