OK, let's go for something within my lifetime. In August 1971, gold was $35.00 per ounce. Adjusted for inflation that would be about $211.00 in today's dollars. Now if I compare the price of gold to what it was in May of 1980, then it sucks. Overall, in the long haul, it's most probably going to keep up with inflation.
Not necessarily so at all. You've basically said it worked like this in the past and so it will work like this going forward. But of course we didn't have bitcoin. But more importantly you probably don't know that the relationship is really about the cost of production which effectively related to its deepness.
As we grow our technology gold won't necessarily be scarce and this will happen in our lifetimes. This is why szabos article about mining the vast deep were written and relevant (as well as comet mining).
There is nothing to suggest gold will continue to be a superior or safe store of wealth.
Since when does scarcity make something good money or a store of wealth?
Furthermore, with PMs I have thousands of years of data to rely upon, whereas with Bitcoin, I only have a small sample of 8 years to rely upon. Which statistical sample do you think is more sound? Sure, it's quite possible that Bitcoin may be the next wave of innovation in money, just like fiat was 500 years ago. It could also be the next AOL or MySpace. At 49, I am certainly not going to invest my whole life savings in this. Especially in this realm where I can lose a substantial amount by just transferring some BTC to the wrong exchange at the wrong time (ie BTC-e, Cryptsy, MT Gox, Bitfinex etc etc etc etc etc) or someone, somehow managing to breach my security and steal my bitcoins. (a 5.00 wrench should be enough for that.)
