To me the six properties of money are:
- Portable - Easily transported - Check, Bitcoin is perfectly portable and easy to conceal (pw in head) (much better than gold)
- Scarce - Fixed supply - Check, Bitcoin is perfectly scarce (much better than gold)
- Divisible - Can be split into any useful amount without losing value - Check, Bitcoin is as divisible as needed (easier to do than gold)
- Uniform - Each unit is valued the same - Check, Bitcoin is perfectly uniform (same/better than gold)
- Durable - Will not degrade over time - Check, Bitcoin private keys are perfectly durable (better than gold)
- Accepted - Widely used and valued by the population - Not yet, Bitcoin misses here for now (gold is better)
Bitcoin has always been interesting to me because it beats gold handily in 1) Portability, 2) Scarcity and to a lesser extent 3) Divisibility and 4) Uniformity. Bitcoin still loses in Acceptability but that is to be expected for 6 year old currency vs a 5000 year old one. This one follows the other 5.
In what manner is Monero better along these dimensions?
All cryptocurrency (thus far) requires another property: independence of transmission (or dependency on network if you prefer)
Physical commodity money uses a much more independent/reliable transmission vector than present generation cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency 2.0 (or do I mean 1.0?) ideally would keep the distributive and verification aspects as a part of the tx/mining network as we know it, but somehow allow the acceptance of the transaction to be determined only by the individual/s who receive it.
Even "CPU coins" can end up with color lists. Crypto mining is ultimately controlled by those with the greatest access to or influence over physical resources. Hence the present cartels.