Discussing gold's "utility" value is absolutely a non-starter. Such a thing was scarcely considered in its history of human adoption as a store-of-wealth.
That's because no other metal was as recognizable, divisible, rare, etc. Cryptocoins are all more or less equally fungible, recognizable, divisible, portable and rare.
That's absolutely not true. For starters, no other coins can rival Bitcoin security which is what basically guarantees its fungibility property. At this point in time, any POW coin that suggests to be a threat by Bitcoin could be trivially attacked by the network of Bitcoin miners.
ALL cryptocoins are censorship resistant and some are more so and also more deflationary.
See response above. Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious: 5<5000
also, there are no limits on gold transactions/second. A throttled network capacity makes Bitcoin digital fool's gold.
At the risk of repeating myself also: Network effects didn't save MySpace. I'm starting to think all those talking heads on the idiot box who said Bitcoin was too new, experimental and would be replaced by a better crypto maybe had it right.
Yes. Obvious is obvious. In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.
Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.
Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.