In this interview below, Ron Paul addresses a comment he had made earlier:
"BitCoin Could Go Down In History As Destroyer Of The US Dollar - Ron Paul "
But somewhere in the middle of the interview, he mention he doesn't own any bitcoins and has no intention of. He is in favor of competition, but prefers a wait and see approach.
I can understand is reluctance, particularly if he hasn't read The Book Of Satoshi, but he should reconsider. Just as he probably owns both gold and silver as a "diversification" approach, he should own this new complementary electronic version. He does rightly mentions that there is a hard limit of 21 Million bitcoins, but sort of imply this may not necessarily happen, or that some other issues could arise.
First, I'll start with agreeing with him, then, I'll start disagreeing. Indeed, we do not know what the future reserve us in terms of mining. Since the miners are at the heart of the maintenance of the network, we have to keep an eye on them. In the early months of Bitcoin's existence, about anyone with any existing computers could participate and be successful as a miner. Today, it's a cut throat competitive business with the requirement to keep upgrading with the latest specialized ASICs. The mining pool have greatly helped in the effort to provide an interest for small miners to stay in the business, but what if only a small group of big miners are left running the network in the future? The Bitcoin protocol gets new update and I'm convinced the developers will consider any changes that might help maintain the network's integrity in the future with new ideas yet to be conceived. But we still don't know. It is somewhat similar to investing in tech company in some way, except better as we are dealing with open source.
But not to invest? I know for certain that Mr Paul invest in gold and silver mining companies which have inherently an unknown factor in terms of possible discoveries and company management skill, particularly if he invest in junior miners (companies focusing on new discoveries). On that level, investing in Bitcoin would be a comparable investment strategy. In addition, Bitcoin allows a mean of storing it safely that is stronger and safer than any gold storage company or stock brokerage firm. Imagine for an instance that Bitcoin was available back in the 1930s. It would have allowed Jews and other persecuted individuals to escape Germany with their wealth safely kept. As opposed to gold which can be easily found in a search, they would not know if they owned bitcoins and if they did, how many. Torture could have been used, but then also, they could have said
"my password is safely kept in Switzerland, I need to get there first. I swear I'll send them back to you".
Imagine this interesting revision of history in a spin off episode of Twilight zone. I'm only bringing this up to illustrate the point. If we have the same kind of illicit government fascist take over somewhere again, I would prefer Bitcoin to gold if I had to transport my wealth with me. Sure, on the other hand, a complete wipe out of our electricity grid on a worldwide basis would render Bitcoin not much useful, whereas gold and silver still available. Hence my point, get both. Store you gold and silver in safe storage company (overseas), store your bitcoin with a deterministic wallet for example that you can recreate from memory (more on that in a future article) or backed up encrypted on the cloud.
Author The Book Of Satoshi
BookOfSatoshi at gmail.com