Well, it is very convenient to be superficial. It is all a measure of value.

Division

Gold: 31,1 gramms, smallest denomination: 1/500 of an ounce. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/worlds-smallest-gold-coin-features-albert-einstein-sticking-out-his-tongue-valued-at-rs-18-50/articleshow/73548072.cms?from=mdr

Bitcoin: $40,000. division into 8 decimals. = 0.0004. = useless, unless it's value is upped to 6 digits like a value of 1,000,000. That would make into 1 cent.

Bitcoin is priced in terms of dollars. For gold there simply is already another trackrecord. There is no reason to actually divide gold this way as Silver fulfills a function for a lower value in small denominations.

So this argument comes down to: better divisibility. Of course a digital coin wins, as it is not connected to one major restraint: physicality.

DURABILITY

Let' s talk about durability. Without energy there are no bitcoins. Without access there no bitcoins. Energy and access a bitcoin make. And they also determine its value. Gold and Silver on the other hand .....

So, no, Bitcoin loses the durability part. It is actually comparable to the current fiat currencies which in majority are all digital. In the SEPA (EURO) lands every transfer is instant. Bitcoin cannot hold a candle to that one. And it allows you to use several other payment methods: ideal, transfer-order, pin transaction, swipe transactions. Yes, the digital currency is actually already in full force in Eurolands. It is not called a CBDC yet. That is all.

Fungibility

Let' s first read up on what it means so we have a context, a measuring rod to judge the outcome.

In economics, fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are essentially interchangeable and each of whose parts is indistinguishable from another part.[1][2]

For example, gold is fungible since a specified amount of pure gold is equivalent to that same amount of pure gold, whether in the form of coins, ingots, or in other states, whereas a unique item such as gold fashioned into a statue by a famous artist would not be considered fungible. Other fungible commodities include sweet crude oil, company shares, bonds, other precious metals, and currencies.

*Fungibility refers only to the equivalence and indistinguishability of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity, and not to the exchange of one commodity for another. *

This is important. So a weight of the Gold is compared to a weight of gold Gold and not to Silver. Except when it is fashioned into some kind of artful purpose.

A dollar is comparable to a dollar. The same goes for the Euro. One Netherland's Euro is comparable to a Euro from say Italy or Romania or Austria.

Is a bitcoin comparable to a bitcoin? Yes of course.

in other words, saying that something is fungible is useless.

Portable

Well, in essence, I could send a payment in gold or silver within 24 hours to an address for say 5 euro' s as an insured package. Of course the higher the weight, and thus value, the higher the transport insurance premium.

And yes. I could indeed much more easy transport 1 million bitcoins than the equivalent amount in Gold. But calling it cumbersome? Let' s talk everyday transactions.

People have used cash for 2500 years, and has proved itself to be quite beneficial towards concluding business. The speed and need for todays business, where 90% is caught up in financial hocus pocus, and has no relation to the actual economy, that is a different animal all together. The only drawdown to cash is the central convergence points at shops and businesses.

But that is only because people have less trust in their customers due to loyalty issues. So maybe, the incessant calls for a digital settling of business is rather a call for a lack of trust exacerbating the situation.

Granted: gold is more problematic from only a portability point of view. But classifying it as not portable is bullshit. Hence, the labeling must fail.

Verifiable

Can one verify gold? Yes, by several means. It does not matter whether it is mor cumbersome. That was not the question. Therefor, the designation of orange minus is unwarranted.

As I have argued before, the calls for a trustless society are rather indicative of the breakdown of society. Society can only exist when trust between its members is high. That made western society successful in the first place. That is why we were able to depend on honor. A deal is a deal. A word is a word. A Man is a Man. However, one would rather belief the JEW propaganda of course. That will leave the JEW with the gold and Western man with bitcoin, the typical white supremacist togoto coin to escape the CBDC.

Scarce

A product can be a solitary item, unique in it' s existence. That will lend it a certain value, especially if it concerns a certain timeframe and meaning. Think the painting: The Nightwatch by Rembrandt.

But just BECAUSE an item is scarce, does not bestow value on an item. It depends on access and use AND demand. And in these departments bitcoin actually suffers from want. You see, the actual scarcity is measured by the availability and purposes of use. Unfortunately, neo-economist as the bitcoin crowds and the pickety neoneokeynesians redefine what scarcity is. No, both bitcoin and central bank fiat fail on this topic.

With paper money you can light a fire, with the fiat coins, you cannot do shit. The same as with bitcoin.

With gold? Well, you can use it for medication, both on a collodial and monatomic level, you can use it as foodware, jewelry, shielding, cabling, connectors, ....

The only item I can wholeheartedly agree with is TrackRecord.

Conlcusion

All in all, Gold (and Silver for that matter) wins hands down.

As I said: first they took away silvermoney. Then they took away gold as money. Now they are taking away real assets.

And you still are wondering what the phrase: You' ll own nothing and be happy, really means?