Transacting is really just another word for sending. Presumably any time something is sent from one party to another it is part of a transaction.
I submit that bitcoin has a far higher underlying value than gold precisely because it has many of the same properties as gold (scarcity, inability to be copied, etc) but it is able to be transferred in ways that gold cannot.
That's a reasonable argument. It does have a drawback that gold doesn't though. While Bitcoin can be stored as a record, what prevents all Bitcoin in existence from being wiped out if the blockchain is wiped out or corrupted? Especially with mining difficulties increasing and mining facilities becoming largely centralized?
I, for one, run BitCore, but how many "distributed" instances of BitCore are there?
Yes centralized mining is definitely a big risk for Bitcoin but I think once things shake out and prices stabilize and rewards decrease it will no longer be as profitable to set up multi-million dollar mining facilities and that it will go back to being more decentralized. The only questions are will it last that long and at what price will it stabilize?
I think it will last. As for the stabilization price, it's anyone's guess. If investors think of it as a transaction asset, it may keep pace with inflation. If not, anything goes.