>>61125015
>95% of gold holders do not actually hold it physically either.
Exactly right, and I'm one of them, all my assets for now are held digitally, I won't deny it.
>In this case BTC is actually more safe and secure because of its infrastructure.
Again I concur, but you misunderstand the concept of supply and demand, BTC will have absolutely no value once shit hits the fan, gold will fall too but will maintain a high value.
>Unless an apocalyptic scenario occurs that literally ends all technology even isolated networks could still transact and use Bitcoin.
That's simply not how it works, we will have separate networks, and each will have its own ledger, but here is the big issue in your theory:
BTC is dependent on a very specific moment in time where the world is extremely wealthy GDP-wise, electricity is cheap and abundant and internet infrastructure is stable and reliable.
Gold is gold, it is very simple, it does not have all these caveats for it to work. You do not know what technology will look like 10 years from now, what if quantum computing take a lot of strides in the war? What are the risks of physical gold in a war?
So my points stands, physical gold in war is the best asset to hold. The Swiss know this well. They have been living as kings exactly because they attracted that specific asset.