In instances like cash or currencies, you could have the asset and can freely utilize it, but it doesn't have price as a result of systemic issue. There could be way too many units of the currency such that using them wouldn't obtain quite definitely (hyperinflation). There's also devaluation - where a currency is arbitrarily devalued due to some economic or institution issue. Most of these dilemmas result from too much debt and not enough resources to fund them. A currency devaluation is like a partial or gradual motion bankruptcy for a government or issuer. In a foreclosure situation, the creditors (or people of the currency) could be getting a portion of what the advantage (or currency) was actually worth.
One important part for equally bitcoin and gold is that in producing either of these, there's number liability involved. National currencies are given with curiosity attached, this means there's an obligation to the issuer of the currency. The currencies due to being centralized may also be "delisted" or have their value improved, devalued or changed for different currencies. With Bitcoin, there will have to be agreement on the list of people for this to happen. Gold is nature's money, and because it was found, there's nobody really responsible for how it works. Silver also has the history of being applied as money for tens and thousands of years in just about any culture and society. Bitcoin does not have this reputation. The web, technology and power grid are needed for Bitcoin to operate, while gold just is. The value of silver is based on what it will be exchanged for. The worthiness of Bitcoin is comparable to getting an investment or perhaps a good: It is decided by what the customer and retailer recognize it's worth.
Is there regulatory, institutional or systemic dangers with more info? The solution is yes. Imagine if a bunch of key banks or governments annexed the Bitcoin issuance? Might that perhaps not lead to regulate conditions that can either end the Bitcoin transactions or hinder them? Imagine if the reason was to stop terrorism or illegal activities? Additionally there are technology dilemmas like who controls the net, the electrical energy involved in mining Bitcoins, or other issues in infrastructure (the electric grid, the nuclear grid, the internet machines, the telecom organizations etc.) Regulatory dangers also can work the gamut from reducing who buys Bitcoins, just how many can business each day or simply issuing trillions of items of fiat currency and buying and selling Bitcoins together which will cause convulsions in the prices of the system, ultimately causing mistrust and lack of use? Gold does not have these shortcomings. After it's mined, it cannot get destroyed. It is not reliant on engineering, infrastructure or any institution to produce it valid. Since it is little and lightweight, it can be taken anywhere and still be useful without any different process needed. The prevailing institutions may be transformed often times and gold will still be valuable.
Silver is really a classic safe haven because it generally does not need institutions to exist, is quite difficult to go, can not be destroyed by the weather and does not need issues of accessibility or restrictions. Bodily robbery and constraint may be factors, but gold costs a lot better than currencies or electronic currencies at this time in time.