JK you of all people are not allowed to repeat such idiocy, YOU KNOW THE CODE, Cryptography has ZERO do do we keeping BTC scarce, their is only a simple IF statement in a line of code that either accepts or rejects a block as valid based on the mining quantity that is standing between a finite supply of BTC and unlimited debasement.
That actually won't change the scarcity, as there are two things standing between finite supply and unlimited debasement. First one is that IF statement, second one is people's personal choice. If other people and exchanges choose to change that IF statement, and I along with a few of my friends choose not to, then we will still continue to use Bitcoin, along with its finite supply, while those other people and exchanges will be effectively creating an alt-coin through a hard fork. As long as there are enough people that refuse to change the IF statement, and enough miners to support their refusal to change, bitcoin will remain scarse.
If their were even something like a group of people with large wealth that were publicly pledging they wouldn't let BTC drop below some floor price that would be a backing but we don't even have that.
Dollars don't have such a group of people, either. Both bitcoin and USD have wealthy people, who are essentially backers, who support the currency through various legal and technical means, but those wealthy people would not be stupid enough to start buying up a crashing currency just to prop up its price, if they see it doesn't have a future.
Actually yes it dose have thouse people in the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve, the former collects taxes in the Dollar and the later holds bonds and other assets.
I think you may be confusing backing and propping up. How does collecting taxes support a price floor? If USD price drops, they would just collect a larger amount of dollars to collect the same value. As for bonds, they could only continue propping up USD price (by buying USD in exchange for bonds) as long as people are willing to buy their bonds. At this point, these bonds pay almost no interest, and with a high national debt are getting riskier, which is a contradiction (higher risk should pay more interest) that is making them extremely unattractive. So we may have reached the end of being able to prop up USD with bonds. (USA can raise interest on bonds, but it is so deep in debt that it may not be able to afford paying interest, either).
The problem with this thread, and the many others like it, is that definitions get pulled out of asses, and it turns into a fight over which rectal definition is right.
Is this where the expression "shit storm" comes from? Because that would seem really apt.