"Backing" - what does this actually MEAN? - page 6.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:42:05 PM

My opinion is that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency) could probably still use some work on its security, but that it will eventually rival gold (and supplant it) where it needs no backing . Even in its current state it could probably do without backing, though I would still reccommend improving the security (which they are working on now).

As for your opinion, I'm pretty much sure you agree that BC needs no backing.

This is all fine, except the bolded part. There is no backing, backing bitcoin with anything would completely destroy the purpose of bitcoin, and who could possibly be the party responsible for the backing? Makes no sense.

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:42:05 PM

My opinion is that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency) could probably still use some work on its security, but that it will eventually rival gold (and supplant it) where it needs no backing . Even in its current state it could probably do without backing, though I would still reccommend improving the security (which they are working on now).

As for your opinion, I'm pretty much sure you agree that BC needs no backing.

Backing= guarantee of future exchange value

BC, needs a guarantee of its future exchange value.

As it has none, it cant be money.

jonat3

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

My opinion is that Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency) could probably still use some work on its security, but that it will eventually rival gold (and supplant it) where it needs no backing . Even in its current state it could probably do without backing, though I would still reccommend improving the security (which they are working on now).

As for your opinion, I'm pretty much sure you agree that BC needs no backing.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:34:19 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:31:35 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:24:17 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

Just for clarification, are you claiming that I said that objective value exists or that BC needs backing? Because I get the impression you really didn't grasp my post even if you read it.

Objective value does not exist, all value is subjective and it comes from the minds of the individuals on the market.

Nothing needs backing. It either has, or has not. Bitcoin has no backing.

You didn't answer my question and your replies reveal that you only skimmed my post. But whatever. I'm on your side. I'll summarize.

TL;DR Bitcoin's security probably needs some work, but it (or another cryptocurrency) will eventually supplant gold and all other government currencies.

I won't speculate on what you claim other than what you wrote. If you think we talk past each other, try stating your opinion again, or ask me to clarify my view.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Ibian on December 15, 2013, 10:28:35 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:20:37 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:07:25 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

You are being willfully ignorant. Gold has been desired for thousands of years because it looks beautiful.

Not ignorant. That is just another trait that is a part of its use value. I did not mention electrical uses, and the fact that you can drum it out to a sheet the thickness of a single atom. I am sure there are hundreds of uses. Still, nobody knows what the use value is. It will be revealed when its exchange value disappears. With the culture surrounding gold, probably never.

Point taken.

However, you have to understand that golds money value is entirely dependent on golds beauty.

Someone linked an article the other day. The reason gold was used as money for a long time is that there are like five elements that have the proper properties for a medium of exchange. Gold just happens to be the most distinctive looking of the bunch. It was a practical consideration in ancient times, nothing more.

Five elements? No, anything can be money, it is always the most sellable good on the market. In the end, that came to be gold. You can speculate why, and that has been done, but eventually it was the actors on the market who decided.

jonat3

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:31:35 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:24:17 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

Just for clarification, are you claiming that I said that objective value exists or that BC needs backing? Because I get the impression you really didn't grasp my post even if you read it.

Objective value does not exist, all value is subjective and it comes from the minds of the individuals on the market.

Nothing needs backing. It either has, or has not. Bitcoin has no backing.

You didn't answer my question and your replies reveal that you only skimmed my post. But whatever. I'm on your side. I'll summarize.

TL;DR Bitcoin's security probably needs some work, but it (or another cryptocurrency) will eventually supplant gold and all other government currencies.

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Ibian on December 15, 2013, 10:31:46 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:25:55 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

You are confused.

Backing is a guarantee of future exchange value.

Gold and dollar have backing. Bitcoin has no backing.

Let's pretend for a moment then. The guarantee has been broken. Constantly through inflation, and in events such as the Cyprus confiscation.

Yes, Dollars backing is weak. Golds backing is strong.

However Bitcoin has no backing and thus is not suitable money. Sry to break it to you.

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:25:55 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

You are confused.

Backing is a guarantee of future exchange value.

Gold and dollar have backing. Bitcoin has no backing.

Let's pretend for a moment then. The guarantee has been broken. Constantly through inflation, and in events such as the Cyprus confiscation.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:24:17 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

Just for clarification, are you claiming that I said that objective value exists or that BC needs backing? Because I get the impression you really didn't grasp my post even if you read it.

Objective value does not exist, all value is subjective and it comes from the minds of the individuals on the market.

Nothing needs backing. It either has, or has not. Bitcoin has no backing.

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:20:37 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:07:25 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

You are being willfully ignorant. Gold has been desired for thousands of years because it looks beautiful.

Not ignorant. That is just another trait that is a part of its use value. I did not mention electrical uses, and the fact that you can drum it out to a sheet the thickness of a single atom. I am sure there are hundreds of uses. Still, nobody knows what the use value is. It will be revealed when its exchange value disappears. With the culture surrounding gold, probably never.

Point taken.

However, you have to understand that golds money value is entirely dependent on golds beauty.

Someone linked an article the other day. The reason gold was used as money for a long time is that there are like five elements that have the proper properties for a medium of exchange. Gold just happens to be the most distinctive looking of the bunch while at the same time not being much use for anything else. It was a practical consideration in ancient times, nothing more.

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

You are confused.

Backing is a guarantee of future exchange value.

Gold and dollar have backing. Bitcoin has no backing.

jonat3

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:21:36 PM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

Just for clarification, are you claiming that I said that objective value exists or that BC needs backing? Because I get the impression you really didn't grasp my post even if you read it.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: jonat3 on December 15, 2013, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:12:51 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:07:25 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

You are being willfully ignorant. Gold has been desired for thousands of years because it looks beautiful.

Not ignorant. That is just another trait that is a part of its use value. I did not mention electrical uses, and the fact that you can drum it out to a sheet the thickness of a single atom. I am sure there are hundreds of uses. Still, nobody knows what the use value is. It will be revealed when its exchange value disappears. With the culture surrounding gold, probably never.

Point taken.

However, you have to understand that golds money value is entirely dependent on golds beauty.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 10:07:25 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

You are being willfully ignorant. Gold has been desired for thousands of years because it looks beautiful.

Not ignorant. That is just another trait that is a part of its use value. I did not mention electrical uses, and the fact that you can drum it out to a sheet the thickness of a single atom. I am sure there are hundreds of uses. Still, nobody knows what the use value is. It will be revealed when its exchange value disappears. With the culture surrounding gold, probably never.

jonat3

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

porc

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 10:04:32 PM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

You are being willfully ignorant. Gold has been desired for thousands of years because it looks beautiful.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

shawshankinmate37927

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Quote from: Erdogan on December 15, 2013, 09:49:11 PM

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 09:35:52 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on December 15, 2013, 09:16:30 PM

"Backing" is a solution to a problem that Bitcoin doesn't have. The reason you want a currency to be backed by someone or something is to ensure its scarcity.

False.

You did not back your opinion here! It is not false, it is in fact spot on, and his claim is well backed by his arguments.

He has a very deeply held belief that he's clinging to. He's not going to let logic or reason come between him and his beliefs.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: porc on December 15, 2013, 09:35:52 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on December 15, 2013, 09:16:30 PM

"Backing" is a solution to a problem that Bitcoin doesn't have. The reason you want a currency to be backed by someone or something is to ensure its scarcity.

False.

You did not back your opinion here! It is not false, it is in fact spot on, and his claim is well backed by his arguments.

Topic: "Backing" - what does this actually MEAN? - page 6. (Read 8576 times)