The ONLY value bitcoin has is whatever nominal figure a large group of people can agree on. If they decided tomorrow that it was zero, that would be that. Precious metals on the other hand have real uses and properties that can't be replicated by another "system". If silver dropped to low prices tomorrow it would be hoarded by companies with legit commercial use for it. Bitcoin is completely different.
Don't get me wrong I think bitcoins are a great idea and as a merchant I would love it if everyone paid me in it. I think bitcoins as a payment method is its biggest strong point and the angle the bitcoin community should really be focusing on. The whole store of wealth idea just isn't based in reality. Its entire value IMHO will come from its use as a payment method.
Topic: How we could "back" bitcoins with something of value - page 2. (Read 4079 times)
If you truly want to setup an awesome post nation state backing, you would buy up a small amount of land everywhere in the world and setup warehouses holding any material that you want to back up bicoins with. You can divide the total amount by 21 million and publish the amount.
I agree that bitcoins need to be backed by something.
To me this means that bitcoins need to be readily convertible into the thing backing them.
To me this means that bitcoins need to be readily convertible into the thing backing them.
Not necessarily. The idea of "backing" a currency is actually a bit of a misconception. All that is needed is to regulate the supply of the currency so that the price is at par with the value of the commodity you are using as the standard of value.
The problem I see is making it decentralized. With a single choke point a government can shut the whole thing down, which defeats the purpose. Physical metal is excellent in terms of decentralization because it's impossible to track and impractical to confiscate, but it doesn't travel over the internet very well.
I think this is possible, since we don't need any actual physical metal. All we need is the exchange rate between the metal and bitcoins. I have some ideas about how this exchange rate can be used to adjust the supply of bitcoins in a completely decentralized manner.
1 bitcoin should be worth 1 gram of high quality weed
Bitcoins do have cool features, but the features serve no purpose other than in the role of a medium of exchange.
False. You're forgetting that Bitcoin is also a software system that allows ledger transactions to be sent and validated with no central authority. THAT in itself is a huge achievement, and provides a great deal of that "purpose" you seek. It's easy to confuse these things, of course, because Bitcoin is the name for both the software system and the currency used in that software system. The two should be understood separately, and the latter derives its original value from the former, and it's long-term value from the supply and demand of that original value. Make sense? =)
Gold and silver have use as jewlery and in industrial purposes. Bitcoin has use as a recording and validation mechanism for transactions. Gold, silver, and Bitcoin all additionally have value as monetary instruments due to their properties.
To me this seems to reaffirm what I said, yet draw the opposite conclusion. With regard to the distinction between software vs currency, I could envision the software having utility outside of the bitcoin universe, but the software is not what is being exchanged or priced. I think the key thing is what you called original value of the currency, which I am interpreting as utility in some role other than as a medium of exchange, like jewelry or industrial purposes. But I'm not seeing how the units of currency have any such utility.
I will grant that the software does have value and does add utility to the currency. And I will grant that the currency derives all its value from the software, but I maintain that the software only adds utility to the currency in its role as a medium of exchange.
A security strip in a Federal Reserve Note improves its usefulness as an exchange medium but it does not give the currency any industrial value.
How about instead of one 'trusted' backer we all just offer to back to whatever extent we can and want and let that determine the value?
I'm John Kerry and I approve this message.
i propose backing Bitcoin with:
AssCoins!
i mean, as long as you're going to be pulling stuff out of it...
which decentralized entity would do this? oh wait. you?
let me guess - by the government?
well, no.
and who would be...
ah, never mind. i'm bored now.
AssCoins!
i mean, as long as you're going to be pulling stuff out of it...
Quote
but it is still possible to "back" bitcoins by giving each bitcoin a guaranteed minimum value
which decentralized entity would do this? oh wait. you?
Quote
but I would have the other portion auctioned off with the proceeds going towards backing bitcoins
let me guess - by the government?
Quote
In the total bitcoins over time graph, bitcoins are currently being created at a rate of 2,625,000 per year.
well, no.
Quote
The guarantee part of the backing could take the form of an open buy order by this mtgox account at the guaranteed bitcoin backing amount which is calculated by taking the total amount of value in the bitcoin backing fund and dividing by the current total number of bitcoins.
and who would be...
ah, never mind. i'm bored now.
If YOU want to back Bitcoins, offer to sell some commodity at a fixed rate. Why make it more complicated than that?
Bitcoins do have cool features, but the features serve no purpose other than in the role of a medium of exchange.
False. You're forgetting that Bitcoin is also a software system that allows ledger transactions to be sent and validated with no central authority. THAT in itself is a huge achievement, and provides a great deal of that "purpose" you seek. It's easy to confuse these things, of course, because Bitcoin is the name for both the software system and the currency used in that software system. The two should be understood separately, and the latter derives its original value from the former, and it's long-term value from the supply and demand of that original value. Make sense? =)
Gold and silver have use as jewlery and in industrial purposes. Bitcoin has use as a recording and validation mechanism for transactions. Gold, silver, and Bitcoin all additionally have value as monetary instruments due to their properties.
The best way to "back" bitcoins is to make it more widely used.
The more goods and services you can buy with bitcoins the more valuable and stable it will be.
The more people sell things in bitcoins the better. However, these goods for sale are not really backing bitcoins. For example, earlier today went to the alpaca sock website linked to from the Bitcoin wiki's alpaca page and here is what it said:The more goods and services you can buy with bitcoins the more valuable and stable it will be.
“Each pair of socks is 2.5 BTC delivered to your door, no extra fees for shipping within the U.S. This price may fluctuate in the future depending on the current BTC exchange rate.”
The fact that the “price may fluctuate” means bitcoins are not backed by alpaca socks. There is not a promise but only a temporary promise to exchange alpaca socks for 2.5 BTC and that temporary promise can change at any time. There is no guarantee for any meaningful duration of time.
The best way to "back" bitcoins is to make it more widely used.
The more goods and services you can buy with bitcoins the more valuable and stable it will be.
The more goods and services you can buy with bitcoins the more valuable and stable it will be.
Bitcoins do have cool features, but the features serve no purpose other than in the role of a medium of exchange. Silver is useful for making mirrors and photographic film and wires and so on. So the non-medium-of-exchange value of silver or any other commodity "backs" its use as currency. Bitcoins have no non-medium-of-exchange value.
Because bitcoins have no usefulness other than as a medium of exchange, thevalue exchange ratio relative to goods and services is completely arbitrary. For currencies that can be converted into commodities, the non-financial utility gives it some tether to stable price levels.
For fiat currencies with no tether at all, active manipulation is required to achieve stable price levels, but with bitcoins this is impossible by design.
Because bitcoins have no usefulness other than as a medium of exchange, the
For fiat currencies with no tether at all, active manipulation is required to achieve stable price levels, but with bitcoins this is impossible by design.
Gold has unique physical properties. It "backs" itself.
True. And similarly, Bitcoin has unique properties. It shares some of these properties with gold (divisibility, homogeneity, scarcity, etc) and has unique ones additionally (instant transfer across thousands of miles, a billion dollars-worth can be put in your shoe, it's not subject to supply fluctuations, etc.).
Both gold and btc are valuable as money precisely because of their unique properties. Neither needs to be, or ought to be, or even can be, backed by another commodity.
I wish this was true. But the bitcoin system can be duplicated. In a week you could have namecoins, and a week later funcoins. Gold can't be reproduced like that.
I wish this was true. But the bitcoin system can be duplicated. In a week you could have namecoins, and a week later funcoins. Gold can't be reproduced like that.
That is not duplication of Bitcoin. Namecoins and funcoins are different commodities with different properties. Just like silver and copper are alternatives to gold, but are not the same. The marketplace will observe all alternatives and value them as it wishes.
Unless there is some bug in the code of Bitcoin, and coins can be "printed" at whim, then it is a valid, scarce commodity. Similarly with gold, unless some chemist creates a way to cheaply produce artificial gold (which would be no different than real gold since both are the same element) then gold will remain a valid, scarce commodity. Both gold and bitcoins are limited, and both have alternative substitutes in the marketplace.
Gold has unique physical properties. It "backs" itself.
Backing btc requires a central organization to implement, which defeats the purpose of btc.
Bitcoins can be backed and still be decentralised just like it is now. Nothing would have to change with the transactions. The only thing centralized would be the backing and that could also be decentralized to some degree. Anyway, if the backing worked your better off with it than without it, and if the backing failed it would be the same as if you didn't have it. Backing btc requires a central organization to implement, which defeats the purpose of btc.
You propose backing Bitcoins with something of value, and then suggest the USD as that backing? One of the primary draws of Bitcoin is that it's an alternative to the dollar, which is manipulated at whim by the Federal Reserve System. The dollar is fiat - it's mandated to have value by the coercion of government. Bitcoin is not fiat, because it is chosen openly in a free market as money.
I used dollars because it was a simple way to illustrate a concept but I mentioned you could use gold, silver and other things as well.Further, your proposal is not actually backing Bitcoin in the meaningful sense of the term. For something to be "backed" it means there is a guarantor of another good for the one in question. When the dollar was backed by gold, the US government guaranteed to hand you a fixed amount of gold for your dollar. Unless I misread your proposal, no party is guaranteeing payment of dollars in return for Bitcoins.
I mentioned I couldn't find a way to "back" the bitcoins in the classical sense like the gold for dollar example you bring up because I wanted to preserve the total bitcoins over time graph. However, I have another topic where I do talk about backing a Bitcoin-like currency in the classical sense.Further still, the notion of "backing" is silly, unless you're using something like paper as a substitute for another good that has "real" value. Bitcoins has "real" value by itself, because it offers a revolutionary distributed payment system, and is allegedy secure, and is fast, and almost free to use, etc.
Whatever value bitcoins have have would be increased if they were backed by something with proven long term value.Gold has unique physical properties. It "backs" itself.
True. And similarly, Bitcoin has unique properties. It shares some of these properties with gold (divisibility, homogeneity, scarcity, etc) and has unique ones additionally (instant transfer across thousands of miles, a billion dollars-worth can be put in your shoe, it's not subject to supply fluctuations, etc.).
Both gold and btc are valuable as money precisely because of their unique properties. Neither needs to be, or ought to be, or even can be, backed by another commodity.
I wish this was true. But the bitcoin system can be duplicated. In a week you could have namecoins, and a week later funcoins. Gold can't be reproduced like that.
It's only "replicated" if a massive amount of people choose to use the other versions, which aren't connected to all the trading websites, don't have thousands of machines mining, and a worse development team. It's very inconclusive whether people would want to use two different P2P currencies.
Gold has unique physical properties. It "backs" itself.
True. And similarly, Bitcoin has unique properties. It shares some of these properties with gold (divisibility, homogeneity, scarcity, etc) and has unique ones additionally (instant transfer across thousands of miles, a billion dollars-worth can be put in your shoe, it's not subject to supply fluctuations, etc.).
Both gold and btc are valuable as money precisely because of their unique properties. Neither needs to be, or ought to be, or even can be, backed by another commodity.
I wish this was true. But the bitcoin system can be duplicated. In a week you could have namecoins, and a week later funcoins. Gold can't be reproduced like that.
Gold has unique physical properties. It "backs" itself.
True. And similarly, Bitcoin has unique properties. It shares some of these properties with gold (divisibility, homogeneity, scarcity, etc) and has unique ones additionally (instant transfer across thousands of miles, a billion dollars-worth can be put in your shoe, it's not subject to supply fluctuations, etc.).
Both gold and btc are valuable as money precisely because of their unique properties. Neither needs to be, or ought to be, or even can be, backed by another commodity.
Jump to: