Pages:
Author

Topic: Why don't we just create backing for Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 4549 times)

member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
No.
No.
No.


There is literally no good reason to back Bitcoin with anything. This would defeat the entire purpose of Bitcoin. There is literally no situation in which trying to back bitcoin with anything physical will have a good result.

Here's a handy rule of thumb; don't suggest trying to regulate or control the price of Bitcoin in any way. Bitcoin was made specifically to be regulated in such a way, and with good reason.

To quote someone on Reddit:

Quote
Bitcoin is backed by:

i) The laws of mathematics
ii) The laws of supply & demand

No need to trust any promise.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
Do you see the irony in your valuation of the "worth of real assets" in terms of USD?

No.  It's perfectly reasonable to communicate the approximate current value of an undisclosed asset in terms of a widely-used currency.

The topic is "backing" of Bitcoin.  Market value is not the same thing as "backing".
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
here is how to "back" bitcoin: merchants price their goods at a fixed amount in BTC, and vary the USD price accordingly.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
Stephen Gornick, to show that scarcity in itself is not enough to provide value I need only point to SolidCoin or other Bitcoin forks.

SolidCoin was not scarce... its supply was manually controlled.  There are several forks with nontrivial value, but network effects cause bitcoin to be far more valuable.  If bitcoin fails in a way that these other forks address, or DNS gets grabbed by the ITU or similar, namecoin or another fork will gain value.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
What is the Confederate dollar backed by? We need to think long term here. Bitcoin is backed by the freedom of the Internet. If the internet loses its freedom, then Bitcoin loses all its value.
donator
Activity: 853
Merit: 1000
Backing is crap. Backing is a promise that usually gets broken. Who do you believe? Who do you trust will always be willing and able to pay? What other thing do you even want? What will back it?

I'd rather just have the useful thing itself.



Agreed.

BTW I recommend listening to Stef's opinion on BTC, it really clarifies the whole "backing is neccessary" misconception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_VewfiuCao
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
Backing is crap. Backing is a promise that usually gets broken. Who do you believe? Who do you trust will always be willing and able to pay? What other thing do you even want? What will back it?

I'd rather just have the useful thing itself.

legendary
Activity: 1137
Merit: 1001
Why back all 21 million coins? Collect 100k coins at an address and get a company to back it with 100 oz gold. These 100k coins would be traded at a premium, since you can always turn in 1000 coins for 1 oz of gold.

Is it possible to differentiate between coins using only one block chain? If so, could facebook collect 100k coins and deem them "facebook coins" and use them for facebook transactions, while mooching off the one 'main' blockchain.
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
I'd vote for backing gold with bitcoin instead.
Bitcoin is transparent and has a controlled scarcity, whereas gold was a good short term solution that doesn't have either of these advantages. What would happen if we found out that 90% of the earth's core was made of gold and we had machines to mine it? I am exaggerating of course, but I do know that people still find large sums of gold today.
I am unaware of a major governmental currency that is still really backed by gold (there very well might be, but I am more aware of fractional reserve as the primary method) - so why should bitcoin be?
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Inactive



Bitcoin backing?  Lap dance coupons.

donator
Activity: 826
Merit: 1060
In case it wasn't clear, I meant a million USD worth of real assets, not fiat fun-bux.
Do you see the irony in your valuation of the "worth of real assets" in terms of USD?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin is already backed by a million USD of buys on the MtGox order book. The price is dynamic, but the USD are real.

In case it wasn't clear, I meant a million USD worth of real assets, not fiat fun-bux.
donator
Activity: 826
Merit: 1060
The hard part is finding people to donate the backing.  Specifically, finding people to donate enough backing so that the peg sticks.  I estimate it would need to be on the order of a million USD.

Bitcoin is already backed by a million USD of buys on the MtGox order book. The price is dynamic, but the USD are real.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Then when Bitcoin becomes a threat the banks lobby the US govt who links Bitcoin to terrorism and seizes the gold which combined with the media reports causes Bitcoin to crash.

+1

Bitcoin is a base value, which is backing only by how people value it. Like gold.

^this.

Centralized backing is a point of attack and if when attacked, would probably result in a psychological kick in the nuts to Bitcoin.
(perhaps not fatal, but possibly enough to set it back years/decades)
Conversely - Bitcoin has bootstrapped itself just fine without it, so it seems it doesn't need any psychological trick like this to thrive.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
I've suggested this before here.  The hard part is finding people to donate the backing.  Specifically, finding people to donate enough backing so that the peg sticks.  I estimate it would need to be on the order of a million USD.
legendary
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1002
Personally I don't believe that I'm in danger of death by unicorn impalement but some people really worry about that. They walk the streets every day in constant fear of being attacked and impaled by a rogue unicorn.

In order to ease the minds of these phobics why don't we add anti-unicorn features to the blockchain?

Don't know if brofist. Poni ain't hurting noponi. Cool

But this hits the nail on the head. What's the point? Bitcoin already is a backing currency, why back a backing currency with something else? The only reason would indeed be to try to satisfy people who mostly have no idea what they're talking about. That's impossible anyway, they'll always find some random phrase to "prove" whatever they like.
jr. member
Activity: 39
Merit: 1
Similarly, gold's "backing" stems from its scarcity, and other physical properties, that make it suitable to act as a money.
That's true for most of the value of gold, but a small amount of the value of gold stems from its use in industry and jewelry. This "instrinsic" value is what economists and gold bugs point to as the reason gold can be trusted. Bitcoin can emulate this by creating such an organization as proposed.

Bitcoin has "intrinsic" value as well (actually, there is no such thing as intrinsic value because all value is subjective to each person engaging in any given trade).  Bitcoin's "intrinsic" value stems from the properties it possesses which allow it to act as a money.  If Bitcoin did not have the properties it does, no one would voluntarily trade real goods for it.  Similarly, if paper currencies were not violently imposed or if paper currencies were not backed by some physical commodity, no one would accept them in exchange for real goods.

While gold can be used for jewelry, its use as a money has nothing to do with this at all.  Gold would still be a good money even if it was horribly ugly to look at.  The key properties that make up a good money are:

-scarcity
-divisibility
-recognizability  (easy to identify, hard to counterfeit, easy to verify)
-ease of transport/storage

How pretty something is doesn't make the list.
sr. member
Activity: 304
Merit: 250
Similarly, gold's "backing" stems from its scarcity, and other physical properties, that make it suitable to act as a money.
That's true for most of the value of gold, but a small amount of the value of gold stems from its use in industry and jewelry. This "instrinsic" value is what economists and gold bugs point to as the reason gold can be trusted. Bitcoin can emulate this by creating such an organization as proposed.
sr. member
Activity: 304
Merit: 250
The purpose of a gold backed currency is to prevent arbitrary inflation of the money supply.  In fact, the U.S. could emulate a gold standard WITHOUT any gold by simply creating a monetary system where the number of dollars in circulation is set to a fixed limit.  Setting a fixed limit of dollars would achieve the same economic results as if the country was operating on a gold standard, yet the banks wouldn't need to hold any gold at all.
The US can emulate gold in that way because they force people to pay taxes in dollars and therefrom the value of dollars are derived. Noone is forced to pay taxes in Bitcoin so Bitcoin cannot emulate the properties of gold in this fashion.
sr. member
Activity: 304
Merit: 250
Stephen Gornick, to show that scarcity in itself is not enough to provide value I need only point to SolidCoin or other Bitcoin forks.
Pages:
Jump to: