Okay your second paragraph is self-contradictory.

Regardless, I can see how the value of a Bitcoin might be proportional to the value of all the resources that went into producing it.  But do you really think that it represents a share of them?  You seem to be saying that money is capital, and Bitcoins are purchased with money, therefore Bitcoins represent capital.  Is that a fair assessment?

My guess is that, in their zeal to sell fraudulent securities to foreigners, US banks and media have perpetrated the myth that they are all backed by ignorant, hard-working Americans who are forced by law to use the Dollar for everything.

In no particular order:

Mining performs the function of protecting the network.  Smaller networks are vulnerable to attack.  This tends to move the market towards a single block chain.

Falling short of global domination wouldn't really be considered "failure".

Otherwise you're right and you're not the first to point it out.

You haven't posted any definition of what you think a "currency" even is.  You haven't posted any laws.  Your claims fly in the face of reality since most currencies aren't actually backed by anything.

Your proposals wrt "accounting commodity" and "utility" have glaring holes in that no one actually guarantees any of these properties and in fact no one would ever be able to.

So while I think you aren't actually one of the DOJ trolls that frequent this forum, somehow you have managed to be worse, and make even less sense, and spew even more confusion and stupidity.  Congratulations.

Really?  What expectation?  What promise?

Addresses aren't globally unique, so there is not actually any way to "claim" them that would make any difference whether you did so now or later.

I've been trying my best to come up with folksy analogies about Bitcoin.  Maybe I should send them to him.

I have to admit I also had the whole "sign the serial number with a private key!" idea for about a day before I realized it was retarded.  These guys made it all the way to writing it up and putting it on a website.

That has basically been my thought for the past several months.  At first glance, paper money seems like a good idea.  But the logistics are daunting.  Counterfeiting is a concern.

So eventually I ended up at basically the same place as fellowtraveler, who proposes integrating his Open Transactions software with Bitcoin.  This provides the best of both worlds -- instant clearing, relatively stable prices, and Bitcoin backing.

I think you will be surprised to see Bitcoin POS systems become viable over the next year or so.  Smartphones are ubiquitous and the pieces are coming together to make it work.

That's a feature, not a bug.  It ensures that there is no government force artificially subsidizing wealth redistribution, collectivization, unprofitable trade, and overpopulation.  This helps to ensure an ample supply of material resources and a high standard of living.


There's no mutual agreement.  A Bitcoin is not a contract or a "note".  Its value is determined by supply and demand.


The US has no sovereign.  Federal Reserve Notes are not guaranteed by the US government.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you expect an individual to "guarantee" his currency?  Suppose you print up an Ashish-note, and I trade you a watermelon for it.  Do I just get to demand something back from you in return?  What if I decide that your Ashish-note has risen in value, and now I'd like to have your house?  Would you guarantee Ashish-notes with your house?  Or does this scheme require infinite, never-ending human labor?  For that matter, why would you even want your Ashish-notes back?  Can't you just keep printing them forever, and aways find new suckers who will accept them?  I suppose you can't do that if you have to "guarantee" them?  Someone can go to court and force you to take them back?  So, then, don't ever print any Ashish-notes if you want to keep your house I guess?

When you purchase a Bitcoin, are you under the impression that it represents a share of some physical assets?

Buying Bitcoins to create instability or a price bubble would be an interesting strategy in the short term at least.  What would stop the FED from doing it right now?  I'd be interested to see if there is a price dip at the end of the month when QE2 ends.

So, less supply of BTC equals falling prices?

(Oh no, whatever you do, don't throw me in the brar patch!)

The transaction fee is to prevent abuse at the moment.  Right now the threats to the Bitcoin network are large in proportion to the legitimate transactions.  The transaction fee places a cost on spamming the network with fake transactions that it can't handle yet.  It's not much of an incentive to miners and won't be for a long time.

You all have really drank the Kool-Aid if you believe that a bunch of computers wasting electricity making long strings of numbers constitutes capital gain.

Actually I mostly agree with rtcw's response.  You don't have to trust in the system.  You don't even have to trust that others will believe in it to give it value, because Bitcoin actually has inherent value.  But you do have to trust that enough people will use it, in order to maintain it's value.

Bitcoin is like a house.  It can protect your possessions from theft.  Unfortunately it's the biggest house ever constructed.  And it requires maintenance.  If lots of people want to use it, it will be very cheap to maintain.  If only a few people want to use it, it will be impossible to maintain, and the thieves will break in.

From what I have seen over the past several months, it seems that a lot of people want to use it.  More than I would have imagined, actually.

Time for a code review.

They allow Linden Dollars and other virtual currencies.  I don't see why Bitcoin would be singled out.

Can't wait until the US defaults and the FBI's trolling budget is revoked.

What makes you think Bitcoin has anything to do with trust?