How about this. I already defined what I believe can be considered "backing", semantically speaking:
I may, however, be wrong and I want anyone who disagrees with me to please define "currency backing" so that we can get the semantics out of the way.



What?? Since when is regulation = backing? Wait, cigarettes are regulated by governments, does that mean that cigarettes are backed by governments?

Because it's not?

I'm not even saying "claim that bitcoin isn't backed by a state/bank", I'm just saying claim that fiat isn't.

No it's not. Bitcoin of the same blockchain cannot be counter-fitted, thanks to certain mathematical properties of bitcoin. But "math" does not "back" the value of bitcoin. Even counter-fitting is possible with bitcoin using a few types of attacks.

Can we please stop with this?

"Backing" is a term reserved for a guarantee by another party that something is of value, such as being exchangeable for another asset by that third party, or being insured in some other way (hence being guaranteed).

Such claims as "bitcoin is backed by [insert property/feature unique to bitcoin]" are erroneous. You are providing a property of bitcoin, which may indicate value. Its unique properties don't back it. Its unique properties are it.

This claim is like saying "gold is backed by its unique color". No, it's not. Its unique color is a property of gold, which is why some people attribute value to it. Its color does not "back" it, no matter how you define "backing".

Please stop with these claims of bitcoin being "backed" by anything. Nobody is guaranteeing that bitcoin is worth anything. Nobody is promising your something in exchange for bitcoins. Bitcoin is NOT backed by anything apart from your own personal trust and belief.

Regardless, my point is that neither is backed.

How can bitcoin be better than state-mandated fiat for a government?

When people say that Bitcoin is not backed by any government or central bank, you can now officially tell them that the Dollar and the Euro aren't either.

I've opened the wikipedia article on the Euro, and it doesn't mention the word "backing" not once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro

• The Euro is not backed by any government or central bank (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-cyprus-bank-disaster/274096/)
• The US Dollar is not backed by gold since 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock)

If anyone ever tells you that the Euro and Dollar are more guaranteed than bitcoin, yell at the top of your lungs "LIAR! THIS PERSON IS A LIAR!"

So far nothing beats this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq57BjBVq7o (Original, in case anyone is wondering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVkUvmDQ3HY)

His other videos are pretty good too

Will watch when I have a few minutes. Can't wait.

Trace, you need to talk more. You're clear, consistent and charismatic when you talk about bitcoin, something hard to find. Get yourself in front of a youtube camera more often. If you opened a youtube channel I'd be subscriber number one.

While it's clear some there need to read up a little more before making statements or asking questions, I think many of the questions and criticisms are legitimate for such an audience. As long as they're honestly weighing it against fiat, they'll come around over time. As the price keeps rising (and recovering from crashes) and becomes more widely adopted by merchants that'll end any doubt that it's a fad or a tool for day traders.

Okay, adding bitcoin to the spelling dictionary is not what's going to do anything. It will be added once bitcoin is considered a legitimate word by enough people.

This is like complaining that a google search is bringing up what most people expect it to bring up but a small minority of people disagree with the results. While we're at it lets get them to add crypto-anarchists and [insert archaic/net-yet-well-known term here]...

Why not look at it the other way around? Why is a $1 trade so much cheaper than a $1000 trade? It's just the same operation on a different number.

Perhaps it's because that if you paid a $10 fee for a $1 trades you wouldn't make $1 trades?

Very decent article for the larger audience. Comments are showing a bit of confusion, but that's expected...

While I'm totally on board with this line of thinking that the actual numbers are arbitrary (though realizing that it's not just paper inflating it's also bitcoin deflating), $3800 will get me a really good computer. I was also thinking of donating but when I saw the rates I was like "fuck it, move along now..."

Wait, isn't the trademark held by the Foundation? Yes, many of the board have commercial enterprises, but that doesn't mean that any of them (or MtGox in particular) can start abusing it. The Foundation needs to agree to abuse it. Is there any reason to worry about MtGox in particular?

I'm guessing the Foundation registered the trademark for the sake of others not registering it and abusing it. Is it possible to be granted a trademark and then "release" it unilaterally? In such a way to ensure the trademark can never be registered and abused? Or will we just have to wait for the term "bitcoin" to be ubiquitous enough to become "generic"?

I have yet to watch the documentary, but I already have an opinion on 3D printed guns, and I think Defense Distributed has a major role here. 3D printed guns takes the power of violence out of the hands of the state the same way bitcoin takes the power of money out of the hands of the state.

Of course, when you start talking about "violence" you get many people ticking and itchy. I, for one, would rather there'd be no violence ever. But those against all violence tend to be blind to the violence happening on their behalf far away from them. And even at home, states have a monopoly on violence and they abuse it like they do with money. Since states are so powerful, it's also very hard to catch them in the act, or get people to understand the magnitude of such abuse. This is not right with me. If there is to be violence in the world, let it be distributed, not monopolized.

Thank you for bringing this new, scary, possibly liberating world one step closer.

Edit: "What bitcoin will do to the banks, 3D printing will do to militaries."

Sorry if this is hijacking your thread, but this makes me think the bitcoin community needs a kickstarter.

+1

KILL HIM!!! HE IS SOOOO DEAD IF HE STEPS IN THESE FORUMS AGAIN!!!

Fixed to "not legalized", since that was the intention of the post. Whether or not they are considered "legal" as long as they haven't been outlawed is up to whoever to decide. I'm just saying that they haven't been declared legal as many seemed to gather from the announcement.