Do Bitcoins need something REAL to back them?

[1krona]

It seems like they would but then again a lot of fiat really doesn't have much backing it when you get down to it .

Thats totally true, they are backed by laws and to some degree what their centralbanks own in gold. But the rest is temporary and will fail in the long run, how long is hard to tell but I dont expect Fiat-money in its current form or Cryptos in its current form to last another 15 years. The gold will be there, although maybe less subjective valued than now, who knows? But it´s very unlikely it will vanish out of existence.

[MashRinx]

Everything material that has value in this universe ONLY has value because people agree that it has value, that is all. If anyone tells you differently, they are either ignorant or are trying to sell you something.

Everything material that has value in this universe ONLY has value because people agree that it has value, that is all. If anyone tells you differently, they are either ignorant or are trying to sell you something.

This.  And transactions occur because there is a disagreement over either what something is valued at currently, or that it will be valued higher or lower in the future.  Bitcoins are worth exact $106.33 right now, IF I chose to buy or sell them on Mt Gox right this second.

PhD = spent a lot of time in, and money on, school.  No more, no less.  They may be more educated on a given subject in theory, but in my experience are often walled in by what they learned on the way.  "I have a PhD in blah, blah."  Some ARE brilliant, talented and do great things, but the label in itself is overrated.

“You dropped a 150 grand on a fucking education that you could’ve got a $1.50 in late charges at the public library” – Good Will Hunting (1997)

[bb113]

"The bitcoin is backed by math argument" is kinda silly if you ask me. It´s backed by people who belive in it, but it have no other use than a medium of exchange, therefor it will fail.. In the long run, or short run. It could even be tommorow who knows. The problem is that the source code of bitcoin can be copied to infinity and create infinite new eCoins, you cant do that with physical things like gold.
You can also do something else with physical things like gold rather than use it as a medium of exchange, you cant do that with bitcoin.

Why is the "Backed by math argument silly"? It is true. You can't have a currency back by people cause then you might as well as back it by hope. Math is a way to prove that the coins aren't double spent, are fairly handed out and keep bitcoins rare. So instead of just hoping it works, you can prove it works. So it the best argument is that it is back by math.

Beacause math is an "abstract 'idea' " you cant really touch it or measure how many other identical cryptocurrencies there could be or how much better you could make them, the answer is infinte. I´m just saying that I can create xCoin, yCoin, zCoin with the exact same properties and now the challenge is to get other people to value those as much. This expansion of cryptocurrencies will probably happen. And therefore you will see an "inflation" of all cryptocurrencies so I dont think the deflation argument of bitcoin stand either.

You cant just look at the properties of Gold and then Copy it into existance without putting extreme amount of energy into it, do you see the problem?
Gold = Physical matter that have some real-world properties, Cryptocurrency value= Abstract and Subjective, can be copied to infinity.

But I´m still a cryptocurrency supporter but I dont think it will stand for much long. I wouldnt bet my life on it, thats it.

Math isn't an abstract idea, do you even know what an abstract idea is? If I said I had 2 jelly beans, you can see I have 2 jelly beans, you can feel I have 2 jelly beans. I can prove that I have 2 jelly beans. Math is based on proof, and you can prove everything in bitcoin. Today the dollar is based on debt and that is not the faith we should have.

Also look at how many crypto currencies have failed and never picked up steam, litecoin is the only other bitcoin like currency that is actually being used. We can have a 1 million other currencies I don't see how that will take away from bitcoin, it was the first and probably the one that will be used 50 years from now.

Gold is physical, but it is abstract in that we could go into a deep cave and find a lot of it, then the price would go down even more. It isn't defined that there is a certain amount of gold, we just have a hard time finding so we have proof it is rare. Bitcoin we know how there is, we know how much there will ever be, we can prove which address owns an amount.

Your not betting your life cause you should never do that, and plus you don't understand.

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Bitcoin is measured in energy... the mining directly ties the value to amount of energy available for processing transactions. It is a self limiting system. The value of transactions cannot sustainably grow beyond some percentage of total energy production.

[1krona]

I´m having really hard deciding what is best to own right now gold, fiat or cryptos they all have their shortfalls. A energybased currency would be one of the best alternatives if you asked me, but thats my point of view.
Fiat could stand this storm and then the gold and cryptos just will be seen as big bubbles, so right now I´m just passively observing. I´m actually still not comfortable putting my savings into a highly speculative currency based on a software that is far from flawless.

If a organization would like to shut down the cryptos they would only have to invest about 20$ millions(this a piss in the sea for a government or bank) into ASICs and then kill it with a 51%-attack. It´s probably not gonna happen, but it isnt totally unlikely either.

[Slyyrd]

Shells, pebbles, anything can be "money". As long as there is someone willing to accept it, in trade, for other goods and services it is money.

[Melonhead]

Very interesting question. The answer is no. Bitcoin does not need and should not be "backed" by anything. To really understand the issue, however, we need a little history lesson. Gold used to "back" paper money because everyone knew that gold was money and paper money was just a money substitute. Gold was perfectly good money for thousands of years. Paper money was originally (starting in the middle ages for the sake of argument) just a warehouse receipt given to the owner of gold who chose to store his gold in the goldsmith's safe. The goldsmith gave the customer a receipt. That was the first paper money. That receipt was redeemable on demand for the quantity of gold printed on the receipt. In other words - gold backed the paper.

Over the years, people got used to carrying around and trading paper receipts (which were more convenient than gold) and would use them as a substitute for actual gold. But everyone was acutely aware that the paper was not the money. The gold that backed it was the money. In those days (and before that as well), gold's value was overwhelmingly based on its ability to be money. See my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169517.msg1871316#msg1871316 on inflation and the properties of money. As time went on, people started to forget about gold and started to believe that the paper receipts were money. The problem with paper money is that it is much easier to debase (inflate) than gold. Governments hate gold (as they will hate bitcoin) because then cannot simple "print it" to fund their welfare/warfare states. There are numerous examples in history of governments (in bed with the goldsmiths) creating paper currency (out of thin air) divorced from any real gold and thereby destroying their own economies. (I include all modern electronic versions of official currency when I say "paper money".)

The reason history and common sense says that paper money needs to be backed by gold is that gold is the market winner (over thousands of years) in the contest of what is the best money. Its money properties were almost single-handedly responsible for the advancement of civilization from barbarism to the modern world.

So, when x backs y, x is money and y is the money substitute. As long as people honor the one-to-one relationship between x and y, it's perfectly ok for gold to back paper money or even for bitcoins to back paper money. So, nothing should back gold because gold is (or was) money. Sadly, society has been so far removed from gold for so long, that gold no longer really qualifies as money. And while Bitcoin doesn't quite qualify as money yet, it may someday, and as such it might back something else (even informally). Something as simple as an IOU on the back of an envelope that says IOU 4BTC qualifies as paper money backed by bitcoin.

Final thought on gold. I read a few years ago that if gold were still commonly understood to be money it would be worth over $20,000 per ounce. The reason for this is that the nominal value of all the goods and services in the world divided by the weight of all the gold in the world comes out to about $20K. I could be way off here, but you get the point.

[bb113]

I´m having really hard deciding what is best to own right now gold, fiat or cryptos they all have their shortfalls. A energybased currency would be one of the best alternatives if you asked me, but thats my point of view.
Fiat could stand this storm and then the gold and cryptos just will be seen as big bubbles, so right now I´m just passively observing. I´m actually still not comfortable putting my savings into a highly speculative currency based on a software that is far from flawless.

If a organization would like to shut down the cryptos they would only have to invest about 20$ millions(this a piss in the sea for a government or bank) into ASICs and then kill it with a 51%-attack. It´s probably not gonna happen, but it isnt totally unlikely either.

Please explain why bitcoin (and other PoW cryptos) are not energy credits. What would meet your definition of an energy credit?

[1krona]

"The bitcoin is backed by math argument" is kinda silly if you ask me. It´s backed by people who belive in it, but it have no other use than a medium of exchange, therefor it will fail.. In the long run, or short run. It could even be tommorow who knows. The problem is that the source code of bitcoin can be copied to infinity and create infinite new eCoins, you cant do that with physical things like gold.
You can also do something else with physical things like gold rather than use it as a medium of exchange, you cant do that with bitcoin.

Why is the "Backed by math argument silly"? It is true. You can't have a currency back by people cause then you might as well as back it by hope. Math is a way to prove that the coins aren't double spent, are fairly handed out and keep bitcoins rare. So instead of just hoping it works, you can prove it works. So it the best argument is that it is back by math.

Beacause math is an "abstract 'idea' " you cant really touch it or measure how many other identical cryptocurrencies there could be or how much better you could make them, the answer is infinte. I´m just saying that I can create xCoin, yCoin, zCoin with the exact same properties and now the challenge is to get other people to value those as much. This expansion of cryptocurrencies will probably happen. And therefore you will see an "inflation" of all cryptocurrencies so I dont think the deflation argument of bitcoin stand either.

You cant just look at the properties of Gold and then Copy it into existance without putting extreme amount of energy into it, do you see the problem?
Gold = Physical matter that have some real-world properties, Cryptocurrency value= Abstract and Subjective, can be copied to infinity.

But I´m still a cryptocurrency supporter but I dont think it will stand for much long. I wouldnt bet my life on it, thats it.

Math isn't an abstract idea, do you even know what an abstract idea is? If I said I had 2 jelly beans, you can see I have 2 jelly beans, you can feel I have 2 jelly beans. I can prove that I have 2 jelly beans. Math is based on proof, and you can prove everything in bitcoin. Today the dollar is based on debt and that is not the faith we should have.

Also look at how many crypto currencies have failed and never picked up steam, litecoin is the only other bitcoin like currency that is actually being used. We can have a 1 million other currencies I don't see how that will take away from bitcoin, it was the first and probably the one that will be used 50 years from now.

Gold is physical, but it is abstract in that we could go into a deep cave and find a lot of it, then the price would go down even more. It isn't defined that there is a certain amount of gold, we just have a hard time finding so we have proof it is rare. Bitcoin we know how there is, we know how much there will ever be, we can prove which address owns an amount.

Your not betting your life cause you should never do that, and plus you don't understand.

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Bitcoin is measured in energy... the mining directly ties the value to amount of energy available for processing transactions. It is a self limiting system. The value of transactions cannot sustainably grow beyond some percentage of total energy production.

But I mean that I would like to OWN the energy rather than performing a task with energy to perfom a transaction. I would like to store it so i could use it to what ever i wanted to. I would transfer it over a net without anyone having to confirm it because you could see something physical "realworld"-event occur when you recieve your kW/h´s (or how ever you would like to measure it). And Instead of mining bitcoin into existence you would have solar cells/ wind turbine "mining" energy. Do you see where I´m coming from?

[bb113]

"The bitcoin is backed by math argument" is kinda silly if you ask me. It´s backed by people who belive in it, but it have no other use than a medium of exchange, therefor it will fail.. In the long run, or short run. It could even be tommorow who knows. The problem is that the source code of bitcoin can be copied to infinity and create infinite new eCoins, you cant do that with physical things like gold.
You can also do something else with physical things like gold rather than use it as a medium of exchange, you cant do that with bitcoin.

Why is the "Backed by math argument silly"? It is true. You can't have a currency back by people cause then you might as well as back it by hope. Math is a way to prove that the coins aren't double spent, are fairly handed out and keep bitcoins rare. So instead of just hoping it works, you can prove it works. So it the best argument is that it is back by math.

Beacause math is an "abstract 'idea' " you cant really touch it or measure how many other identical cryptocurrencies there could be or how much better you could make them, the answer is infinte. I´m just saying that I can create xCoin, yCoin, zCoin with the exact same properties and now the challenge is to get other people to value those as much. This expansion of cryptocurrencies will probably happen. And therefore you will see an "inflation" of all cryptocurrencies so I dont think the deflation argument of bitcoin stand either.

You cant just look at the properties of Gold and then Copy it into existance without putting extreme amount of energy into it, do you see the problem?
Gold = Physical matter that have some real-world properties, Cryptocurrency value= Abstract and Subjective, can be copied to infinity.

But I´m still a cryptocurrency supporter but I dont think it will stand for much long. I wouldnt bet my life on it, thats it.

Math isn't an abstract idea, do you even know what an abstract idea is? If I said I had 2 jelly beans, you can see I have 2 jelly beans, you can feel I have 2 jelly beans. I can prove that I have 2 jelly beans. Math is based on proof, and you can prove everything in bitcoin. Today the dollar is based on debt and that is not the faith we should have.

Also look at how many crypto currencies have failed and never picked up steam, litecoin is the only other bitcoin like currency that is actually being used. We can have a 1 million other currencies I don't see how that will take away from bitcoin, it was the first and probably the one that will be used 50 years from now.

Gold is physical, but it is abstract in that we could go into a deep cave and find a lot of it, then the price would go down even more. It isn't defined that there is a certain amount of gold, we just have a hard time finding so we have proof it is rare. Bitcoin we know how there is, we know how much there will ever be, we can prove which address owns an amount.

Your not betting your life cause you should never do that, and plus you don't understand.

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Bitcoin is measured in energy... the mining directly ties the value to amount of energy available for processing transactions. It is a self limiting system. The value of transactions cannot sustainably grow beyond some percentage of total energy production.

But I mean that I would like to OWN the energy rather than performing a task with energy to perfom a transaction. I would like to store it so i could use it to what ever i wanted to. I would transfer it over a net without anyone having to confirm it because you could see something physical "realworld"-event occur when you recieve your kW/h´s (or how ever you would like to measure it). And Instead of mining bitcoin into existence you would have solar cells/ wind turbine "mining" energy. Do you see where I´m coming from?

Ah, I'm not sure if the tech for storing large enough value is there yet.

[Kazimir]

Bitcoins is backed by math.

This.

And people suggesting that bitcoins aren't "real" cause you can't hold them in your hand, should consider the fact that 99.9% of all euros and dollars in existence (including the ones on their bank account) are just as real. Pretty much ALL the money out there is not coins and bills, but mere bits and bytes in cyberspace.

Welcome to the Information Age. Physical and digital are just as real.

[AlphaWolf]

Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin...  you can still trade with them when the lights go out.  Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere.  We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course.  I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".

[1krona]

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Energy I can only use it for one thing, to power something.

That is the fairest way, early adopters had to have a lot of faith in the system so it is only natural they be rewarded the most.

Energy I can only use it for one thing... Are you kidding me?

And yeah bitcoin is mostly based on faith and have only a value as a medium of exchange, you can use dollar, gold, potatos, kittens, stones or energy for that to.
There is nothing that makes bitcoin better than terracoin else than it have more "Belivers".. Actually cryptos kinda remind me of religion and other political views; get enough people to belive in it and value what you offer and you´ll win!

You have big faith in Bitcoin and you will probably go on claiming that it´s the best thing ever like religious and political people. So I dont expect you do change your mind although I like the debate

[1krona]

I´m having really hard deciding what is best to own right now gold, fiat or cryptos they all have their shortfalls. A energybased currency would be one of the best alternatives if you asked me, but thats my point of view.
Fiat could stand this storm and then the gold and cryptos just will be seen as big bubbles, so right now I´m just passively observing. I´m actually still not comfortable putting my savings into a highly speculative currency based on a software that is far from flawless.

If a organization would like to shut down the cryptos they would only have to invest about 20$ millions(this a piss in the sea for a government or bank) into ASICs and then kill it with a 51%-attack. It´s probably not gonna happen, but it isnt totally unlikely either.

Please explain why bitcoin (and other PoW cryptos) are not energy credits. What would meet your definition of an energy credit?

I want to own the energy. Like have it in a battery or some other medium for storage (Hydrogen maybe) so I can choose what´s tasks it should perform and when.

You cant deny that bitcoin only have one purpose and it´s for exchange, If I owned the energy itself I could consume it to do other things.

[Melonhead]

Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin...  you can still trade with them when the lights go out.  Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere.  We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course.  I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".

Beyond excellent point.

[1krona]

I´m having really hard deciding what is best to own right now gold, fiat or cryptos they all have their shortfalls. A energybased currency would be one of the best alternatives if you asked me, but thats my point of view.
Fiat could stand this storm and then the gold and cryptos just will be seen as big bubbles, so right now I´m just passively observing. I´m actually still not comfortable putting my savings into a highly speculative currency based on a software that is far from flawless.

If a organization would like to shut down the cryptos they would only have to invest about 20$ millions(this a piss in the sea for a government or bank) into ASICs and then kill it with a 51%-attack. It´s probably not gonna happen, but it isnt totally unlikely either.

Cryptos will always be see a bubble cause that what people want to believe. It is young it is going to move up and down fast.
The software has yet to be hacked so to say it is far from flawless is not correct. You do know most software ship with ~ 50,000 Bugs known. Bitcoin software is probably one of the most well written pieces of software I have seen.

It would be a lot more than $20 million, if that was true then NSA would have done it a long time ago. NSA does know about bitcoin, the CIA invited Gavin to talk about it so it is on there radar.

Nah it wouldnt take more than $20 million I´m surprise to see that you seems to know so little although it looks like you have been into bitcoin for a while.
The total tH/s of the bitcoin network is 64 terahashes/s right now. And a minirig from BFL costed $30 000 and produced 1,5 tH/s so to get up over 64 tH/s I would have to get 43 minirigs and that would cost me about 1.3$ million so I was being generous when I said 20$ million, calculating that the hashrate would increase a lot and that goverments usually are cost ineffective.  

I could make alot of money if I had the capital to perform a 51 %-attack because I could short the bitcoin-market before, Actually a big organization dont really have anything to loose in a investment like that. Because they could make a lot of money shorting the market and in the same way getting rid of competition, and if they failed a 51%-attack they still would control a huge amount of the bitcoin market.
I think the bitcoin far from flawless, but that´s just me and I like you to prove me wrong.

[Angril]

In all honesty, nothing has true backing. Similar to the example with gold.. Nothing has any more value than the value people give it. I could get a bottle of fresh water for under a dollar in the US, but if I would go somewhere where it is not as easily accessible, it would be highly valued and priced.

[1krona]

I always get the answer "You just dont understand", but I have studied currencies, economics, finance a lot.. And when youre saying that we will be using it 50 years from now I see your total lack of understanding from my subjective view. 50 years from now I think there is a much greater chance that we will be using some kind of money measured in energy. It is portable, durable, fungible, and you can do shit with it. So no I dont think cryptos like Bitcoin, Litecoin will stand much more than 5-10 maximum 15 years. But I could be wrong, but I have a bunch of ideas that would serve a much better purpose as a medium of exchange than Bitcoin.

I also have big issues with the asymmetric distribution of bitcoin. Some entities are sitting on 1 - 10 % of all Bitcoins just for them self, thats even worse than the Fiat distribution, although this is not an argument for that bitcoin is bad and will fail, I just dont like the asymmetric distribution. Read this: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf Check pg 8 and 9 for distribution of the coins.

Energy I can only use it for one thing, to power something.

That is the fairest way, early adopters had to have a lot of faith in the system so it is only natural they be rewarded the most.

Energy I can only use it for one thing... Are you kidding me?

And yeah bitcoin is mostly based on faith and have only a value as a medium of exchange, you can use dollar, gold, potatos, kittens, stones or energy for that to.
There is nothing that makes bitcoin better than terracoin else than it have more "Belivers".. Actually cryptos kinda remind me of religion and other political views; get enough people to belive in it and value what you offer and you´ll win!

You have big faith in Bitcoin and you will probably go on claiming that it´s the best thing ever like religious and political people. So I dont expect you do change your mind although I like the debate

Bitcoin is based on math, which is not faith it is prove to be the truth. A value of a medium of exchange is what 100% of currencies are. Comparing bitcoin and terracoins is like comparing the Euro and Dollar, the same thing but one of them is stronger. It isn't a religion just cause I am defending it, cause I researched it and believe in math, doesn't mean I am part of a cult where my mind can't be changed. It is just that bitcoin is currently the best currency I think out there and many others do the same. It is cool that you don't we need people like that in the community to keep the debate fresh and keep us on our toes. Who knows maybe you will discover a huge flaw no one saw and bitcoin will be worthless. But until then I put my money into math which can never be wrong.

Yeah I´m no big fan of Euro and Dollar either so I kinda agree with that comparison. I think that a transition from Fiat to Cryptos would be a transition from one crappy system to another "little less?" crappy system.
I want a medium of exchange that I can do something else with than exchange. I also think that the big guns in the cryptosphere gets unfair amount of financial power rather than the users of the currency, kinda like banks and fiat-related issues.

[AlphaWolf]

Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin...  you can still trade with them when the lights go out.  Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere.  We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course.  I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".

Beyond excellent point.

If an EMP strike went off, we have more issues then how to get our bitcoin back, but people have worked on this problem. I see one solution, a mesh network that will develop.

Just as valid would be a major blackout, such as the Northeast blackout of 2003 (and also 1965) in the US, or the 2012 India Blackout, or 2003 Italy Blackout... or any of the others on this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages#Largest

With fiat, there exists the possibility that you could drive to another city with power, and extract some paper money from a bank.  Bitcoin needs an easier way to transact physically, in person, even when the network if offline or inaccessible.  Pretty big challenge.. given that the strength of Bitcoin *is* the network.

[1krona]

I´m having really hard deciding what is best to own right now gold, fiat or cryptos they all have their shortfalls. A energybased currency would be one of the best alternatives if you asked me, but thats my point of view.
Fiat could stand this storm and then the gold and cryptos just will be seen as big bubbles, so right now I´m just passively observing. I´m actually still not comfortable putting my savings into a highly speculative currency based on a software that is far from flawless.

If a organization would like to shut down the cryptos they would only have to invest about 20$ millions(this a piss in the sea for a government or bank) into ASICs and then kill it with a 51%-attack. It´s probably not gonna happen, but it isnt totally unlikely either.

Cryptos will always be see a bubble cause that what people want to believe. It is young it is going to move up and down fast.
The software has yet to be hacked so to say it is far from flawless is not correct. You do know most software ship with ~ 50,000 Bugs known. Bitcoin software is probably one of the most well written pieces of software I have seen.

It would be a lot more than $20 million, if that was true then NSA would have done it a long time ago. NSA does know about bitcoin, the CIA invited Gavin to talk about it so it is on there radar.

Nah it wouldnt take more than $20 million I´m surprise to see that you seems to know so little although it looks like you have been into bitcoin for a while.
The total tH/s of the bitcoin network is 64 terahashes/s right now. And a minirig from BFL costed $30 000 and produced 1,5 tH/s so to get up over 64 tH/s I would have to get 43 minirigs and that would cost me about 1.3$ million so I was being generous when I said 20$ million, calculating that the hashrate would increase a lot and that goverments usually are cost ineffective.  

I could make alot of money if I had the capital to perform a 51 %-attack because I could short the bitcoin-market before, Actually a big organization dont really have anything to loose in a investment like that. Because they could make a lot of money shorting the market and in the same way getting rid of competition, and if they failed a 51%-attack they still would control a huge amount of the bitcoin market.
I think the bitcoin far from flawless, but that´s just me and I like you to prove me wrong.

That isn't how it works, but ok, you also didn't take into account the difficultly rising there so many variables, that $20 million is not equal to a 51%.

I have proved you wrong and answer everyone of your questions so I am guessing your cult mind will not change. But I think you will never see the light of bitcoin and that is ok. I hope you stick around and helps us to move bitcoin into a places where we have a lot of criticism, I feel too safe on this forum.

Okay lets say someone had invested 1,5$ millions in 45 minirigs that were offline right now and then they put all that 67,5 tH/s of power onto the network controlling over 50%... Why wouldn´t that someone be able to perform a 51%-attack?

Explain.

[agentbluescreen]

Gold/fiat do have one advantage over bitcoin...  you can still trade with them when the lights go out.  Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin is superior in many ways... but imagine a world that trades exclusively in Bitcoin, and then imagine an EMP strike anywhere.  We are close to this being an issue already with fiat being exchanged almost exclusively electronically, of course.  I believe the smart course of action is "diversify".

There is also nothing that "backs" gold, it can be easily counterfeited (plated tungsten) and it too, even like oil, began it's path to becoming a symbol of wealth as a "pyramid scheme". The Bilderberg Gold Pharaohs of Liechtenstein still wield their monopoly over it as their fiat authority to own and enslave us all and our nations though the mechanisms of their exclusive proprietary ownerships of our national mediums of labour exchange currencies today.  When the "lights go out" fuels, ammunition, weapons and food will all have far more value than gold.

A Bitcoin is simply a derivative that only represents the LOOT or SERVICES that the guy that you got it off, got out of you for it, and made off with. It is a fiat "futures derivative contract" that arguably has some but really has no certain inherent added-value, other than as a virtual digital sort of a much fancier kind of an encrypted GM ignition key, that you can move, swap and store electronically.

Like a "gold contract' or "mortgage backed security' (I love that last word) derivative it is a "BTC -securitized Future Derivative Contract" that merely allows you to keep, transfer it around or transfer it somewhere else to resell it there for whatever it may seem to be worth to the next guy, a minimum of an hour from now.

The suicidal crisis with Fiat Bitcoins is that there is no convention nor systematic mechanism of well-regulation to stabilize nor assure users the stable Fiat "value" of them, relative to anything else practical. This means that they are doomed to being totally unsuitable, unreliable, non dependable and useless as a Medium of Labour Exchange Currency.