Bitcoin 2.0 - Bitcoin backed by "junk silver" - coin dealers become exchanges

[MyFarm]

In my opinion, bitcoin 1.0 will fail.  Yes, I may be wrong, this thread is not to debate that.  This thread is for my idea for Bitcoin 2.0 which I am not ambitious enough to head myself as I want to focus on my family.

I realize some of you feel bitcoin is backed.  However, too many people want a currency backed by something tangible.  Enter "junk silver".  The junk silver I would recommend having back Bitcoin 2.0 would be pre 1932-1964 quarters and 1946-1964 dimes as they have the same metal makeup.  This solves the problem of a tangible backing.  In addition, this all of a sudden makes every coin shop in the world a distributed exchange which we all understand the need for.

However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers.

Deposit or buy a pre 1965 dime and get 1 bitcoin 2.0 from the central exchange or the coin dealer who has bitcoin.  Buy or deposit a 1964 or older quarter and get 2.50 bitcoin 2.0.  They can then be traded, purchased, and sold anonymously just like bitcoin 1.0.  Your junk silver becomes digitized.  But at any time you can withdraw it for junk silver.  It will ALWAYS have value, be reasonably stable, and have distributed exchanges yet still have most of the benefits of bitcoin 1.0.

I hope someone proceeds with this or a like idea.

[FlipPro]

In my opinion, bitcoin 1.0 will fail.  Yes, I may be wrong, this thread is not to debate that.  This thread is for my idea for Bitcoin 2.0 which I am not ambitious enough to head myself as I want to focus on my family.

I realize some of you feel bitcoin is backed.  However, too many people want a currency backed by something tangible.  Enter "junk silver".  The junk silver I would recommend having back Bitcoin 2.0 would be pre 1932-1964 quarters and 1946-1964 dimes as they have the same metal makeup.  This solves the problem of a tangible backing.  In addition, this all of a sudden makes every coin shop in the world a distributed exchange which we all understand the need for.

However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers.

Deposit or buy a pre 1965 dime and get 1 bitcoin 2.0 from the central exchange or the coin dealer who has bitcoin.  Buy or deposit a 1964 or older quarter and get 2.50 bitcoin 2.0.  They can then be traded, purchased, and sold anonymously just like bitcoin 1.0.  Your junk silver becomes digitized.  But at any time you can withdraw it for junk silver.  It will ALWAYS have value, be reasonably stable, and have distributed exchanges yet still have most of the benefits of bitcoin 1.0.

I hope someone proceeds with this or a like idea.

Before I read the rest of your trash post I want to ask you, WHY it's going to fail. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who have put in thousands of hours of man power and original thought, and millions of dollars into this system, that till this point is indestructible. Tell them that it's going to fail..

[TraderTimm]

I think we are a bit too early on in the experiment that is bitcoin to start casting out in new directions. However, there is nothing stopping your plan. You could conceivably have your own blockchain and client. I am not sure how you would handle the redemption part of the plan though.

I wouldn't be investing in bitcoin 2.0, because I think it has a few flaws based on possible government intervention, as you would be using their issued currency. Not to mention a central point of failure, being the physical delivery process, even if you didn't use coin shops or dealers.

Best of luck, but I am not as optimistic about your plan as I am about the original bitcoin.

[gusti]

In my opinion, bitcoin 1.0 will fail.  Yes, I may be wrong, this thread is not to debate that.  This thread is for my idea for Bitcoin 2.0 which I am not ambitious enough to head myself as I want to focus on my family.

I realize some of you feel bitcoin is backed.  However, too many people want a currency backed by something tangible.  Enter "junk silver".  The junk silver I would recommend having back Bitcoin 2.0 would be pre 1932-1964 quarters and 1946-1964 dimes as they have the same metal makeup.  This solves the problem of a tangible backing.  In addition, this all of a sudden makes every coin shop in the world a distributed exchange which we all understand the need for.

However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers.

Deposit or buy a pre 1965 dime and get 1 bitcoin 2.0 from the central exchange or the coin dealer who has bitcoin.  Buy or deposit a 1964 or older quarter and get 2.50 bitcoin 2.0.  They can then be traded, purchased, and sold anonymously just like bitcoin 1.0.  Your junk silver becomes digitized.  But at any time you can withdraw it for junk silver.  It will ALWAYS have value, be reasonably stable, and have distributed exchanges yet still have most of the benefits of bitcoin 1.0.

I hope someone proceeds with this or a like idea.

sorry, I stopped reading at "require a central repository" ... why you people cannot understand that bitcoin value resides on it's descentralization : http://t.co/pH87vt4

[MyFarm]

I think we are a bit too early on in the experiment that is bitcoin to start casting out in new directions. However, there is nothing stopping your plan. You could conceivably have your own blockchain and client.

Can you elaborate on this please?  Thank you.

[TraderTimm]

I think we are a bit too early on in the experiment that is bitcoin to start casting out in new directions. However, there is nothing stopping your plan. You could conceivably have your own blockchain and client.

Can you elaborate on this please?  Thank you.

I think you should take a look at the namecoin project. They've done just that, established another blockchain and a project that mirrors bitcoin in some ways, for their own purposes.

[Jaime Frontero]

so the plan is to resurrect the Silver Certificate?  but not printed by the US government?

ummm... that's been tried (except with gold), hasn't it?

didn't work out too well, did it?

silly.

[Anonymous]

so the plan is to resurrect the Silver Certificate?  but not printed by the US government?

ummm... that's been tried (except with gold), hasn't it?

didn't work out too well, did it?

silly.

You store the silver off-shore along with server hosting. You just need to find a friendly environment and possibly some quality private security.

[FlipPro]

so the plan is to resurrect the Silver Certificate?  but not printed by the US government?

ummm... that's been tried (except with gold), hasn't it?

didn't work out too well, did it?

silly.

Yes it has

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

The beauty of bitcoin is that no human controls it, no matter how many trolls, scammers, spammers, dealers, or thugs sign on to the currency, in the end they DON'T CONTROL IT. Thats whats really pissing people off  .

[Jaime Frontero]

so the plan is to resurrect the Silver Certificate?  but not printed by the US government?

ummm... that's been tried (except with gold), hasn't it?

didn't work out too well, did it?

silly.

You store the silver off-shore along with server hosting. You just need to find a friendly environment and possibly some quality private security.

and then you are not only at the mercy of whoever holds the silver, but they are untouchable by the legal system (U.S.) which represents the two of us.

right?

[gusti]

so the plan is to resurrect the Silver Certificate?  but not printed by the US government?

ummm... that's been tried (except with gold), hasn't it?

didn't work out too well, did it?

silly.

You store the silver off-shore along with server hosting. You just need to find a friendly environment and possibly some quality private security.

I'm rather friendly, I will propose myself as the silver holder.  

[elggawf]

and possibly some quality private security.

Possibly?

The Bitcoin economy is what, $180m right now, in it's infancy? You think this alleged Bitcoin 2.0 is going to take off and be sitting on $180m worth of junk silver and you'd "possibly" need some security?

OP seems to have missed the point completely - the charm of Bitcoin is it's complete and utter non-reliance on a central authority to give the units value. If you're going to have a central authority minting the units and giving them value, why fuck around with a block chain at all? Just start a paypal-esque service where people can mail you junk silver and you credit their account. Done and done.

[Jaime Frontero]

OP seems to have missed the point completely - the charm of Bitcoin is it's complete and utter non-reliance on a central authority to give the units value. If you're going to have a central authority minting the units and giving them value, why fuck around with a block chain at all? Just start a paypal-esque service where people can mail you junk silver and you credit their account. Done and done.

yes - and they can reverse transactions whenever they feel like it.

the tender mercies of the blockchain look better and better, don't they?

[FlipPro]

and possibly some quality private security.

Possibly?

The Bitcoin economy is what, $180m right now, in it's infancy? You think this alleged Bitcoin 2.0 is going to take off and be sitting on $180m worth of junk silver and you'd "possibly" need some security?

OP seems to have missed the point completely - the charm of Bitcoin is it's complete and utter non-reliance on a central authority to give the units value. If you're going to have a central authority minting the units and giving them value, why fuck around with a block chain at all? Just start a paypal-esque service where people can mail you junk silver and you credit their account. Done and done.

Thats so true the system isn't even necc. if the OP got his "Bitcoin 2.0". People are having such a hard time believing that these coins have true value. Unfortunately we can't explain it to them with every single post we write (we would be writing forever), so hopefully with all the sarcasm and narcissism, they will get the hint to simply do their RESEARCH. It's not hard, just DO THE RESEARCH. I know 90% of you people out there are lazy, but you can't expect people on this board to take you seriously, if you don't even understand the basic laws of this currency.

[NO_SLAVE]

I like the idea, but I think the silver should not be junk, it should be fine silver bullion of a certain non political mintage.
The rounds minted , numbered and limited in production.  NO fractionalization!
Ive been thinking about this for the past few weeks.

[elggawf]

yes - and they can reverse transactions whenever they feel like it.

the tender mercies of the blockchain look better and better, don't they?

What's the difference between someone reversing a transaction, and doing other things to harm the money supply like yanking some of the silver, or declaring an address invalid?

"User XYZ123 is now in possession of stolen Bitcoin2.0s, no one accept these coins they are now worthless."

If you have a central issuer you have a central authority - blockchain or no blockchain they can still fuck you over.

[Slab Squathrust]

I really don't think this would work.  Have you ever heard about the guys trying to leave the US with thousands of pre 1982 lincoln head cents.  There is actually more than a cent of copper in those coins.  People take them out of country and melt them down.  I can guarantee the postal service or customs well try to prevent people from taking these coins out of the US.  People getting caught with the pennies can face large fines or jail time.  Plus it is almost impossible to find pre 64 dimes and quarters in general circulation anymore.  You can really only find them in sizable quantities from a coin dealer. 

If you cant take them out of the country, the government will just seize the repository or go after the central distributors like with E-gold.

[Jaime Frontero]

yes - and they can reverse transactions whenever they feel like it.

the tender mercies of the blockchain look better and better, don't they?

What's the difference between someone reversing a transaction, and doing other things to harm the money supply like yanking some of the silver, or declaring an address invalid?

"User XYZ123 is now in possession of stolen Bitcoin2.0s, no one accept these coins they are now worthless."

If you have a central issuer you have a central authority - blockchain or no blockchain they can still fuck you over.

exactly my point.

but perhaps i should have said:

the tender mercies of the Bitcoin 1.0 blockchain look better and better, don't they?

[elggawf]

exactly my point.

but perhaps i should have said:

the tender mercies of the Bitcoin 1.0 blockchain look better and better, don't they?

Ahh, I thought you were disagreeing with me, saying that OP's idea needs the blockchain.

But no, all OP is really proposing is Liberty Dollars with a fuck-tarded blockchain over top of it.

[imperi]

However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers.

Are you trolling or what? The whole point of Bitcoins is to NOT be centralized.

With your suggestion, we might as well use World of Warcraft gold, because that is backed by virtual equipment, leveling, millions of users, and subscription rates.