2013-08-16 RT - Bitcoin never to become a global currency, nothing backs it up

[solex]

Proof of the "Peter Principle",  that you can be promoted to a level of incompetence. Margaret Bogenrief advising on finance when, clearly, she should be advised on matters of finance.

http://rt.com/op-edge/bitcoin-global-currency-economy-579/

[1713570830]

1713570830

[1713570830]

1713570830

[superduh]

she's not a smart cookie - i wouldn't want her managing or advising me on anything

bitcoins are the "confederate currency" right.... at least she didn't say something stupid ala tulips

[zeroday]

It's better to be backed by nothing than backed by silly Financial Advisors 

 

[hmmmstrange]

I feel sad for her.

[HeliKopterBen]

The ONLY thing that matters is the value society places on an asset relative to all other assets at any given point in time.  

[freedomno1]

(Or maybe the classroom)

[aigeezer]

(Or maybe the classroom)

The wall, perhaps. They will fight in many ways. Propaganda doesn't have to be true to be effective.

After all, she has an implicit point. All of "their" currencies are backed by people with guns and BTC is not.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I really don't get this whole fixation on "what backs it up?".
What backs up the bread on your plate?
Imho, "backing" is a very subjective and vague term, that subtracts from talking about the properties things have.
People apparently need to hear "this money is backed by X", and then they can consider it to be safe.  Yah sorry, it's not that simple.

[Birdy]

Bitcoin is backed up by Math ^^

[Carlton Banks]

Backed by:

a monopoly on violence v.s. encrypted peer-to-peer computer network


That's the current dichotomy in the "civilized" world

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Bitcoin is backed up by Math ^^

That's a nice sound bite, but not much more.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is backed up by Math ^^

That's a nice sound bite, but not much more.

Depends on how deep you read into it.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Bitcoin is backed up by Math ^^

That's a nice sound bite, but not much more.

Depends on how deep you read into it.

Is the math behind Clonecoin 42 any less valid?

[aigeezer]

I really don't get this whole fixation on "what backs it up?".
What backs up the bread on your plate?
Imho, "backing" is a very subjective and vague term, that subtracts from talking about the properties things have.
People apparently need to hear "this money is backed by X", and then they can consider it to be safe.  Yah sorry, it's not that simple.

When I was new here I earnestly replied to one of the "what backs it up" threads, making a ponderous claim about the work of the miners blah blah. That drew a Libertarian dogma reply - they threw the book at me, as I recall, not realizing that I already knew all that stuff and was fairly sympathetic to it. The experience led me to a conclusion similar to what you express - "backing" is one of those terms that people like to argue dogmatically about. Meh.

Soon someone will earnestly quote "full faith and credit". Woot!

[HeliKopterBen]

I really don't get this whole fixation on "what backs it up?".
What backs up the bread on your plate?
Imho, "backing" is a very subjective and vague term, that subtracts from talking about the properties things have.
People apparently need to hear "this money is backed by X", and then they can consider it to be safe.  Yah sorry, it's not that simple.

When I was new here I earnestly replied to one of the "what backs it up" threads, making a ponderous claim about the work of the miners blah blah. That drew a Libertarian dogma reply - they threw the book at me, as I recall, not realizing that I already knew all that stuff and was fairly sympathetic to it. The experience led me to a conclusion similar to what you express - "backing" is one of those terms that people like to argue dogmatically about. Meh.

Soon someone will earnestly quote "full faith and credit". Woot!

The world's default currency for thousands of years, gold, is backed by nothing. 

[btbrae]

I really don't get this whole fixation on "what backs it up?".
What backs up the bread on your plate?

The fact that you can eat it to stay alive.

It is something I often hear from gold bulls and to be honest they are right. If the internet were to go down then your bitcoin would be worthless, just as if the government decides to inflate the currency on the scale of Zimbabwe your fiat becomes worthless.

Currencies have a long history of coming and going and this is why some people especially investors are wary of anything not "backed". Because if the SHTF in any significant way (war, famine, economic collapse) there is still value in things like food, guns, medicine etc, and other investors understand this, even if they are not tin hatters themselves, and consider it when making investment decisions. This affects prices. There are still several generations that only understand technology enough to a) send email, b) check facebook and c) watch porn and unfortunately those are the generations with the money, for now.

The world's default currency for thousands of years, gold, is backed by nothing. 

The best answer to a statement like this that I heard was "You give your girlfriend copper rings and I'll give mine gold rings and we'll see who keeps them longer." - Mark Faber

[Deafboy]

No need to comment. Just look at her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e__YtgJSRQM
edit: I know, ad hominem. But what the hell I couldn't help myself...

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I really don't get this whole fixation on "what backs it up?".
What backs up the bread on your plate?

The fact that you can eat it to stay alive.

It is something I often hear from gold bulls and to be honest they are right. If the internet were to go down then your bitcoin would be worthless, just as if the government decides to inflate the currency on the scale of Zimbabwe your fiat becomes worthless.

Currencies have a long history of coming and going and this is why some people especially investors are wary of anything not "backed". Because if the SHTF in any significant way (war, famine, economic collapse) there is still value in things like food, guns, medicine etc, and other investors understand this, even if they are not tin hatters themselves, and consider it when making investment decisions. This affects prices.

I believe we think alike, but I still don't like the word 'backing'   .
In the bread case, you seem to use the term "backing" as a synonym to "what gives this value".  Or what is your definition of "backing"?
And if we are talking about different scenario's, how much value is there in gold or guns when you are on a sinking boat in the middle of the ocean with no lifeboats?  Anything can become useless in some scenarios, so the present value you ascribe to an asset should consider the likeliness of these scenarios, and the value the asset holds in each scenario.

[btbrae]

I believe we think alike, but I still don't like the word 'backing'   .
In the bread case, you seem to use the term "backing" as a synonym to "what gives this value".  Or what is your definition of "backing"?

Yeah I don't think we disagree really. My post was really based upon the perspective of an investor who cares only about keeping value as money, and doesn't care about sinking ships or the like. I think this is one of RT's main audiences in this regard.

I think the definition of "it's not backed by anything" is less important than the intended meaning which is usually along the lines of "it could become worthless" which is a red flag for investors especially fund managers, and this wouldn't be incorrect either. A lot of pro-Bitcoin folk rightly laugh at that of course, but from where I'm sat that is exactly the image of Bitcoin many investors have, and one that has been carved out by the media, along with all the black market rhetoric.

[TraderTimm]

While I think that gold will never disappear as a tradeable intermediary, it is pretty silly to argue that the every infrastructure system we rely on will somehow go 'away', leaving gold as king.

Things aren't that simple. In serbia and croatia, when conflict turned entire cities into shell-pocked hellholes, they were trading with cans of food, candles, sex, whatever they could use. There wasn't a miser in the main square chuckling with his gold stash as everyone demanded to trade in gold coins.

That is the biggest disconnect I see with the gold grabbers versus bitcoiners, we can complement each other, but the gold-heads just want their specie to be the 'king', and that often requires the entire world to turn into a complete flaming pile of garbage first.

It's just anchoring bias taken to an extreme.