"Backing" - what does this actually MEAN?

[Rassah]

Ask yourself this simple question: Why back anything?

To establish trust in that thing, through transference of trust in another thing.

Why the call for backing?

General goldbuggery  (yes, I am sticking the UK version of the verb "bugger" in there)

[1714858376]

1714858376

[1714858376]

1714858376

[1714858376]

1714858376

[1714858376]

1714858376

[1714858376]

1714858376

[porc]

Ask yourself this simple question: Why back anything?

To establish trust in that thing, through transference of trust in another thing.

Why the call for backing?

General goldbuggery  (yes, I am sticking the UK version of the verb "bugger" in there)

You have not added to my post, merely restated its content (albeit poorly).

[Rassah]

Ask yourself this simple question: Why back anything?

To establish trust in that thing, through transference of trust in another thing.

Why the call for backing?

General goldbuggery  (yes, I am sticking the UK version of the verb "bugger" in there)

You have not added to my post, merely restated its content (albeit poorly).

I'll expand, then, by adding that if something doesn't require trust, it doesn't need backing, and reemphasize that value can not be guaranteed in the future. Though it can be diversified, such as by backing with multiple commodities in case one drops in value, or have multiple parties backing the same thing.

[porc]

I'll expand, then, by adding that if something doesn't require trust, it doesn't need backing, and reemphasize that value can not be guaranteed in the future. Though it can be diversified, such as by backing with multiple commodities in case one drops in value, or have multiple parties backing the same thing.

If you would have accurately restated my position, you have would seen how absurd your above statement is.

"trust in the future purchasing power of the media of exchange." (My position)

So Bitcoin does not require trust in its future purchasing power? Of course it does.

Also you continue to use straw-men:

"value can not be guaranteed in the future"

You imply like guarantee means 100% certainty. I already stated that the guarantee is either strong or weak (implying high probability versus low probability of future exchange value).

In effect you agree with me (regarding my definition), but you want to be pedantic (and place red herrings), because you feel like bitcoins guarantee is questionable at best, and non existent at worst.

[Hunterbunter]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

[porc]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

You have not defined the term backing. Thus the above statement is meaningless.

[pjviitas]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

You have not defined the term backing. Thus the above statement is meaningless.

There is no such #^&*%* thing...get over it.

[porc]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

You have not defined the term backing. Thus the above statement is meaningless.

There is no such #^&*%* thing...get over it.

If it makes you feel better. You fool.

[pjviitas]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

You have not defined the term backing. Thus the above statement is meaningless.

There is no such #^&*%* thing...get over it.

If it makes you feel better. You fool.

Seriously?  You want to make this personal?  Don't pretend like you know me.

[porc]

Ultimately I think that bitcoins are backed by the network hashing power. Every miner is doing "legitimate" work, for their own profit, as opposed to an illegitimate attack from a would be block chain rewriter. You could even say it's backed by self interest.

You have not defined the term backing. Thus the above statement is meaningless.

There is no such #^&*%* thing...get over it.

If it makes you feel better. You fool.

Seriously?  You want to make this personal?  Don't pretend like you know me.

You spammed the thread. He said bitcoin is backed by X without giving his definition of backing. Thus his statement is meaningless.

[Mike Christ]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

When a money is represented by another object, let's say in paper form, then the paper itself isn't money, but currency; the intention for the paper is not to act as money, but to act as a convenient way to trade money, to act as representations of that money, and so that currency is considered "backed" by, say, gold, which is then "backed" by endorsement; all is well at the moment.  To say one day, "Our money is no longer going to be backed by gold" is quite the perversion, then; the backing placed in gold, which the paper represented, was taken away, but the belief in the paper remained; the paper then wrongfully took that backing into itself, and, like all paper currencies do, that belief is steadily slipping away and back to where it rightfully belongs, in money.

So while money is backed by endorsement, paper which fails to represent money is backed by bait-and-switch.

[porc]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

[Mike Christ]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

That's exactly what I said.  Where do you think this guarantee comes from?

[porc]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

That's exactly what I said.  Where do you think this guarantee comes from?

In regards to paper dollars: the state
In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it
In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing.

[Mike Christ]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

That's exactly what I said.  Where do you think this guarantee comes from?

In regards to paper dollars: the state
In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it
In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing.

Your intentions are clear; you're not clever.

The state is backed by people, the state backs the dollar, ergo the dollar is guaranteed by the user.  Gold is backed by people, ergo gold is guaranteed by the user.  Bitcoin is backed by people, ergo bitcoin is guaranteed by the user.

Refuse to acknowledge the truth if you please, just don't do it publicly; it's degrading, and nobody will take you seriously if you continue this behavior.

[porc]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

That's exactly what I said.  Where do you think this guarantee comes from?

In regards to paper dollars: the state
In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it
In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing.

Your intentions are clear; you're not clever.

The state is backed by people, the state backs the dollar, ergo the dollar is guaranteed by the user.  Gold is backed by people, ergo gold is guaranteed by the user.  Bitcoin is backed by people, ergo bitcoin is guaranteed by the user.

Refuse to acknowledge the truth if you please, just don't do it publicly; it's degrading, and nobody will take you seriously if you continue this behavior.

Lol. Propaganda at its best.

I am not hiding my intentions. I dont believe in bitcoin period. I prefer gold. Everybody know this.

The state is backing its currency via force. Bitcoin is not backed by any entity which has a monopoly on the use of force.

Gold is beautiful, we cant help but love it. This wont change, just like the fact that we need water to survive wont change.

Bitcoin is backed by absolutely nothing. The agreement you speak off is not backing. Backing is that the agreement will hold in future.

[Erdogan]

Backing is a guarantee (weak or strong) [/b]that the media of exchange will be accepted for goods and services in the future; that it retains its purchasing power. Your definitions are not helpful. Look at the goal of backing and go from there.

You can define backing however you want, so long as you explain to other people what you're talking about. But IMO, that's not a useful definition of "backing". Suppose someone offered a "secured Bitcoins" service, with a promise that they will buy back any secured Bitcoins you have for $10 any time in the next ten years (or 1/4 gram of gold, if you prefer). These are "backed" by your definition, but common sense will tell you that they're not significantly more useful or valuable than "unbacked" Bitcoins. And the truth is, this is the only kind of backing you have for fiat or even gold. Nobody "backs" demand. At most, they back supply. And Bitcoin's supply is backed more than fiat is.

You are off base in my opinion.

Ask yourself this simple question: Why back anything? Why the call for backing?

The reason is, that the person holding the media, wants to have confidence, that it will retain its purchasing power. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its not only about the supply. Yes exploding supply, will kill off the future exchange value (purchasing power) of the media.
However, something can be limited in number and still loose its purchasing power because nobody wants it.

It is a general concept; you want to be confident, that what you are holding will buy you (the same amount of) resources in future.

There cant be any serious discussion about this fact. This is the goal of backing.

You can want this, and you can have faith, to ease your mind, like a baby is comfortable in its mothers arms, even in a warzone. But you can not have this, nothing can guarantee this, not even a totally planned economy and a well managed money system. Easy proof: When it comes to resources, they have to exist before you can consume them. Someone has to create the goods that you want to be sure that you can buy with the money. Nobody can guarantee that, especially not a totalitarian government.

[porc]

Backing is a guarantee (weak or strong) [/b]that the media of exchange will be accepted for goods and services in the future; that it retains its purchasing power. Your definitions are not helpful. Look at the goal of backing and go from there.

You can define backing however you want, so long as you explain to other people what you're talking about. But IMO, that's not a useful definition of "backing". Suppose someone offered a "secured Bitcoins" service, with a promise that they will buy back any secured Bitcoins you have for $10 any time in the next ten years (or 1/4 gram of gold, if you prefer). These are "backed" by your definition, but common sense will tell you that they're not significantly more useful or valuable than "unbacked" Bitcoins. And the truth is, this is the only kind of backing you have for fiat or even gold. Nobody "backs" demand. At most, they back supply. And Bitcoin's supply is backed more than fiat is.

You are off base in my opinion.

Ask yourself this simple question: Why back anything? Why the call for backing?

The reason is, that the person holding the media, wants to have confidence, that it will retain its purchasing power. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its not only about the supply. Yes exploding supply, will kill off the future exchange value (purchasing power) of the media.
However, something can be limited in number and still loose its purchasing power because nobody wants it.

It is a general concept; you want to be confident, that what you are holding will buy you (the same amount of) resources in future.

There cant be any serious discussion about this fact. This is the goal of backing.

You can want this, and you can have faith, to ease your mind, like a baby is comfortable in its mothers arms, even in a warzone. But you can not have this, nothing can guarantee this, not even a totally planned economy and a well managed money system. Easy proof: When it comes to resources, they have to exist before you can consume them. Someone has to create the goods that you want to be sure that you can buy with the money. Nobody can guarantee that, especially not a totalitarian government.

More straw-men and red herrings. Nice job.

[Erdogan]

[...]
More straw-men and red herrings. Nice job.

Even if I reply to your posts, I write not only for you, but for the others. There are 2000 readers of this thread if I understand the statistics correctly. And I must not forget that I write things also for myself, I write, because I can.

If you state your ideas and opinions well, with good writing style and logic and reason, your views are valuable to the readers. A straight derogation is of course also useful. Someone could have read my post and not by himself immediately see that it is only straw-men and red herrings.

This is the Intertubes you know. You can find anything here.

[Zarathustra]

You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe.  In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.

I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely.

Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power.

That's exactly what I said.  Where do you think this guarantee comes from?

In regards to paper dollars: the state
In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it
In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing.

Your intentions are clear; you're not clever.

The state is backed by people, the state backs the dollar, ergo the dollar is guaranteed by the user.  Gold is backed by people, ergo gold is guaranteed by the user.  Bitcoin is backed by people, ergo bitcoin is guaranteed by the user.

Refuse to acknowledge the truth if you please, just don't do it publicly; it's degrading, and nobody will take you seriously if you continue this behavior.

Yes. The troll missed the train to Gold 2.0 and that makes him angry. Gold is backed by demand, Gold 2.0 as well, otherwise the price would be zero.