The reason why the bitcoin clones aren't much better

[Minsc]

The only way to improve bitcoins is to base them on some kind of real wealth.  Yes, they're based on the cost of electricity, but once electricity is used, then it's lost rather than storing it as a battery.

The problem with fiat currency for the US dollar.

Consider what banks in the USA do.  These videos explain it better than I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peiTfY7Bx4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdtnPrHVHM4

Basically banks create a credit bubble lending imaginary wealth and putting a lot of money in circulation, then they take all that money out of circulation and people can't get loans, there's unemployment.  Then when people have no more of this imaginary wealth, the banks can then get the people's real wealth, their houses, their land, their businesses, their cars, etc.

Namecoin tries to be based on real wealth, but it's based on the whole domain name cybersquatting (cybersquatting of nontrademark names is legal) wealth by cybersquatting (people who do it try to make people call it by some euphamism) of a massive load domain names and then trying to scalp them for a higher price.  I don't know what it should be, but there needs to be a better real wealth basis than this.  I also thought about basing it on some kind of advertising, but it's too complicated to keep people from cheating for it to work.

Another idea was something like a Tor network of IP hiding that generates coins that way, but it's too ephemeral instead of being a permanent real wealth.

Maybe somebody here can find a way to base bitcoins on real, lasting wealth.

[db]

The only way to improve gold is to base it on some kind of real wealth. Maybe somebody here can find a way to base gold on real, lasting wealth.

[hugolp]

Define real wealth.

[hugolp]

real wealth is tangible items. I suppose a dollar bill is tangible but its not really "useful" like a car, house, etc.

Why not? If its not really useful why do people change a house for dollars? If you are correct why would someone change something you say its "really useful" like a house for something you say its not "really usefull" like dollar bills?

[kiba]

real wealth is tangible items. I suppose a dollar bill is tangible but its not really "useful" like a car, house, etc. 

Excuse me? I think most of our wealth sit on the internet and is intangible.

Dwarf Fortress, for example is one of the best fantasy simulation game ever created. It's all 0s and 1s.

[Minsc]

Is there anything on the internet that can be linked to a currency system that if no one wanted to use the currency system, what it's linked to would still have some worth?

Like if we used unique non-fake nude photos of celebrities as currency, well they'd be worth something.

[Melbustus]

Like if we used unique non-fake nude photos of celebrities as currency, well they'd be worth something.

The value of which would entirely depend on a particular person's sexual utility curve. Inherent value is subjective. A currency needs to have good transactional properties, and needs to be a fully transparent system that can't be manipulated. It does *not* have to have underlying "worth" or what have you. There is no underlying worth that has the same value to everyone, for one thing, and for another, it's highly unlikely that such a thing would have good transactional properties which are vastly more important for something functioning as money.

I think most of us on this board agree that fiat currencies are bad, but that's because the quantity can obviously be changed at will by a few powerful people, not because dollar bills aren't made out of food. You're confusing stable transactional utility with consumption utility.