Okay, ready for Coin Wars version two?
There are folk who think that actually *backing* your currency might actually be helpful/useful.
There also might at some number of blockchains start to be limits to how many pools/miners you can convince to merged-mine your chain along with all the other tens, hundreds, thousands (whatever) of blockchains competing for a position on their merged mining priority lists.
Thus is born Coin Wars Two:
1) We don't actually implement the blockchains until we have first proven there is enough interest and enough volume of trading to make merged mining of it worthwhile. Thus we don't open it to 50%+1 attacks for example.
2) The folk who think *backing* might help will be able to do so without the barrier-to-entry aka moat that would be imposed by having to pay miners right off the bat before even having enough transaction volume for the transactions fees to be attractive to miners. (Most who want to "back" their currency do not want to "back" coins minted by someone else, thus in their vision miners earn transaction fees, not free coins out of thin air. In their vision coins do not come from thin air, they come from having assets stashed with which to redeem them.)
3) We might get to see whether "backing" coins can actually help stabilise prices.
4) Some blockchains that had been running privately are already setting up for this; most of those are based on bitcoin, that is, 21 million coins in total, ten minute blocks, eight decimal places, same fees as bitcoin etc etc.
5) They are setting up on my alpha test Open Transactions server whose thread is at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53329.0-MarkM-
