Ecuador: The First Country to make it's own CrytoCurrency

[foggyb]

Fiat can't be digital in nature because its not definable in mathematical terms. The banking infrastructure that supports fiat is digital though.

Bitcoin, on the other hand....

[keithers]

This is probably as close as we are going to get to a country adopting a crypto as an "official" currency (even though it isn't a crypto in the Bitcoin sense of the word).

Governments by nature don't like things that they cannot control and profit off of.  Governments operate off of the hard work and tax dollars of its citizens, and Bitcoin takes a good portion of that away from them...

[NotAtOld]

I really wish it was possible to short their coin already...

i heard mt.gox will be accepting it soon 

[sandykho47]

I think equador will be the first country with crypto currency 
Looks interesting.

Some people already prepare their mining RIG 
but still no specification / name of this coin

I think that Ireland is the first country that has own cryptocurrency

I thought Iceland were first with the auroacoin.

Auroracoin is for Iceland, but not created by by government 

[illymoka]

Any country that creates a good digital currency will enable very secure distributed exchanges between said currency and bitcoin. They still have to compete with bitcoin's decentralized nature and fixed supply and free global market.

Fiat is already mostly digital, so it makes no sense when they say that they will create one like it was something new.

[cccarnation]

Any country that creates a good digital currency will enable very secure distributed exchanges between said currency and bitcoin. They still have to compete with bitcoin's decentralized nature and fixed supply and free global market.

Fiat is already mostly digital, so it makes no sense when they say that they will create one like it was something new.

It's "mostly digital" in the sense that you can put whatever value you want in a cell of a spreadsheet.

[PalmerLaura]

Any country that creates a good digital currency will enable very secure distributed exchanges between said currency and bitcoin. They still have to compete with bitcoin's decentralized nature and fixed supply and free global market.

Fiat is already mostly digital, so it makes no sense when they say that they will create one like it was something new.

It's "mostly digital" in the sense that you can put whatever value you want in a cell of a spreadsheet.

Why would a government go for anything less?

[StatusSeeking]

What makes bitcoin bitcoin is incompatible with central state control. This is to say that you can't centralize a concept that relies on decentralization as a premise and expect things to work out. A "government cryptocurrency" is just fiat by another name.

Well spoken. It's laughable that people still don't seem to fathom this. In /r/buttcoin, one of the primary arguments that Bitcoin will fail is that "ultimately banks will just launch their own cryptocurrency and back that one" as if that makes any sense.

[JypsiCreme]

ultimately banks will just launch their own cryptocurrency

Lol, they don't even understand basic principles. Even if banks can do intrabank clearing with a blockchain, that doesn't equal a currency, much less a worldwide currency. You need mass decentralization for that to occur.

[mamarried]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

[smashingpumpkin]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

It just doesn't make any sense, fiat has already existed mostly in digital form for years, and what they say they will create is definitely not Bitcoin-like. Ignore it, it's just noise.

[AlPutino]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

Definite good. Introduces population to digital currency. Said currency collapses. Bitcoin benefits.

[FlowerMatt]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

It just doesn't make any sense, fiat has already existed mostly in digital form for years, and what they say they will create is definitely not Bitcoin-like. Ignore it, it's just noise.

maybe it's a 100% premine  like nxt...

[ChuckStrawberry]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

Definite good. Introduces population to digital currency. Said currency collapses. Bitcoin benefits.

If it collapses, they will also loose their trust in crypto at all, so bitcoin will suffer to. if normal currency crashes: super, but if a crypto currency crashes: bad for bitcoin too

[teramit]

not their own btc
it is their own ripple.

[Intaryna]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

Anything that gets more people into cryptocurrency should be good for bitcoin in the medium-to-long term because it's increasing the number of people open to using bitcoin. These regional competitors are unlikely to take market share away from bitcoin due to network effects. Bigger pie, same percentage slice for bitcoin.

[whb07]

Only reason Ecuador is planning on doing this is because they just cant head over to the printers and start printing bills to pay for their government costs. Basically they are freaking out about money, and in order to stay in power need to keep giving welfare away to keep their office and see this as a simple way out.

[BADecker]

I would say, watch out for Payza.

Do you remember when Paypal was new? At that time eGold was the big ecurrency. As Paypal was growing, they messed with a lot of eGold people's funds, and a lot of eGold people never got their funds back.

Something like the Paypal thing happened with Payza. I don't know if anybody lost funds at the time that Payza changed its name from Alertpay to Payza, but there certainly were some rumblings. Then, a little while back, Payza caused a lot of U.S. people to lose funds, by not alerting them about the handwriting that was on the wall, and warning their U.S. account holders that trouble might be coming.

According to Payza's own statements, they were doing U.S. transactions after their financing company in the U.S. had told them they were cutting them off. The finance company gave Payza time to wind down old transactions, but Payza kept right on transacting new transactions. Some U.S. people lost funds through Payza's non-conformance with their U.S. financer, to stop making new transactions and to finish up the old ones.

Did U.S. people lose their funds because of bad intent on the part of Payza? Who can tell for sure? But it was at least lack of good judgment on Payza's part. They knew for at least weeks (maybe months) ahead that their U.S. finance company was cutting them off, and they didn't warn U.S. customers or stop the new transactions that they made.

I'd say, watch out for Payza, especially if you are in the U.S.

[adworker]

is this good or bad for bitcoin? i'm not really sure.

It just doesn't make any sense, fiat has already existed mostly in digital form for years, and what they say they will create is definitely not Bitcoin-like. Ignore it, it's just noise.

maybe it's a 100% premine  like nxt...

Yes, I thought something like premined cryptocoin could be used as official government cryptocoin. Obviously at start government owns all coins so they can slowly sell and release more and more coins for people to use.

[arbitrage001]

Do they have someone who know enough to secure the blockchain and choosing the right type of algorithm?

This could work and set up as an example for upcoming Nation like crypto coin or end up as Aurora coin version II.