markm
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
 |
May 27, 2011, 07:38:11 AM |
|
Actually not even Bitcoin has a 100% safety guarantee. The same thing with NDE. The probability of a problem in practice only exists when the system is still very small.
When your reserves are small then yes you might have problems. It is apparently largely because the rest of the world's reserves of U.S. dollars might be becoming very small very soon due to devaluation of U.S. dollars that the U.N. is worried about the entire earthling monetary system... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 27, 2011, 07:40:07 AM |
|
Actually not even Bitcoin has a 100% safety guarantee. The same thing with NDE. The probability of a problem in practice only exists when the system is still very small.
When your reserves are small then yes you might have problems. It is apparently largely because the rest of the world's reserves of U.S. dollars might be becoming very small very soon due to devaluation of U.S. dollars that the U.N. is worried about the entire earthling monetary system... -MarkM- The USD is insignificant next to the power of the Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
May 27, 2011, 08:14:43 AM |
|
The USD is insignificant next to the power of the Bitcoin. All the more reason to be nice to them by introducing game-bitcoins, compared to which their fiat might actually seem at least for a while to have value, maybe even seemingly quite a bit of value. (I am thinking not of prestigious Martian Botcoins, nor even major galactic currencies such as CDN and UKB, of course... But maybe for example the blockchain of the tiny Czech nation whose single city is on a predominately Martian planet might make USD look relatively valuable?) -MarkM- (Unless, of course, the Czechs too try to somehow peg their currency to currencies on the "mythical" planet known as Earth...) |
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 27, 2011, 09:07:36 AM |
|
The USD is insignificant next to the power of the Bitcoin. All the more reason to be nice to them by introducing game-bitcoins, compared to which their fiat might actually seem at least for a while to have value, maybe even seemingly quite a bit of value. (I am thinking not of prestigious Martian Botcoins, nor even major galactic currencies such as CDN and UKB, of course... But maybe for example the blockchain of the tiny Czech nation whose single city is on a predominately Martian planet might make USD look relatively valuable?) -MarkM- (Unless, of course, the Czechs too try to somehow peg their currency to currencies on the "mythical" planet known as Earth...) The CIA is interested in Bitcoin. I don't know if they consider Bitcoin to be a potential threat or an opportunity. lol. Botcoin, is that compatible with Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
May 27, 2011, 09:35:41 AM |
|
The CIA is interested in Bitcoin. I don't know if they consider Bitcoin to be a potential threat or an opportunity. lol. Botcoin, is that compatible with Bitcoin?
Very compatible. The clients and daemons used by Martian Bank branches on Earth (Sol III) actually function as normal standard Bitcoin clients when the command-line switch that causes them to use the Martian network and blockchain instead of the Hacker nation's network and blockchain (known here on Earth/Sol-III as Bitcoin) is not used. -MarkM- (The Hacker nation is every bit as mythical as the planet known as Earth so if Earth exists why not Hackers, maybe even on Earth...) |
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 27, 2011, 10:20:22 PM |
|
A centralized system for the new currency would be interesting to experiment with but not really so attractive as a real system, because even if people would trust the service/company there would still be the risk of something happening with it such as it being acquired by some nasty corporation or that governments start to mess with the system.
Supporting the ability to lock bitcoins in the system would require a fairly large database that keeps track of all the locks; when they were made, by who, how many bitcoins etc. And this would have to be implemented as a part of the peer-to-peer open source network. Does any P2P distributed database exist today? The idea in itself is very cool. A database that is spread out similar to Bitcoin or BitTorrent and other P2P networks like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 28, 2011, 01:53:20 AM
Last edit: May 28, 2011, 02:08:01 AM by Anders |
|
Instead of calling it NDC, new digital currency, which is a somewhat cumbersome, the new currency can be called bitbacks as in backed by bitcoins. The value of one bitback is pegged at a certain date - say 2011-05-28 - to 1 bitback (BTB) = 1/10 USD. Which is the same as: 10 BTB = 1 USD. Bitback symbol:  |
|
|
|
|
|
rahl
|
|
May 28, 2011, 09:27:01 PM |
|
Uhm? Think you need to think this one thru a bit more...
Holding the physical money commodity is always better then holding a money substitute.
The reason there are e-currencies that are gold substitutes is that walking around with gold is quite heavy (and dangerous in the wrong neighbourhood). So heavy that the downside of having to trust a issuer of electronic receipts for gold outweighs the nauseanse and risk of running around with gold in your pocket or sending it by postal service to the other side of the globe to pay for stuff.
BitCoin does not share these physical properties with gold since it is already a virtual commodity and so if you have any computer skills at all it is better to trade directly with BitCoin then to trust someone else to issue receipts of BitCoin holdings and trade those.
Even people that don't know anything about computers don't need to go as far down the value chain as to trade in money substitutes. They can use the web-interfaces available, they do need to trust there wallet file to someone else but they still have there own wallet of BitCoin. Rather then having electronic receipts of BitCoin to someone elses wallet...
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 28, 2011, 09:41:00 PM |
|
Uhm? Think you need to think this one thru a bit more...
Holding the physical money commodity is always better then holding a money substitute.
The reason there are e-currencies that are gold substitutes is that walking around with gold is quite heavy (and dangerous in the wrong neighbourhood). So heavy that the downside of having to trust a issuer of electronic receipts for gold outweighs the nauseanse and risk of running around with gold in your pocket or sending it by postal service to the other side of the globe to pay for stuff.
BitCoin does not share these physical properties with gold since it is already a virtual commodity and so if you have any computer skills at all it is better to trade directly with BitCoin then to trust someone else to issue receipts of BitCoin holdings and trade those.
Even people that don't know anything about computers don't need to go as far down the value chain as to trade in money substitutes. They can use the web-interfaces available, they do need to trust there wallet file to someone else but they still have there own wallet of BitCoin. Rather then having electronic receipts of BitCoin to someone elses wallet...
It's true that locking one's bitcoins into a centralized system is like storing one's gold in a bank. Even worse than that since the centralized system in this case can be threatened by government regulations or by the acquisition of it by a nasty corporation. Therefore it's best to implement the bitback system as an open source distributed peer-to-peer network, owned by no individual institution, company, government or organization. Then, if the Bitback P2P network becomes large, it will be safe for people to store their bitcoins there. Just as safe as the Bitcoin P2P network. |
|
|
|
|
|
rahl
|
|
May 28, 2011, 09:47:39 PM |
|
And then let people buy the new currency with their bitcoins. And have their saldo of the new currency increase when the Bitcoin value increases, so that the buyers of the new currency would not need to worry about spending their bitcoins in exchange for the new digital currency.
Maybe there is a point if you keep it at 1:1 with say USD. But it would probably be pretty difficult to keep up and very weird to have that balance go up and down all the time. I wonder who pays for the exchange risk exactly in this system... It seems a bit easier just to put a comparison value in USD next to the BC price... |
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 28, 2011, 09:51:49 PM |
|
And then let people buy the new currency with their bitcoins. And have their saldo of the new currency increase when the Bitcoin value increases, so that the buyers of the new currency would not need to worry about spending their bitcoins in exchange for the new digital currency.
Maybe there is a point if you keep it at 1:1 with say USD. But it would probably be pretty difficult to keep up and very weird to have that balance go up and down all the time. I wonder who pays for the exchange risk exactly in this system... It seems a bit easier just to put a comparison value in USD next to the BC price... Yeah, it could be convenient to have the currency follow USD, BUT remember that the U.S. dollar is an inflationary currency. The Bitback would not be inflationary. And the balance of the bitbacks in a person's wallet remains the same just as an ordinary currency. |
|
|
|
|
|
AaronM
|
|
May 28, 2011, 10:59:02 PM |
|
How about this? http://www.echeque.com/Kong/anon_transfer.htm there doesn't have to be a central issuer, just a way of only accepting coins issued by someone you trust, or someone you trust trusts. |
Spare some BTC for a biology student? 1DZcEUEo9rX7LQWcYzVR6Btqj2sMqRznbB
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2011, 01:59:55 AM |
|
Trusting people is like old-school business. Trust in distributed peer-to-peer crypto currency is better. No trust in people needed. 'Your idea changes, doesn't it? "How could you let me down when I trusted you so much?" you say to someone. Did you really trust them? You never trusted anyone. Come off it! That's part of society's brainwashing. You never trust anyone. You only trust your judgment about that person. So what are you complaining about? The fact is that you don't like to say, "My judgment was lousy." That's not very flattering to you, is it? So you prefer to say, "How could you have let me down?"' -- Anthony De Mello |
|
|
|
|
markm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
|
|
May 29, 2011, 02:18:00 AM |
|
Maybe you should use BitNickels (NKL) for now. They have the option of going up in value to be 1/20 of a bitcoin but in order to try to avoid complaints about rapidly changing value and also in order to try to avoid complaints about early adopters getting too rich they have stayed at about the price of a real-nickel old-style U.S. nickel, that is, about US$0.07 per BitNickel.
You can anticipate that some day, hopefully when they are in wide circulation long after any early adopter period is long past, they will starting moving toward being 1/20 of a bitcoin instead of 1/20 of a CDN or a UKB or a CZB or any of the various other blockchain-based digital currencies.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2011, 02:28:28 AM |
|
Maybe you should use BitNickels (NKL) for now. They have the option of going up in value to be 1/20 of a bitcoin but in order to try to avoid complaints about rapidly changing value and also in order to try to avoid complaints about early adopters getting too rich they have stayed at about the price of a real-nickel old-style U.S. nickel, that is, about US$0.07 per BitNickel.
You can anticipate that some day, hopefully when they are in wide circulation long after any early adopter period is long past, they will starting moving toward being 1/20 of a bitcoin instead of 1/20 of a CDN or a UKB or a CZB or any of the various other blockchain-based digital currencies.
-MarkM-
If early adopters became super rich, then that would maybe be a problem. Like having 1% of people owning 99% of all available bitcoins. That would also be a kind of cornering of the Bticoin market. But fear not. The NSA has since the beginning plugged in their super computer mainframes to the Bitcoin P2P network and now owns 90% of all bitcoins and will own 99% of all bitcoins in two years time. Just kidding!  Not only that. The NSA were the ones who planted the idea of Bitcoin into the public market in the first place. A scheme for us gullible suckers to swallow hook, line and sinker. Just kidding again! |
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2011, 08:30:41 AM |
|
Instead of calling it NDC, new digital currency, which is a somewhat cumbersome, the new currency can be called bitbacks as in backed by bitcoins. The value of one bitback is pegged at a certain date - say 2011-05-28 - to 1 bitback (BTB) = 1/10 USD. Which is the same as: 10 BTB = 1 USD. Bitback symbol: If we want a currency that follows the inflation/deflation of the U.S. dollar then we simply skip the fixed pegging date. That can be convenient because the value of the U.S. dollar changes, yes, but people are used to that so it's probably not a problem. And to make it even more convenient the rate can be set to: 1 BTB = 1 USD at all dates, which means that the Bitback is totally pegged to the U.S. dollar all the time so that 1 bitback always equals 1 U.S. dollar. Locking a bitcoin worth $10 will give 10 bitbacks. If the bitcoin then doubles in value after a year compared to the USD, then the bitcoin is worth 20 bitbacks, yet it can still be unlocked for 10 bitbacks since that was the amout we got when locking it one year earlier. If the bitcoin is then immediately locked into the system again, we will get 20 bitbacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2011, 11:19:29 AM |
|
An alterantive name for bitbacks is bitdollars, since if it is pegged exactly to the dollar, then BitDollar, or bitdollar, is an appropriate name. The symbol can still be the same: BitDollar symbol: |
|
|
|
|
|
Anders (OP)
|
|
May 29, 2011, 12:03:40 PM |
|
Would the BitDollar be traceable? So that people can find out how you have spent and earned your bitdollars? I suggest that the bitdollars should be semi-traceable, meaning that only an international monetary control agency (IMCA) could perform traces of bitdollars while for ordinary people and companies etc the bitdollars would be untraceable. The reason for this is to have a means to track the bitdollars to investigate crime and terrorism and other illicit forms of use, while still have the currency untraceable for everybody except the IMCA which would only be able to perform traces of the currency, not in any way manipulate it. Then what about minor crimes such as online poker in certain countries? For such purposes it would always be possible to use bitcoins directly.  |
|
|
|
|
|
