3 ms·
If you were to do this with a new currency that was created today, that would not giver you a unique solution. e.g. if you said "well Bitcoin started its existe
by hbrav 5y ago
If you were to do this with a new currency that was created today, that would not giver you a unique solution. e.g. if you said "well Bitcoin started its existence in 2009, and had an exchange rate of X USD = 1 BTC, so before this date we'll use X USD to stand in for 1 BTC", you get a different solution if you change USD to EUR, or GBP, or CAD, etc. because the EUR/USD rate changes over time prior to 2009.
But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? In which case I think you have a lot less freedom in your solution (I think you're basically choosing between gold and silver).
- derbOac 5y agoI agree it's odd. I could see some kind of legitimate rationale if it were specified clearly, depending on the rationale, but there's some sort of fuzz going on that makes it sketchy. I'm also not sure where the 1635 date comes from -- that implies something meaningful but not necessarily, and what exactly I don't know.
- kd5bjo 5y ago> But back around the 1700s, were most currencies pegged to precious metals? From 1792 to 1853, the US Dollar was pegged to a fixed amount of both gold and silver. It seems reasonable to extrapolate backwards in time using that fixed standard, though the changing relative values of those metals might give you some problems. (According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#In_the_United_St... )