5 ms·

I guess we disagree on the definition of a currency then. You are treating currencies like consumer products. Currencies are stores of value that people have to

I guess we disagree on the definition of a currency then. You are treating currencies like consumer products. Currencies are stores of value that people have to rely on for our market based economy to work on. The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of... satoshi nakamoto? If the dollar wasn't backed by the US government with strong regulations then I wouldn't use it to store my value and target wouldn't accept it. It is unethical to distribute a currency without insurances/regulations controlling it. You are messing with people's life savings and livelihood, its irresponsible to not protect consumers. Furthermore, with your stove example, there are certain regulations that the stove has to meet to be sold. http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/EPA-Proposes-New-Regulations-on-Wood-Stoves-247343931.html http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/EPA-Proposes-New-Regulation... This is done to protect consumers and society. You may say its people own faults for not doing proper risk assessment, but not everyone is educated and smart enough to understand this stuff. If you want true mass adoption of bitcoin then it will need regulation and consumer protection.

lutusp 13y ago
> The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. It's more accurate to say that the dollar is backed by public familiarity, faith and trust. Some of that trust is in the government backing the currency, but if that were not true, if the government wasn't involved, it's interesting to ask how much of paper money's role and legitimacy could be supported only by public faith and trust in the currency and its connection with the economy. Assuming, that is, that the number of dollars in circulation could somehow be regulated without governmental control (a problem that the Bitcoin system addresses).
- thesimpsons1022 13y ago
  well in my opinion, central banking is vital in my trust of a currency as well. But others may disagree. Otherwise, you're just dealing with gold, which is a regression.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > well in my opinion, central banking is vital in my trust of a currency as well. To each his own. Some think a central authority improves the reliability of a currency, some think the opposite. Let's ask Weimar-era Germans what they think: http://c3445010.r10.cf0.rackcdn.com/landscape_image/5759/big_df7ed34871.jpg http://c3445010.r10.cf0.rackcdn.com/landscape_image/5759/big... (Humorously, the sign in the back -- "Rauchen Verboten" -- means "No Smoking". No sense burning up people's pocket money.) > Otherwise, you're just dealing with gold, which is a regression. You just posed a false choice. There are choices besides central authority and gold coins. Any currency in which people have faith and trust can be a legitimate currency on that basis alone. Of course, any currency must earn trust, and Bitcoin is nowhere near earning the public's trust.
    - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
      > You just posed a false choice. There are choices besides central authority and gold coins. Any currency in which people have faith and trust can be a legitimate currency on that basis alone. Of course, any currency must earn trust, and Bitcoin is nowhere near earning the public's trust. My point was its equivalent to gold in the fact that it has no central authority controlling the supply. >Let's ask Weimar-era Germans what they think Oh yes, it had nothing to do with the massive amounts of money they were forced to pay in reparations and the rebuilding they had to do. By the way, no one ever said there wasn't a bad way to central bank. My argument is for good central banking, as Bernanke has done. Not the type of shit that Alan Greenspan did. (or the weimar republic). Just like I endorse democracy, but there are plenty of failed democracies. I could just as easily turn your weimar point back at you and say the great depression was because of the gold standard. Because we happened to have a gold standard at the same time. If we had central banking at that point, it could have mitigated a lot of the damage.

lutusp 13y ago

> The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. It's more accurate to say that the dollar is backed by public familiarity, faith and trust. Some of that trust is in the government backing the currency, but if that were not true, if the government wasn't involved, it's interesting to ask how much of paper money's role and legitimacy could be supported only by public faith and trust in the currency and its connection with the economy. Assuming, that is, that the number of dollars in circulation could somehow be regulated without governmental control (a problem that the Bitcoin system addresses).

thesimpsons1022 13y ago
well in my opinion, central banking is vital in my trust of a currency as well. But others may disagree. Otherwise, you're just dealing with gold, which is a regression.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > well in my opinion, central banking is vital in my trust of a currency as well. To each his own. Some think a central authority improves the reliability of a currency, some think the opposite. Let's ask Weimar-era Germans what they think: http://c3445010.r10.cf0.rackcdn.com/landscape_image/5759/big_df7ed34871.jpg http://c3445010.r10.cf0.rackcdn.com/landscape_image/5759/big... (Humorously, the sign in the back -- "Rauchen Verboten" -- means "No Smoking". No sense burning up people's pocket money.) > Otherwise, you're just dealing with gold, which is a regression. You just posed a false choice. There are choices besides central authority and gold coins. Any currency in which people have faith and trust can be a legitimate currency on that basis alone. Of course, any currency must earn trust, and Bitcoin is nowhere near earning the public's trust.
  - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
    > You just posed a false choice. There are choices besides central authority and gold coins. Any currency in which people have faith and trust can be a legitimate currency on that basis alone. Of course, any currency must earn trust, and Bitcoin is nowhere near earning the public's trust. My point was its equivalent to gold in the fact that it has no central authority controlling the supply. >Let's ask Weimar-era Germans what they think Oh yes, it had nothing to do with the massive amounts of money they were forced to pay in reparations and the rebuilding they had to do. By the way, no one ever said there wasn't a bad way to central bank. My argument is for good central banking, as Bernanke has done. Not the type of shit that Alan Greenspan did. (or the weimar republic). Just like I endorse democracy, but there are plenty of failed democracies. I could just as easily turn your weimar point back at you and say the great depression was because of the gold standard. Because we happened to have a gold standard at the same time. If we had central banking at that point, it could have mitigated a lot of the damage.