> It is a fundamental prerequisite that the currency have a backer for said currency to be used widely. Why? Does it hold true after Bitcoin (rhetorical, we do

> It is a fundamental prerequisite that the currency have a backer for said currency to be used widely. Why? Does it hold true after Bitcoin (rhetorical, we don't know yet)? Certainly before the invention of Bitcoin and the ability to reach consensus in distributed systems, powerful/rich central authorities trigger initial trust and adoption. Hence you can see why previous digital currencies have been none-starters. That you must first have "trust" and then comes a critical mass works for bitcoin, the currency, just fine, imo. I would say in fact that the initial seed has already been planted back in 2011 and we are seeing the growth now. Allow me to just regurgitate some things I know of bitcoin that give it some value/trust/seed for adoption: - completely distributed, no middle-men (and their fees and risks and inefficiencies) except the 51% miners. This is the "reach consensus in distributed systems" which fixes double spending which is arguably the only real innovation of Bitcoin (of course there is more to the story, but this is the real new thing) - used to be the main way to buy illegal drugs safely and conveniently in the U.S. - great way to avoid paying taxes (WARNING: probably illegal where you live!) - great way to do other illegal things online involving money (aka free trade, freedom of speech) - _exceptional_ utility in transporting wealth - _exceptional_ utility in transferring wealth (to someone else). i.e. medium of exchange - _exceptional_ utility in being able to secure - _exceptional_ unit of account because of specific measure, fungible, and divisible - known supply and predictable production rate (automatic, built-in, preset control) - deflationary (can't argue it's good for bootstrapping) - impossible to counterfeit Some drawbacks: - bad measure of value because of exchange volatility - philosophical underpinnings or effects of being anti-state (see above pros) which also may have the effect of losing control of money creation and debt financing? - deflationary and built-in control of supply (This is interesting. As I understand it from talking with a couple economists, the "infinite" divisibility may assuage traditional deflationary woes. Though they still generally have a feeling this is a con.) - very infant, much risk - will debt be possible, practical to build on top? And sure, feel free to swap one or two pros/cons if you have reason. Is there anything in bitcoin's (the "currency") growth to suggest it _won't_ reach a tipping point? I ask because from my perspective it's adoption is ever growing, never stagnant. Maybe we are actually mostly on the same page? I couldn't be sure but replied anyway. Did I miss this point: >such necessary characteristics of a currency