This would revive many of the things people have aspired to kill with bitcoins. Among others the "creation" of money (I can borrow and "store" more money than I have). It would also mean moving the scalability problem to a centralized system, a trusted party.
In other words: wouldn't having money backed by bitcoins instead of gold essentially improve nothing? I personally still worry about how big the early bird bonus was, someone estimated the earliest of participators had a million of bitcoins. If someone does then that'd grant him 1/21st of the worlds wealth (assuming an insane surge in bitcoin usage), something I cannot quite believe anyone to deserve. I mean it's possible, just not likely that anyone could be responsible for 1/21 of the world's wealth. Lewis 2011/6/17 James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> > On 2011-06-17 4:35 AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >> Since I've been forced to take yet another look into BitCoin and >> algorithmic (high frequency) trading within a short timespan, I began to >> wonder how they would work together. What precisely would happen to >> BitCoin if we had tens to tens of thousands of high frequency traders >> (thousands of transactions per second per trader) within the network? >> > > The obvious next step is to have chaumian money and account money which has > rapid low cost transactions, which money is converted into bitcoins at > leisure, analogous to having gold, and account money and banknotes backed by > gold. > > We should have accounts backed by bitcoins, and banknotes (chaumian money) > backed by bitcoins. > > ______________________________**_________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/**mailman/listinfo/cryptography<http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography> >
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
