James A. Donald >> 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.
On 2011-07-20 3:25 AM, lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: > 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. Not centralized if there are several entities issuing bitcoin backed account money. Nor is trust a big problem if value is only stored in accounts and chaumian coins for a relatively short period, with accounts being settled up in actual bitcoins at the end of the day, or the end of the month. > In other words: wouldn't having money backed by bitcoins > instead of gold essentially improve nothing? Right now we don't have money backed by gold. If we did, it would improve a lot. Bitcoins have an advantage over gold that they are inherently electronically transferable, and disadvantage relative to gold in that gold has been money for a very long time, and that gold as non monetary value as well as monetary value. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
