On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 1) Cryptographically secure limited number of coins. >> > > I don't see any value to this. It causes the value to fluctuate rapidly > and unpredictably. > Your first statement is incorrect. There is clearly market value in holding a quantity of anything that is in demand and that has known limits on its supply. Your second statement is true and does mitigate against some cryptocurrencies just as it does against any fixed commodity. I suggest checking out Bernard Liataer <http://www.lietaer.com/> for one of the more rational voices regarding currencies, although I think my monetary system is superior to any he suggests: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86806.html > > >> 2) Cryptograpicically secure transmission of coins between private keys. >> > > They have had this for a long time. Wire transfers were perfected in the > 19th century. Security is not unique to Bitcoin; what is unique is that it > is anonymous and untraceable. Some people want that, and some such as drug > dealers need it, but I have no use for it. > Bitcoin transfers can be made anonymous by going through anonymous intermediaries but they are traceable. > > > >> The transmission of money is valuable in itself. >> > > Sure, but electronic-speed wire transfer began in the 1850s, I think. > Modern wire transfer began in 1871. > Fire has been existence since the paleolithic. Who needs cold fusion?
