On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:56:06AM +0200, Alfonso De Gregorio wrote: > >> I'd better rephrase it in: expectation to have "money backed by >> bitcoins" exhibiting all the desirable properties of a perfect >> currency (ie, stable money) are greatly exaggerated. > > The question is not whether it's perfect, but whether it's good enough.
The acceptable distance from a stable currency, as the concept of good enough, depends again on what you are trying to achieve. As a digital currency, and distributed system, Bitcoin is nothing less than truly ingenious. I'm enthusiast about it. However, Bitcoin it's neither local nor should be confused with a system ready to be a sound alternative to the gold standard. And in the debate was rised a question about the eventual effect of having money backed by BTCs instead of gold. My argument stems from there. Btw, there's a nice article published few weeks ago by Nathan Lewis on Forbes: A Return To Basics: What Is Stable Money? http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/30/stable-money-gold.html > -- > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org alfonso _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
