|
|
|
|
|
by gnaritas
4581 days ago
|
|
> If mining additional Bitcoins at present is not economically viable than Bitcoins are not (currently) a fiat currency. Whether Bitcoin can be mined or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a fiat currency or not, so your logic does not follow. Fiat doesn't mean "can easily manipulate". Any currency that isn't backed by (value derived from) a hard asset is a fiat currency. Burning electricity to create bitcoin's is not "backed by", that electricity is gone, used up, wasted. Other crypto currencies like peercoin or primecoin address bitcoins wasted energy, but they are all fiat currencies. Their value derives from confidence, not assets. |
|
(I'm not a gold bug, I could care less about gold, if gold offends, substitute some other tangible commodity)
That's my point that Bitcoin is more of a commodity currency and is not (at present) a fiat currency. The fact that the electricity is gone doesn't make any difference. Mining gold requires fuel and labor which is gone, used up, and what remains is gold. This expense is what limits the production of and correlates the commodity to the underlying economy.
What is really interesting is your assertion that the value derives from confidence and not assets. I would argue that value derives from the fact that its supply is limited by the use of resources and labor.