Quote from: WiW on March 31, 2013, 12:36:33 PM

Quote from: Mosper on March 31, 2013, 12:43:09 AM

There are so many stupid things in this thread. Quoting wikipedia like some kind of abirter of truth, semantic interpretation of backing, bitcoin being backed by math. Conceptual misunderstandings all over the goddamn place. What a mess.

How about this. I already defined what I believe can be considered "backing", semantically speaking:

Quote from: WiW on March 30, 2013, 04:27:21 PM

"Backing" is a term reserved for a guarantee by another party that something is of value, such as being exchangeable for another asset by that third party, or being insured in some other way (hence being guaranteed).

I may, however, be wrong and I want anyone who disagrees with me to please define "currency backing" so that we can get the semantics out of the way.

Quote from: frott on March 31, 2013, 12:15:38 AM

you're using the term "backed" literally, and ignoring its less literal meaning... while what you're saying is basically true, the Euro and US Dollar are REGULATED by the government. Which is a form of backing.

What?? Since when is regulation = backing? Wait, cigarettes are regulated by governments, does that mean that cigarettes are backed by governments?

The point people are making is that you are failing do recognise the different meanings of "backing" as in 1)underwriting and 2) being in favour of.

As for "currency backing"....well now you're just moving the goalposts.