Quote from: Ibian on December 16, 2013, 02:31:46 AM

Quote from: porc on December 16, 2013, 02:25:55 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 16, 2013, 02:21:36 AM

Quote from: jonat3 on December 16, 2013, 02:07:39 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on December 16, 2013, 02:04:32 AM

Here we go again. The subject was well dissected and argued for, now we are back to square one. Anyway...

The intrinsic value of gold, which is the same as its value for direct use, we all agree on. But what is the intrinsic value? Nobody knows, gold has been money for thousands of years, so it is impossible to say. Gold is now at about 1200 USD per ounce. Could the intrinsic value be 100 USD? 1 USD? Can it be used to build aircrafts? No, too heavy. Can it be used to build ships or support the cement in buildings? No, to soft. Can it be used as an offer anode on a ship? No, too hostile to the ions, don't want to connect. It has some uses, but we do not know the value for direct use.

Umm, I think you should read my post again. I do agree that I started out with a misleading note.

I read it. There is confusion about what is intrinsic value, objective value (there is none) and subjective value, and about the value of a unit of money as opposed to the value of the system. A good money system like bitcoin is of unmeasurable value to society, but that is aside the point. Backing? There is nothing that needs or not needs backing. Either it is backed by something else, or it is not. Gold is unbacked, bitcoin is unbacked, the dollar was backed by gold once, but is now unbacked.

You are confused.

Backing is a guarantee of future exchange value.

Gold and dollar have backing. Bitcoin has no backing.

Let's pretend for a moment then. The guarantee has been broken. Constantly through inflation, and in events such as the Cyprus confiscation.

Yes, Dollars backing is weak. Golds backing is strong.

However Bitcoin has no backing and thus is not suitable money. Sry to break it to you.