No. Gold was synonymous to "money". Things were valued for how much gold they were worth, not vice versa.
In school, they taught us (i.e. me) that a good's
value price is based solely on what people can exchange it for. They also taught us that a good's value was
not determined by how much labor went into the good.
We were essentially told that if one camel is worth 50 gold dinars, then 50 gold dinars is also worth one camel. Or something to that effect.
If this is the case, then the cost of producing bitcoins would only a be a factor in, not a determinant of, their value.
Did I understand the lesson correctly?
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
On the general topic of whether bit-coin will/will not be successful--I don't really know. I act as though I am a "bitcoin defender" but this is mostly because I am excited about the new currency and want to support it, not because I know enough about economics to predict it's eventual usefulness.
I would very much like to see people who dislike bitcoin's design organize and code alternative currencies that inflate according to a monetary rule, or have the built in safeguards you described. That way, the market will eventually choose the best currency as people move towards the good ones and away from the bad.
I am not sure if bitcoin's creators will be convinced to implement the changes you recommend--but i think you are very likely to find people who agree with your plan for a better encrypted digital currency and will help you modify or re-write bitcoin's source to make it happen.