Presumably at 1 mil per coin it has become our defacto medium of exchange. Actual bitcoins become the new gold bars, sitting untouched in vaults and used as a reserve backing other more efficient means of crypto exchange.

Why would they be used to back anything? Why not just use a crypto-currency that isn't clogged by developers trying to make people use their proprietary service?

Yeah after re-reading this thread I think I've properly gone off the deep end with this one, I've probably misread your initial comment, I think, sorry if I did.

Please explain your statement in detail with sources and facts please, I'm sure I know what you're trying to insinuate so I'm going to ask you to back your claims up with some truth.

How is it right that I get downvoted for asking for someone to back their bullshit opinions up with facts? Enjoy your hyperbole.

Maybe because CyberDildonics asked a couple of questions, and you're asking him/her for facts and sources. People don't need facts to ask questions. That's kind of why you ask - to get facts.

You read CyberDildonics' questions as being an attempt to push an opinion (which seems unjustified to me). You might try not assuming the worst about people in the absence of better evidence...

I'm asking him to back his opinion up because his question was a loaded question:

Question: "Why not just use another crypto-currency?"

Load Question: "Why not just use a crypto-currency that isn't clogged by developers trying to make people use their proprietary service?"

He is applying bias to it from the get go, your comment is a bit strange, asking a question doesn't exempt you from asking honest questions that aren't loaded, you don't enter some realm of sanctity just because you're asking a question. You can ask for further clarity as to what the person is asking before answering it.

But the question was about using Bitcoin to back something else. What's the "something else"? It's not Bitcoin. Is it something proprietary? dxhdr (whose post triggered this conversation) doesn't say, but it would almost certainly be more proprietary than Bitcoin.

Why "almost certainly more proprietary than Bitcoin"? Because somebody's using their bitcoin to back something else. That "somebody" creates (and therefore to some degree controls) that "something else".

At that point, CyberDildonics' question isn't loaded. It's a perfectly reasonable question in response to the proposed idea.

And, after all this back and forth, the question remains: Why would I want to use something backed by Bitcoin, when I could just use Bitcoin?

If Bitcoin hits $1M per coin, then Satoshi Nakamoto will be the world’s first trillionaire. Not a bad return for 10 days of mining.

10 days of mining alone = 1440 blocks = 72K BTC at 50 BTC/block. $1M per coin gives $72B, not $1000B.

"Nakamoto is believed to own up to roughly one million bitcoins..." "As the sole, predominant early miner the inventor was awarded bitcoin at genesis and for 10 days afterwards."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto

Sounds almost like a creation myth, doesn't it? Wonder if the world will ever find out with certainty who, or what organization is Satoshi.

this isnt true, when countries have massive instability and currency manipulation (see Zimbabwe), people can buy bitcoin as an alternative store of value.

To some extent, even stable currencies suffer from significant manipulation by governments. This is not a tinfoil hat idea, it's generally why non-corrupt central banking helps achieve social stability.

But central banking is a large hammer, and so even in the US there are many uses of currency where Bitcoin shines. Also, over time no central bank has managed to avoid some form of corruption (this is concerning both for fiat and centralization-prone cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin).

But the factors that lead to corrupt central banks are not primarily monetary, they are social/societal, causing those banks to bend to the whims of some interests while ignoring others.

The interesting thing to observe will be how/whether Bitcoin can adapt its broader organizational structure to make it less vulnerable to these forces of "bad" centralization. Also, if trends continue, the risk-takers of today who own Bitcoin may well be the wealthy influencers of tomorrow and may not take kindly to some of the sensible changes.

There are many, many ways in which Bitcoin is far superior to the typical fiat + central bank system, though, most notably its international nature. Even if Bitcoin's ability to avoid problems is only 90% as effective as the most effective fiat systems, that is a tremendous improvement for most of the people living on Earth.

One of the things the better fiat currencies have is stability of value. Bitcoin (at least so far) has failed rather dramatically at that. It's been mostly up so far, which makes many people willing (even eager) to accept the lack of stability, but it definitely hasn't been stable.

Very true. It's interesting to think of what you describe as a side-effect of the design decision (by Satoshi) to "bootstrap" the currency by strongly incentivizing speculative mining.

Zimbabwe uses the US dollar.

it's great for drugs and money laundering

Schrödinger's bitcoin will simultaneously be worth $1M and zero.