bitcoin-truth
As it is, it is a debt to repay $1 for each $1 bill. You might well ask, $1 of what? Since the government doesn't produce anything, it is a strange kind of debt.
$1 of tax-forgiveness is one answer. $1 of whatever our citizens produce is another answer. This 2nd answer is the reason why the demise of the dollar as the world currency (aka wealth reserve function) could lead to hyperinflation in the USA as all those foreign-held dollars come flooding back, looking for something domestic to buy.
As long as the dollar is legal tender within the USA, foreign "creditors" (in the sense used in the above comments) can always get something back (however debased in value).
If like Brazil and Argentina, the USA defaults and creates a new currency (it'll never happen, right?) then good luck to all the drug-dealers of the world trying to cash in their old greenbacks.
<edit: phrasing!>
> (which isn't just _a_ marketable commodity.)
You got that right. It's _the_ marketable commodity.
> What is that even supposed to mean?
A melt-up is the opposite of a melt-down.
b) money is a free-market good as in your example above. all the government was doing was weights and measures standardization.
c) only fiat (paper) money is a liability of the government because the original deal (FRNs) was that the notes would be exchanged for coin. That is why the note says promise to pay the bearer a dollar (which is a denomination of weight of silver or gold).
Bitcoin is in a hypermonetization melt-up phase.
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/01560339...
Austrian Economic theory comes closest to this ideal.
What are you, Satoshi Nakamoto?
I do have a friend with 900btc though: I told him I was in the market for a dollar, and he just gave it to me, no questions asked. I wonder where he got it from?
The New World is built on the results of that generation of cryptographers, but they can't keep up.
More people see that having financial privacy is a good thing, and trust in bitcoin grows.
No good reason? Does there have to be one?
If the protocol succeeds despite your assertion that there is no good reason to favor early adopters, will you change your mind that the reason was immaterial?