|
2004-10-04 23:03:26 ET This is a test to see if I can post using Links. For those who don't know: "Links" is a text-based web browser that is run from console (aka "DOS prompt" aka "command line" aka "command prompt" aka "whatever you will.") I'm currently reading Neil Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" and in it a few characters decide to create their own currency using ww2 filipino gold to back it up. The currency, in the book, will be all digital and its counterfeiting measures will rely upon cryptography. Thing is that the main characters mention, quite correctly, that you don't need anything to back up your currency to create currency. Most, if not all, of the world's currency isn't backed up by anything. We're not on the gold and silver standards anymore. At this day and age currency only holds value if it's: A.) Hard for other people to create (i.e. "hard to counterfeit") and B.) it's issuance(is that the right word?) is propriatery(is that the right word?) The book says that non-backed currency has a serious danger of collapsing like, the example is given, the Asian currency markets back in '95. Problem with that point is that the U.S. dollar and the British pound remain stable currencies (even though the dollar has lost some of its value over the years.) Thus you don't really need filipino(sp?) gold to back up your currency. You don't really need anything but good PR people to get the masses to use your money. And online money is all good and fun until it gets hit by a Denial of Service attack. Also I don't understand how cryptography is supposed to keep the digi-cash from being counterfeited. I remember an old issue of Time magazine focusing on the notion of "cyberspace". The issue contained an originalshort story by Neil Stephenson (guy mentioned above) and it was about...surprise, surprise, digi-cash and how governments might not exactly like it. Since I'm on the subject of cash and governments not really liking currency competition from low-key players, and since I don't know if this message will post correctly, I'll go off on a wacky tangent. There's this woman who is/was the Vice President of the Bank of America. She wrote some book, a fictional novel, which described how to steal money from banks the safe and easy way. Then the book evolved (or de-evolved, depending on how feasible you see the idea being) into the old scheme of: A.) Get your own currency B.) ??? C.) Profit. Where "???" = "Keep the value of currency lower than the dollar. Let's say you call your currency "Monkeys". So 1 monkey = .05 dollars. So 1 dollar buys 20 Monkeys. Then you change the value of your currency (the book points out that the value of currency not backed by any assets is set by the currency issue him or herself.) to 1 dollar = .05 monkeys. Thus 1 monkey buys 20 dollars. Thus you're rich! You print up a few million monkeys and exchange them on ForEx (Foreign Exchange Market) for dollars. So where 20 million monkeys would buy 1 million dollars now 1 million monkeys would buy 20 million dollars. And since dollars are actually used to buy stuff you'll become rich! Rich I tell you! Ofcourse it's probably more complicated than that but I haven't figured out how complicated it really is yet. Ofcourse, I might just get a bank account and follow the Emperor Norton way of spreading your ideas: With humour and a bit of craziness. Google for Emperor Norton and you'll see what I mean. Anyways, I gotta go now. I really, really, really hope this post actually gets posted. |
