Whenever you hear, “That currency is not backed by anything!,” it’s almost always meant as criticism. Hard-money enthusiasts are quick to point out the horrible track record of fiat currency. Nearly without fail, currencies “backed by nothing” get heavily devalued through inflation, and they often collapse within decades.
The best solution, so far, has been to tie currency to a commodity whose supply can not be arbitrarily inflated by governments or central banks, or to use that commodity directly as a currency. Gold and silver have served this purpose best, and they have been used successfully for millennia. Backing any currency in precious metals restrains the possibility for inflation.
But, when we look deeper, the connection between being “unbacked” and being at risk for inflation is not a necessary connection. It’s a reasonable connection to make, especially given the history of fiat currency, but it’s conceivable to think of a currency which is inflation-proof and not backed by anything. It might sound fanciful, but thanks to Satoshi Nakamoto, it’s not just possible - it currently exists, and it’s called “Bitcoin.”
Bitcoin is not backed by anything; you can’t “redeem” your Bitcoin for gold at a bank. And it’s not even “backed” by declaration of law. To hard-money folks like myself, that sounds like a recipe for inflationary disaster. But, as implausible as it sounds, Bitcoin is not susceptible to arbitrary inflation. It was intentionally designed this way. Inflation ultimately happens for one reason: central control over the power to create new money - whether it’s a government trying to pay its debts, or a central bank trying to ease monetary policy. This is one reason why Bitcoin avoids arbitrary inflation: its supply is not controlled by any central authority. The supply is regulated by software and mathematics, not politics.
Power in the Bitcoin world is decentralized over an enormous network of computers. In fact, the software is so precise, we can predict a hundred years into the future almost exactly how many bitcoin will be in existence. You can’t say that about any other currency which is “not backed by anything.” But it’s not only the production of Bitcoin which is decentralized; it’s also the record of ownership. Every single Bitcoin which has ever been created can be traced back to its inception - including every transaction and change of ownership. This ledger, called “the blockchain,” is publicly viewable, and it is practically set in stone. The ledger is not stored on a central server; it’s not controlled by a few gatekeepers. It is stored on every single computer serving as a node around the entire globe.
I’d suggest there’s nothing else you can own which comes with such a clear proof of ownership. All put together, this means you can’t forge Bitcoin records; you can’t fake ownership; and you can’t create new Bitcoin out of thin air. And it’s all possible through complex mathematics - no trust in a third party, government or corporation is required. In a sense, if Bitcoin is backed by anything, it’s backed by the strength of clever mathematics.
Bitcoin might represent the first currency which is not backed by a physical good and still prevents arbitrary inflation. It has expanded the limits on our traditional conception of money. So, next time you hear “Bitcoin is not backed by anything!” understand it as a deep compliment to the ingenuity of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Steve Patterson, Bitcoin Magazine, Oct 21, 2014
That gold has a monetary premium is a bug, not a feature.
Money does not have to and should not be used for different purposes
Using commodities as currency prevents them to use them for their "actual purpose"
Bitcoin is only not backed by anything if you're ignorant. It's backed by the most secure computer network ever created.
Or as mentioned in your post:
In a sense, if Bitcoin is backed by anything, it’s backed by the strength of clever mathematics.
reply
It's backed by the most secure computer network ever created.
And millions of people who believe and thrust on that network.
reply
Line breaks and correctly credited 👍
reply
This dances around (but doesn't fall prey to) the old erroneous human idea that "things have value because of some intrinsic quality they possess".
Marx said: "it has value because of the labor that produced it!",
Adam Smith said (the same) but also "It has value because of how much it cost to produce!".
The reality is that bitcoin, like all things, is worth what people pay for it. That is what it is worth, that is it's correct price. Might everyone —idk— decide it's racist one day and have BTC drop to $0 ? YES. The same is true of gold.
Bitcoin has scarcity, for now (I wont speculate on future computers). That's enough. Thinking about "what is backing it???" is going to confuse you about reality.
reply
TLDR TBH but Bitcoin is the THING that backs.
reply
It is definitely backed by the code.
"Like gold, Bitcoin is scarce, and requires substantial amounts of resources for production, or mining. Bitcoin mining requires electricity, mining hardware, and physical space, which often requires miners to pay rent"
Is Bitcoin Really "Digital Gold?" Will Bitcoin Replace Gold?
Temitope Olatunji, Makeuseof, Feb 14, 2023
reply
I've always thought bitcoin is backed by something...it's backed by the code. That is, it is backed by the fact that it's scarcity, verifiability, and its rules are absolute.
Trust is a fundamental for money. We trust that the piece of paper has value, not because it is backed by anything other than a government's blessing. Still, we trust it has SOME value, even when that value is diminishing due to inflation.
I know the mantra in bitcoin is, "Don't trust, verify," but in a way, we can trust that bitcoin is backed by these absolutes the code ensures. To me, this distinguishes it from any other form of money.
reply
It is backed by something though isn't it? It's backed by work and/or energy it had a cost to mine in a person's resources so it's backed by how/what that person values their energy/time in no?
reply
It is ledgers all the way down. For anyone paying attention, it is evident that an open, permissionless, decentralized ledger is preferable to one that cannot be edited, verified, or utilized without the permission of a third party.
reply