Author: Tamas Blummer 2019-06-30 19:55:41
Published on: 2019-06-30T19:55:41+00:00
The discussion revolves around the concept of an "unforgeable register" and its utility in relation to encumbered coins. The participants agree that ownership tracking is a prerequisite for value acquisition, and the security of the ownership register influences the value. The question arises if the register itself gives value to the thing needed to use that register. It is argued that if people are interested in what it keeps track of, then it gives value, even for reasons one may find bogus. Ethereum's higher market value by being a register of ICO tokens is cited as an example. Transactions moving encumbered coins constitute a register of covered debt, and the coins needed to update this register will acquire value if some people find such a register useful. If they acquire value, they offer a way to generate income for holders by temporarily giving up control. The deeper utility of Bitcoin is the use of its unforgeable register, but there is uncertainty about the utility of records of outputs that cannot be traded for something else. The argument is made that the existence of an unforgeable register creates other kinds of units while encumbered and not fungible with the common ones. Units encumbered with a debt covenant offer the utility of using the unforgeable register, and therefore, the units needed to maintain that register are valuable to some extent.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T19:46:54.543137+00:00