1993-10-21 - Re: backing

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a37ab32e57973867a3dc080ee50971cc2264c48a5cf2bbdd7adcee111782c15e
Message ID: <9310211911.AA22179@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <931021134500.22e25c67@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-21 19:12:57 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 12:12:57 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 12:12:57 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: backing
In-Reply-To: <931021134500.22e25c67@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU>
Message-ID: <9310211911.AA22179@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

F_GRIFFITH@ccsvax.sfasu.edu says:
> point that digital currency needn't be poorly backed.  However, also note
> that government issued dollars would circulate in preference to gold
> backed digital currency issued by someone else according to Greshams 
> law (which was stated in reference to metal coins, but applies to
> other forms as well).

This is not what Gresham's Law says.

Gresham's Law is that if there are two kinds of coins that are stated
by law to have equal value, the one thats actually worth less because
of metal content will be the one that you spend first. It doesn't
apply in this instance at all.