Comment: Yes, as you say, for the same reason as FRNs

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Actually, BC can have value (see in situ)

Yes, as you say, for the same reason as FRNs

or actually not quite that bad, but almost. But my point was that you can't turn an electronic bitcoin into a physical bitcoin after internet connectivity is lost, because you can't validate the electronic bitcoin.

What would make the casauscius (sp?) coins work during a war or meltdown or whatever is that people might be willing to trust that (a) the company didn't release any "blanks" and (b) the holographic seal appears to be intact, and (c) the company destroyed the wallet when it encoded the info into the coin.

What you're betting on is that if internet connectivity is restored and bitcoin survives, you'll be able to break the seal on the coin, get the electronic info out of it, and check the balance and find that it's not zero. It's not just trust in BC that matters in these scenarios, it's believing that the numbers encoded inside that coin, protected by a holographic sticker, will let you access the promised amount if bitcoin comes back after the infrastructure is restored, and that nobody in the meantime has access to those numbers stored inside the coin.

I agree that if it made any sense at all it would have to be some new digital currency, probably not bitcoin itself. Or just have a bank that holds electronic deposits of bitcoins, and issues physical tokens representing amounts on deposit (not fractional!), and ensures that while a physical token is in circulation the corresponding electronic currency is not accessible to anyone. That loses a lot of what makes bitcoin appealing though.