Seriously, we've got to get on this...

People are making ooooodddles of tax free wealth with barter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8pMPSkstQg

Xeno promotes the powers of banks!  The bank will determine the value of your life based on your behavior!!!

"No no Mr. Citizen you haven't donated enough good stuff here, we will take your guitar and you may have this kazoo, the balance goes against your social justice debt"

@Zarf

I meant credit in the singular, not credits as in plural, but credit as in the ability to withdraw items of relative worth.  It is not a numerical value, but is nevertheless a relative value, one represented by a list of the items redeemable in exchange for the initial deposit, a list of items which changes as barter transactions ensue, as per market fluctuations, according to supply and demand, stylistic trends, and numerous other factors.

All that would be recorded by the barter bank or barter exchange system is what item was deposited / exchanged for what and when, and the list of the items the depositor could withdraw at any time in exchange for the initial deposit; a list which would change in real time, as time goes on, as barters ensue and as per supply and demand and market fluctuations, and, perhaps most importantly, as 'interest' is accumulated on the item deposited.

You see, while the item is deposited, the barter bank / barter exchange system has the right to barter that item around to make profit, just as a bank might flow depositors' currency around to make profit.

The idea is that the depositor would always be able to withdraw an item or items of equivalent value to that which they initially deposited (like a bank guarantees holdings), as well as the ACCUMULATED 'INTEREST', in the form of item(s) of equivalent worth to the last item bartered in the barter exchange chains associated with the initial deposit.

For instance, say someone deposited a book, and decided to withdraw it again the next year.  They would be guaranteed to get the book, (not the same exact copy they initially deposited but another copy) and / or any other item or items that might have accumulated as 'interest' in their account.

Remember, there is never any number assigned to represent the value of the item(s) deposited, only a list of items for which at any given moment the depositor could redeem.

'Interest' is accumulated because the longer the item is deposited, the more time the bank would have to barter it and the items bartered for it around to make profit, which would be allotted to the original depositor, represented by the longer list of items they could redeem in lieu of the item initially deposited.

Over the course of a year, the bank bartered the initial deposit (the book) for this and that and then bartered those things for yet other items.  After a year, the initial depositor of the book could redeem not only a copy of the same book but other items as well, all depending on the profit that the barter bank or barter exchange system was able to procure through the barter chains that were initiated by the deposit of the item (the book), and, of course, depending on market fluctuations, supply and demand, etc.

Again, throughout the entire process, never, EVER, is any numerical figure assigned to represent the total value of the redeemable items.

Xeno you are talking in circles about entitlements to depositors and no assigned values.

Adam drops off a book.  Adam is entitled to 100% Book.
Bill drops off a book.  Bill is entitled to 100% Book; Adam is entitled to 100% Book.
Charles barters a guitar for two books. Charles is entitled to 100% guitar minus 200% Book; Bill is entitled to 100% Book plus a share of the profit of Guitar; Adam is entitled to 100% Book plus a share of the profit of Guitar.

Right there, after 2 deposits and 1 trade, you're busted.  You can't even tell Charles his guitar was exactly equal to 2 books, because you still have the problem of converting the guitar into the price of a book anytime either Adam or Bill ask for their value back.

And more depositors, more donors, only makes it worse.  You have invented a way to lose money when people give you stuff!

You didn't actually answer the issue in his scenario.  Plus, does anyone else notice the irony of someone saying that another person is "complicating things unnecessarily," followed by a reexplanation that is nearly 3 times the word count of the other person's explanation? 

The scenario the Yell presents is not representative of the idea.  There is no 100% book or 200% or 1000% of anything.  There are no numbers, no digits to represent the value of items, which is why I felt a re-explanation was necessary.

And yet again, as there still seems to be confusion, here is more re-explanation:

When someone deposits an item into their account, they do so by handing over the item to someone who has bartered something else to someone else for said item.

If the depositor is not immediately accepting another item in exchange for their deposit, but is rather simply holding that item in their account, the barter bank or perhaps more aptly the 'barter exchange' or 'chain of barterers' will barter that item for other items and then barter those items for yet other items again and again over a period of time to the point where the initial item (in the above case a book) has been exchanged for different items to other people's benefit.  For the idea is that during all the time it has taken for the bartering to have happened, everyone has been USING the items to their benefit.

After a year, then, the initial depositor would be entitled to MORE than just the initial deposit (a book).  His initial deposit has facilitated the use of various items, all to many other people's benefit.  The barter-chain owes the initial depositor whatever item that has been 'bartered-up', something which should have become something with a perceived value far greater than the initial deposit; in this case, say a car.

This car would be considered accumulated profit for the original depositor, as compensation for facilitating the use of all the items that had been bartered for the book.   Remember every person involved in the barter chain has been profiting, too, for all along they wold have been USING the items that had been bartered for the book, including the person out there who would now be driving the car.

The initial depositor could if he wanted, redeem the car, or the book, or any other item that has been exchanged during the bartering chain.

This is how the list of items that the initial depositor can redeem grows over time. 

Adam has authorized each barter transaction from the barter of his initial deposit of his book along to the most recent one (the car), or he has opted for the barter exchange to authorize the transactions for him, according to a computer which selects what is a 'good trade' according to analysis of supply and demand, economic forecasts, etc..

So, for Adam, then, a year later, who initially deposited a book, sees in his account all of the items which have been bartered for his book, and he can choose any of them up to the item that had last been bartered.  He would not get the exact car which had been bartered, but an equivalent one, a car of the same model, make, year, etc.. because whatever item that he had last bartered or which the system had bartered on his behalf would easily be bartered for something of similar worth.

It's all mathematically sound, except, of course, no actual math would be involved.

Math is a language. See this

Meaning is unchanged.

And there is the flaw:  As each early donor can demand something more than what he donated if he didn't barter all along, you would owe everybody more than what you have at hand, or you would have sufficient value but insufficient goods to distribute. Since you aren't trading money, only concrete items, you will develop shortfalls.   It doesn't really matter that you don't give specific rates or valuations; the problem is you promise MORE THAN, to EVERYBODY.

Ahh, but this is where you are wrong.  The "more" you speak of is UNQUANTIFIABLE.  The "more" is only qualifiable, subjective, a matter of 'preference'.

During each barter exchange that ensues from the initial deposit, the depositor is expecting not something BETTER in the objective sense but rather something 'better' in the subjective sense, that is to say 'better' for them.

The depositor may deposit a house, even.  And then go on a camping trip, occasionally checking his account to see what other sorts of residences had been bartered for the property he or she had deposited.  After waiting a couple weeks, it so happened that the system listed a property he or she FELT they liked and then "cashed-in" and moved into their new residence.

"Another man's junk is another man's treasure."

"You're a con artist."

Explain.  i don't get it.

Yell,

Instantly, as you 'deposit' your house, there is someone out there who has traded their house for yours - which you have authorized.  You have already decided it was a good trade, else you wouldn't have authorized it.   You could also let the system to the trades for you.

Nobody would force them to have to use the Barter bank system for anything they wouldn't be comfortable with; however, unlike present-day banks, over time, Barter banks could develop a reputation that would warrant such trust.

Since you also declare you can't quantify the value of the deposit or the value received, this is meaningless.   You deposit something and the bank will give you something; you agreed to like it in advance.