You did read this, it was in the Cryptocurrency investment thread here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...20/index2.html

The quote was in response to something I posted about Bitcoin having a limited supply:

the fixed supply thing is funny too. yea, sure, there will only be 21 million bitcoins. but you can divide them by EIGHT DECIMAL PLACES.

how much is one satoshi worth today? there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one bitcoin. there are 21,000,000 bitcoins.

that means there are 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis. doesn't seem so rare anymore.

Gold is nowhere near the most pleasing commodity/metal. And you have said it was a status symbol before a currency. But you are IMPLYING that MEANS it wasn't valuable before it was a currency. As a status symbol it obviously held value. You haven't made an intelligible point here.

This is why Nick Szabo wrote this essay: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

Szabo went way further into our historical past, pre history, to proto money. 40,000 years etc. There was previously no founded argument for how bitcoin could gain value without first being a commodity.

His essay is the argument for how and why bitcoin should have value. Which is quite obvious that it can now anyways.

I'll bet you've already realized how silly this is. We can divide gold by atoms. And that any such thing could be divided more does not make more of it. Bitcoin is limited, again, unequivocally. Thats why it has a 100 billion dollar cap and gaining.

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever come across on the internet on any subject. That by printing a completely separate currency you can inflate bitcoins supply. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins and no rational person would do anything but laugh at this logic that suggest otherwise.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/its-20...cases-cm611665

nope. i can't give you an atom of gold. but i can send you 1 satoshi.

if the bitcoin zealots are right about the future of bitcoin, one satoshi will be quite valuable.

so the actual coin supply is 2,100,000,000,000,000, not 21 million.

It's not necessary to show. The economically backed truth is that in gold backed economy it is precisely that gold was not very useful otherwise that allows it to rise to its position as a high value settlement mechanism. If there was a greater industrial usecase then it would have pressure to be mined more and this would inflate the supply. This is widely understood under philosphies such as mises, rotherbord, and selgin.

selgin is relevant because hal finney is also thought to have been a co-creator of bitcoin and when asked for his vision he saw it as usurping gold for high value settlement purposes and he cited george selgin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...34211#msg34211

When augie and toothsayer suggest jewlery is an industrial usecase, this is not commonly accepted. Rather it is necessary for them to justify their ignorant understanding of how bitcoin is attaining its value and how gold did so historically.

Bitcoin is valueable as a global high value settlement system, more so than gold, PRECISELY because it has few or little other use cases. This is why part of the civil war involves uneducated noobs yelling at core to scale and evolve fast at all costs and why core is seemingly indifferent to the fact that many other alts are arising with many other usecases.

It is also why bitcoin has incredible market dominance regardless of this limitation.

Try to get one reasonable person to agree you made a point here. And an atom of gold can certainly be transferred.

It can actually be divided further, augie. The satoshi is just an arbitrary thing that the creator put in the GUI. It'd be quite easy to get everyone to adopt splitting satoshis further, if there was a need for it.

What is your point? A currency being easily divisible is a good thing.

You know dollars and pennies are different right?

this doesn't inflate the supply. And there is no graphical user interface.

That you can split atoms of gold doesn't make more gold. We should probably move on from this line. There are far more interesting things to have dialogue on.

I think he's trying to say that as price increases the supply increases even if no new BTC are made.

Are you agreeing with him that if you split a bar of gold in half you have now have twice as much gold?

Nope, just trying to piece together what he's saying.

Seems to me he has purchasing power and supply confused, but I could be completely wrong on what he's trying to get across.

He made a clear and obvious mistake, but its ok, as he said its late....

Plus over 70% of bitcoin is completely dormant. Good luck when everyone starts trying to sell.

lol, come on.

i'm not trying to make that much of a point. i've just heard the number 21 million coins a million times as if that's some kind of selling point. i shouldn't have said fixed supply, that was dumb.

the fact that bitcoin is infinitely divisible is interesting in this moment for me. for reason something about that is triggering something in me. bitcoin is a commodity like gold, but it's also infinitely divisible. something's not right about that.

.

I dunno where you are getting infinitely divisible. There is nothing interesting here. Assume your are wrong, understand this has been discussed by the greatest minds of our time that are knowledgeable on this subject. Bitcoin is finite for all intents and purposes. Thats why it has a 100bill cap and growing.

You've made a mistake, you admitted it. I am capable of such. Lets move the dialogue along lest we be trapped in insanity.

I wonder at what point from 0 to 100 billion usd you started speaking like this. Perhaps in the last 5 years when its increased 50,000%

Bitcoin is finite and therefore deflationary. Coins will be lost and lost forever which makes it even more so. Somehow in your mind you envision some sort of sell off event which makes no sense. It is the dearest item we have available, always will be. It is more gold than gold for the reasons we value it as an inflation hedge. Nations are fighting over it.

People sell bitcoin everyday to buyers, and the net is a gain. Our currencies are net inflationary over time. What are you suggesting people will sell their bitcoin for en masse?

Everyone that doesn't understand, everyone that has no knowledge of bitcoin or economics instantly believes it to be a pyramid scam. None of those people can define a pyramid scam and what its qualities are other than some perceived future crash at some undetermined time.

Everyone that has traversed the literature and spent time in the community learning about it, understands that it is deflationary by nature. There is nothing to sell it for other than to spend gains (which others are clearly happy to exchange their fiat for).

It has a very long way to go, to surpass the IMF and other settlement institutions, to usurp gold like Satoshi and Szabo explained and to be the settlement mechanism of higher value entities like nations and central banks.

It's not taboo anymore, its been cited as such by the head of the IMF and by nearly every major bank in the world.

Bitcoin is not deflationary.

It is disinflationary.

It has a fixed supply and inflationary release rate until year 2100. At no point will there ever be a negative inflation rate.

show your homework

I can't understand what are trying to say. Deflation in one context refers to the decrease of price of goods. This is absolutely expected.

Are you saying there will never be less than 21 million coins available?

Bitcoin is widely held as deflationary especially as opposed to inflationary. It will buy more over time and not less per unit.

(edit: ya you mean the supply. I am speaking to a different point)

@augie_

There is a great difference between Increasing the supply and increasing the dividing increments. Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Bob has earned $1,000,000 from the ages of 18-25. The total money supply is 10.5 trillion dollars. The smallest unit is a penny. Bob gets hit by a truck. Bob goes into a coma. Bob wakes up and is now 60 years old. The total money supply is 42 trillion dollars. Bob still has $1,000,000, but in relation to the total amount in circulation his money is 1/4 less valuable than it was when he was younger. Bob essentially lost $750,000 through inflation. The smallest unit is still a penny, but it doesn't affect anything. Poor Bob.

Scenario 2:
Bob has 50 bitcoins at 25 years old. The total money supply is 21 million bitcoins. The smallest unit is a satoshi. Bob gets hit by a truck. Bob goes into a coma. Bob wakes up and is 60 years old. Bob still has 50 bitcoins. The total money supply is 21 million bitcoins. Bob's bitcoins still have the same buying power from when he was 25 since the total supply is the same. The smallest unit has changed to a super satoshi which is 1/1000 of a satoshi. Bob still has the same amount of bitcoins. Bob still has the same amount of satoshi. Bob has not lost any money. Bob is happy.

tl;dr
The only thing that matters is your current money in relation to the total supply. The subset of money doesn't affect you. 1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = 12/24 = 400/800.