In your given example, I figure fiat would experience less inflation. How do you figure Bitcoin's purchasing power halves every 4 years?

Why is inflation bad?

lol got us. Didn't know you and your friends send each other bitcoin. Some real widespread adoption. Surprised you still use fiat anymore.

Sorry that was terribad grammar. I mean what do we expect with the value, if the rate halves at a perfectly schedule decline.

Inflation is bad if you want a store of value, it is argued today it is good for the overall economy.

The truth is more its good short term domestic, bad internationally and long term. So stable money is an impossible sell to a large group or nations as a whole (who would rather act selfishly).

Inflation is bad when you have to spend your money on ridiculous PE's in the stock market because if you hold your cash you just lose your ass.

Hell even real estate is overpriced. In my area a $150,000 home rents for maybe $1200. Minus taxes and maintenance it's netting maybe 5%/year. But hell.. buy up the homes with all the cash because you can only get a 3% yield in the market. I honestly can't find 1 sound investment that doesn't take 20 years to pay itself off.

So I just load up on BTC and ETH so it can pay itself off in 12 minutes.

Inflation is WHY cryptos are skyrocketing.

This is an interestng idea. Can you elaborate on how a group of individual nations inflating their own currencies can be bad for global economic growth? How does your view of Bitcoin help alleviate these problems?

Also there can be reasonable inflation in a sense, and/or deflation, but our want to control it and the belief that we can causes us to a create a monster that we eventually cannot tame.

People tout bitcoin as the ultimately sound money, because it has no such control. But it doesn't directly solve our want to inflate fiat unless of course it becomes an accepted world currency.

Me and toothsayer probably basically agree, it cannot scale as such.

But we should want to think about the effects of a central bank that has to compete with a new digital gold, that the markets favor for its stability of supply. When a central bank makes policy that is not long term trustworthy, the effects become exaggerated with the citizens have an option for a stable savings in relation.

Do our attempts to control inflation always produce negative results, or do they also sometimes produce positive results?

Is it possible that forcing central banks to compete with a new digital gold could be a net negative for society?

It's a keynesian belief that controlling inflation is optimal, but he was widely criticized for not understanding international macro economics. And so now we are finding that our historic and empirical evidence shows that its not a good idea. That if you compare times of freebanking and sound money you find a relationship with unprecedented growth (ie gold standard).

If the banks were forced to stabilize with bitcoin you would effectively have international stabilization of our currencies.

That's the goal.

Interesting. Do you have a source for this, or can you summarize the underlying theory in a paragraph or two?

When isaac newton pegged the British pound to gold in 1717

George selgin goes over it extensively and clear up our misunderstanding of times that were not free banking failure but government intervention. He's the man. Here is a summary of his freebanking thought experiment https://medium.com/@rextar4444/draft...g-60ed1d44e2be

This author gives many examples as well and relates the soundness of money to bitcoin: http://saifedean.com/Saifedean%20Amm...20Standard.pdf

Hayek was keynes biggest critic of their time here he also gives a thought experiment one what would happen if the monopoly on money supply (ie central banking) was broken: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/...nalisation.pdf

They all approach the same conclusion.

The idea is given enough freedom the markets will force the banks to keep their money supplies in proper check. "Proper" is difficult to define but its not necessary to define it prehand. But inspiring the events to unfold has different associated problems.

Gold did this in the past, but its limited as a solution for this, for example its supply isn't perfectly finite as its cost of production is related to technological progress. So you have to extrapolate what might be the perfect catalyst.

Little off topic, but yeah this is even worse in major 'desirable' cities.

Basically every house in every neighbourhood of my city nets much less than 0% as an investment.

Tooth: Thanks for your thoughts on what it would take for btc to get legitimate.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC was founded in 1960. For decades, he was the premier trader on the largest exchanges, the founder of various innovative digital trading technologies at large scale - other brokers actually routed all their orders through him. His fund had a $50 billion value. It had attracted the world's most careful and cautious money holders, and the smartest people in finance thought the fund legitimate. He held all relevant licenses and had passed all the scrutiny of the community for his extraordinary returns. He reliably paid out clients for decades, with a market-beating return - no one ever went bust or lost their money prior to 2007, in fact, they all got rich.

Oh yeah. And it was a pure ponzi that grew to $50 billion and went bust when 2007's financial crisis caused a run for the door.

Enron was an even more pronounced example. The smartest minds and the most respected people in finance talked of it in awe. Said it was a new paradigm that was putting the old, inferior energy markets out of business. Enron had a market cap larger than bitcoin in today's dollars at its peak.

The 2008 GFC is yet another example. The greatest financial experts in the world didn't see it coming, even though it was a certainty from years earlier if you had merely read what constituted CDOs.

So when you quote "the experts" over and over (who, by the way, seem to be all people heavily invested in the ponzi on the lower layers - their and your shameless, lying pumping is what makes it a ponzi), or point to age or market cap or media coverage, I realize you're someone without a mind of your own and that your arguments are paper thin.

I'm trying to discuss this rationally. You're so incredibly intellectually insecure that you've basically turned into a parrot of what the bitcoin pumpers say, not even quoting their arguments but rather saying "all the experts agree with me!!!" When there's a question outside of what you read, you fall apart. For example, you can't answer my question about why the banks or countries would pay trillions of dollars to early holders to buy into bitcoin for high value transfer, when a) they already have reliable high value transfer and b) if they want secure blockchain tech, they can make their own network, better, more secure and and not controlled 60% by China, for 1/1000th of the cost of that.

Bitcoin is used for illegal and shady activity, and by hardcore tech libertarian types. These uses account for about $250 of its value. If you were buying at $250 I'd have said go for it, as that is the floor for such activity and there was still ponzi/pyramid possibilities.

The trouble is, bitcoin is currently $7000. And it's gotten there very quickly. Nearly all of its value - 95+% imo - is a speculation bubble/pyramid effect. The market cap is far removed from the extent of its legitimate use. And the higher it goes, the less it becomes viable for legitimate use. Do you not see the makings of a monstrous crash as those two lines (price vs transaction viability) diverge?

Bonds have had very large returns. They've crushed gold over the last 100 years. So holding fiat is far better than gold or silver or bitcoin would be (assuming bitcoin becomes a world currency).

These facts are all anyone really needs to know about why btc should only be worth an old subway token in exchange. The points are immutable, yet btc will still sell for whatever the next rube is willing pay for it. bubblicious indeed

This is literally the same argument the silver bugs used to make on 2p2 during the silver bubble.

And various rantings about fiat/hyperflation/pyramid schemes, etc. All we need next are for people to tell us that J.P. Morgan is secretly controlling the price of Bitcoin and we'll have a bingo.

The maximalist arguments are nearly identical in the recent crypto discussion vs the old silver/gold threads, only the bitcoiners don't think the world is going to end.

And once the futures start trading if it sells off it will be a conspiracy of higher margins

What's the endgame for when all 21m coins are mined? Is it really going to be worthwhile to the miners to keep verifying transactions?

I could not discern a falsifiable claim in his admissions, were you able to? Because all we have is a situation where the more the price rises the more its a bubble in TS eyes. And there no end to him calling it a bubble and he can do so louder and louder as the cap grows with impunity.

I'm looking for a concrete falsifiable claim, because I am for more interested in dialogue about the future of bitcoin when someone who has read none of the associate literature and economic philosophy associated, don't own the narrative.

Otherwise we are plagued with a fudster. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

How many years till it implodes? What price will it implode to? What high powered banks will never support, use, or legitimize bitcoin? When will banks create their own blockchain system that is worth bitcoin's (increasing) cap?

I'm looking for statement that can be eventually proved or disproved and I haven't found any?

Did I miss them, or perhaps you agree there were none...?

You are admittedly living in a world where the experts don't know what they are talking about and you do.

It's not a sign of intelligence or a good idea to ignore the scientists and the well studied simply to have a mind of one's own. My arguments are backed by great economic philosophers of our age. You refuse to address their points and instead have taken the position that experts don't know but you do. They spent their whole lives studying and defining economics, and you are hand waving them away.

Your definition of rationality is that citing experts is an appeal to authority, but the reason you think that is because you don't understand what a founded argument is. When the experts disagree with you, and agree with me, to constantly assert your opinion and not address their founded arguments is literally going against reason.

I'm not going to argue that things outside my understanding are things that I should be able to explain. If something is outside my scope of knowledge its perfectly acceptable I am not very able to explain it. This is where me and you see differently, you think that because you have a strong opinion it qualifies you to make sweeping unfalsifiable predictions about that subject.

You've asked a question that includes presumptions I cannot agree with and so you have twisted facts in such a way I cannot answer. It's a great tactic for someone that wants to continually assert their feelings are correct but to never actually address that real facts. So you can keep asserting that I refuse to answer your question, but you aren't being sincere, and the question itself is absurd and impossible to seriously address.

Asking for a falsifiable claim doesn't make much sense imo. Lets say he gives us one that actually means something: "In 50 years the industry will be worth less than it is today." Well that's hardly verifiable in any practical sense.

Let's say he gives one that is actually verifiable: "BTC will drop to 4000 in the next 6 months" then BTC goes up to 10k. Well good we verified that this statement is wrong, but does that mean that his overall position that crypto is a bubble is incorrect? No not really.

I think we just have to accept the fact that there won't be any "ahah the naysayers were clearly wrong!" turning point, and as the market grows, more people and companies start to use it etc we just collectively agree that the naysayers are wrong.

My argument for the future value of bitcoin is different than 99% of bitcoiners. I have none to quoting, and quoting non-experts is not really useful for a strong argument.