who is holding their savings in fiat today, if it's a significant amount (say >50k$)?
nobody.

Ah yes, now I am talking about international stability. We can't say inflation isn't a problem if some select countries have it under control BUT at the expense of others, because that ultimately isn't (necessarily) stable for everyone. I think it could be argued they are related to each other.

Is it correct to say capital is leaving though if bitcoin is entering? Venezuala was incredibly oil heavy but oil dropped out of favor (interestingly oil has historically served as a very liquid inflation hedge as I understand). Investment is one savior but it could also be that oil or some form energy is transferred into bitcoin mining and if bitcoin has a long way to increase in value then this could boost the economy.

There are systematic issues but I'm not sure they are separable from the problem of the wealth they lost in the oil bust.

Yes so the premise of the thread is that we have a growing new asset for savings that is optimal (not necessarily true but thats the premise). Other assets for savings aren't necessarily very secure as such. Markets crash, commodities can have over supply etc.

So there is a restriction on bitcoin's use as a world currency, but not to the extent (at least for this thought experiment) that it can't arise to be a very accessible hedge for inflation.

If this were a bigger trend people would circulate fiat and hold on to bitcoin and this would effect the velocity of fiat to extent that it would need to be considered by central banks.

Also remember in easy examples like venezuala, people are certainly holding savings in USD as a opposed to bolivars.

what the **** did i just read?

/talking about that post re venezuela, oil, whatever...

yes. if bitcoin were, for the sake of your hypothetical premise, the optimal asset (think historical security of a US government bond and historical return of the s&p), people would hold bitcoin over government bonds/stocks/real estate/everything else.

is that hypothetical premise realistic?
lol, of course not.
everything that increases in value or pays a dividend can be a very accessible hedge against inflation. real estate, stocks and bonds have been very effective for a really long time now.

no.
people hold their fiat because it's the most liquid asset for daily use. that's not going to change unless bitcoin becomes a high velocity world currency.
which we already said, it can't be if it has increasing purchasing power.

Why hasn't everyone else blocked Nooseknot too? Everyone please stop quoting him. I don't particularly want to be reminded that some of you are still feeding the troll.

I wanted to see if there's any substance there but he's just vacuous. No interest in actual discussion. Provides nothing of value. Doesn't understand the tech in any way. Given the ultra high zero content volume he's the kind of person we need to just ban and be done with it, or rate limit to 3 posts/day.

I block people liberally on 2p2. You would find what I see when I open a politics thread hilarious. I'll let you guess which ones I can actually see. Dvaut1 is free. After that it gets significantly harder lol.

I just went over this thread, how is this even a thread?!

Some ridiculous hypothetical and noose spreading some uneducated crap about the current economical circumstances.

Tip for noose, reading stuff and quoting it doesn't really work if you don't understand it.

Economical circumstances?

The thread is built on the premise that bitcoin works and becomes significant (and the effects are discussed in the paper I linked to). I'd like you post again and say "Bitcoin working and becoming significant is a ridiculous consideration." Because that is what you implied but you never actually said it.

You have implied you understand something that I don't, but you never came out and said it. I'd like you to clarify what about bitcoin, banking, or economics that you understand better than me.

Otherwise you've joined toothsayer in ad hominemy attacks.

Of course, there was the crash of 2008, I think we have forgotten. And I don't think these things are as accessible as bitcoin. Maybe you disagree.

You have conflated holding and spending in this post I think.

Because we both see no merit in it.
Given you other posts/replies I don't really feel like putting in the effort as it will achieve nothing at all.

What are your thoughts on this slide deck Nooseknot?
http://www.interfluidity.com/uploads...t-to-share.pdf

You don't understand. You implied criticism but you never gave any. So I replied "If you don't actually give the criticism, then I accuse you of not being capable of doing so". When you reply with another character attack, you simply confirm what I have said.

You are spamming and trolling sir. It couldn't be more clear.

The person that wrote it doesn't understand the role and function central banking.

In what ways, specifically?

Actually I re-read it. Is it you, its relevant and there is legitimate points. I take back what I said, because a few statements I didn't like caught my eye but I think I caught them out of context. Its good and relevant:

But it also goes sort of on both sides of my understanding. I don't necessarily see fiat as unethical. It has its place, and without technology I think we could have done no better.

But now that we have bitcoin, which I believe will become a barometer for value stabilization I believe our central banks now have the ability and incentive to create internationally stable money.

I like those slides, if that is your work I'd like to address some points (or if its not and you are familiar with them and interested)

Cheers.

They are not my slides, then they wouldn't have been so ugly . I found them linked on reddit. But I did find them interesting, and thought they were relevant for the type of discussion you are trying to create here.

Most people that are very enthusiastic about Bitcoin think that it will supplant every single currency in the world, and for some reason also every value creating investment. I think these slides explained, in a very systematic and pedagogical way, how Bitcoin is not a good store of value at the moment and won't be for a long time.

What it didn't address however, was how it could potentially become a store of value in the long term, as further adoption brings volatility down, and as public opinion could call for a more politically neutral currency. Since it didn't address that, then it obviously didn't address how it would interplay with incumbent, state issued currencies.

there have been a lot of crashes. still over their lifetime the dow and s&p have been a lot more stable than any crypto assets.


but anyway:
i'm done here, you're a troll. +1 for banning this guy and his senseless bitcoin spam.

This is the issue you have with bitcoiners. They are adamant banks are "bad" and unwilling to discuss the possibility that bitcoin might inspire fiat to increase/stabilize in value rather than to supplant it. It doesn't fit with their belief that bitcoin will go to the moon and destroy the evil banks.

So you have two groups, those that think bitcoin is a pyramid and those that think it will usurp fiat and our legacy banking system. Neither are based on founded economic philosophy.

I'm not sure I follow the point here. Crypto is obviously in it's infancy. To argue it's instability is a pretty mute point. The obvious counter is the bitcoin is up %50,000 in the last 5 years.

I don't think either points really speak to the theme of this thread though.

Also, are you claiming you know more about bitcoin than me, because that is what you are implying. I'm claiming I know more about bitcoin than you, just wondering if you disagree or if you are just spamming and trolling with your implications and accusations.

i claim that for the amount of posts you have in this sub-forum, you know surprisingly little about finance and investing. i thought the thread was kind of an interesting thought experiment and you wanted to know what people with more knowledge about central banks would say.

those people (not even counting myself here, but others) came here and made their case.

all you did was either not understand their arguments, and have them explain basic economics to you, or claim you knew more about everything.

which makes me think that other, respected, posters here were right in calling you a troll. so i will put you on my ignore list, like boredsocial recommended earlier...

See post above, I rest my case.