That last sentence is approximately (rounded off at 183 decimal points) 100% untrue in the case of guessing a loss rate and including an actual rate of coin supply increase to make up for those lost coins.

Interestingly, either way you get an unstable value of Bitcoin, as has been seen over it's lifetime. Even more interesting is that stability is an absolute requirement of a decent currency. You get 38.78% less house/gold/bread/cheese/peanut butter in trade than you did last year per Bitcoin. This makes peanut butter* a far better currency (it is holding up very well in number of jars per house).

*Creamy, obviously

I think I followed well enough thus far but this part I'm not sure. The specific words are so important. I'm interested in the idea that a 21 million coin finite supply is similar in finiteness to a coin with an infinite supply with a declining inflation rate. The latter has an infinite supply but its not really meaningful in the sense of diluting the coin supply. (did I say that all right?)



That's something that is actually interesting, and I agree with you, but its not discussed because the two camps are fighting rather than thinking. Mainstream economics believes bitcoin is a bad candidate for money/currency (obviously these terms require definition so its a loose statement). PTB suggests that the creator was intending on a finitely supplied issuance. But there isn't really a prevailing school of thought for that:


It's sort of commonly understood now that being in the position of the creator of bitcoin you couldn't programmatically control the other kind of inflation: ie purchasing power.

The constant-ness of bitcoin becomes a necessary trade-off for that reason I think. Now I don't know what word is correct (perhaps not constant) but there is an admission that if a value controlled currency is ideal (whatever it be controlled at or targeted to), bitcoin could not be ideal. And the creator seemed to admit for this reason bitcoin is not an attempt at ideal money (but rather as a gold like medium)

But I mean to point out, with that limitation, it doesn't matter if bitcoins supply/issuance runs out or not

Well, the nice thing is that it all doesn't matter! Err, well, it does matter, but in the same way as 8-track tapes used to matter. A few people will still be rambling on about it in a few years.

Yea, I see what you're saying. The terms "similar in finiteness" and "meaningful" carry a load of ambiguous but sounds good. That doesn't mean they can't be pinned down and clarified to provide more rigor to what may be a good idea.

Let's look at an extreme example. Suppose it's decided that from now on a fixed new supply of 10 million bitcoins per year will be awarded to miners to cover their costs. Maybe to coincide with making mining harder for security purposes - or just for giggles. You could say to the doubters, "Look. In a thousand years the supply of bitcoins will only be getting diluted at an annual rate of a tenth of a percent per year. See! That's similar in finiteness to the original bitcoin."

I think the doubters would reply, "O.K. However, a total supply of 10 billion bitcoins may also be similar in finiteness to the original limit of 20 million but it sure looks like a ship load more to me."


PairTheBoard

Right, here however, I'm thinking about the creator in the position of contemplating what he will explain to those that help bootstrap. First of all noting that in philosophy the rate never goes to zero as it halves every four years. But in implementation it ends. These are clearly the same tho for all intents and purposes.

Put another way, I don't think you can reverse extrapolate the creator intended to create a finitely supplied coin. I think rather you can only show that it was the only possibility in this sense. It's not perfectly intuitive why I'm suggesting this, but I think after a few complaints it would become apparent.

For all this I think we can call this phenomenon "asymptotically ideal money". Which is noting that paradox of the choice.

I think you're lawyering now. Trying to come up with language that persuades people in favor of your agenda. Also known as lipstick on a pig language. Seems like everyone's doing it these days. e.g. disinformation, politics, the "news" and social media. It's got a nice ring to it and it might work as you intend. i.e. break the resistance of enertia by making a needed fix palatable. The more bitcoin people get used to the term the more they might think, "well maybe that's not so bad".

It may be "asymptotically ideal something" but it seems to me you're pressing it by sneaking in the term "money". That's throwing a whole 'nother bag of worms in with the luggage. Regardless, I wish you luck in your endeavors.


PairTheBoard

It is probably important to note that the creator did not die in a taxi crash. Also, that postulating about the creator's intentions is what the experts call "inventing bullshit."

Creating new coins has the express purpose of paying miners for transaction costs in a backhanded manner. It hides the costs from the users. Nicely, as the supply of new adopters have dropped off a cliff, the transaction costs have diminished this year.

I think you are inferring something that is not my intention. I'm interested in what we agreed on that there is an indifferent aspect to the choice the creator had to make. I see now even gold has this principle.

I think you are implying I am looking for an argument to increase the supply. I am extremely well known for being against that.

I'm simply naming a paradox 'asymptotically ideal money'.

If you think bitcoin isn't money thats nothing I mean to argue is true.

I agree, which is why I think the 'tail emission isn't inflationary' observation is important because it shows that the chosen supply rate doesn't lend weight to supporting what PTB postulates:

It also happens to not lend weight to what you postulate. Which seems more important, since you seem to care about your postulations.

PTB, much like me, is just having fun with* you. It is too hot to have fun taking a hike, so here we are. People who lack requisite knowledge combined with strong, baseless opinions are a favorite source of fun here. Even moreso if their ideas are indistinguishable from Mad Libs.

Perhaps later, I can repay the entertainment with my ideas about the Krebs Cycle. Did you know that it starts with K for a reason not many people are willing to acknowledge?

*"at" would be more correct

I'm just throwing bitcoins against the wall to see if they stick.


PairTheBoard

I read it all a different way