> Just because I pay taxes in USD/EUR doesn't mean I can't store my cash in a fixed supply currency, and anyone who does this avoids inflation.

(Let's just use BTC and USD)

Let's say yesterday milk was $2/gallon. But overnight, USD hyperinflated 50% and now it's $3/gallon. Yesterday, I invested 2 USD in BTC. Unless I can convince someone to give me 3 USD for my BTC, I can't buy a gallon of milk.

No rational person will help you avoid inflation like this, because they'd be losing money. They would have to think that the BTC they get from you will appreciate. In other words, they have to speculate.

So the only thing that you do by storing your cash in a fixed supply currency is speculate, and the only way you "avoid inflation" is if your speculation outpaces inflation.

--This is exactly the same as every other investment.--

But there's a huge difference: speculating in BTC helps no one (actually, it almost certainly helps super awful criminals like drug cartels and human traffickers). Please don't do this. Please invest your money in businesses that need it, or in real estate to help build homes, or in any one of a million ways that actually fuel economic growth and have the potential to help a human being.

> And if everyone does this, government no longer controls the money supply.

Why do you think this is a good thing?

> Unless I can convince someone to give me 3 USD for my BTC.

This is exactly what would happen, no convincing required. Overnight 50% hyperinflation of the dollar would mean 2 USD worth of BTC/EUR/GBP/milk/anything bought yesterday could be sold for 3 USD today.

> Why do you think this is a good thing?

I’m not claiming it’s a good or bad idea. I’m claiming it’s an inevitable consequence of usable fixed supply currencies continuing to exist.

> Overnight 50% hyperinflation of the dollar would mean 2 USD worth of BTC/EUR/GBP/milk/anything bought yesterday could be sold for 3 USD today.

Ahh, but BTC doesn't belong in that list at all. The Euro and Sterling are backed by large, stable economies, used by each to value their exports. Milk is a commodity, which has intrinsic value (not to mention cost to produce, market, transport, regulate, and sell). BTC is an asset, but not anything like REIT or bonds, because it doesn't represent anything of actual worth. Or, skipping some steps, its only worth is that you can convince someone it will eventually have any value at all.

Cryptocurrencies are unique among all other assets in that, at the bottom of them, they are figuratively bankrupt and actually meaningless. There are no goods valued solely in BTC (even black market stuff is like "$100 / .0092 BTC") and no strong, stable economy backing it. At the end of the day, BTC basically says "someone will give you a lot of currency you actually care about for these zeroes and ones", and because those zeroes and ones have no additional value (i.e. it's not a cure for cancer or a TLS skeleton key), the proposition is literally worthless.

So yes. Normally that is what inflation means, but only for currencies that can actually purchase goods and services people want, or goods people actually want to consume, or services people actually want to use. Cryptocurrencies are none of those things.

Your position is that 50% USD inflation overnight would cause 2 USD worth of EUR/GBP/milk/gold/anything bought yesterday to be worth 3 USD today but for some reason 2 USD worth of BTC bought yesterday would continue to be worth only 2 USD?

This is wrong, assuming values of BTC hadn’t also changed overnight. It could only be true if BTC simultaneously dropped in value 33%, but that would be unrelated to USD inflation.

That is not my position. I do believe that BTC would also go for $3. But the only reason is that holders of BTC have so far managed to convince holders of other currencies that BTC has some intrinsic worth when, in fact, it has none (other than money laundering, frankly, which is no small thing, but not something people should be investing in). That's why I believe it doesn't belong in the same category as commodities or currencies. It's a huge bubble, and it will be very, very bad when it bursts.

But there's no such thing as "intrinsic worth"... It's all about supply and demand!

Nah I don't buy that (oooh econ pun!). There are basic human needs: food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization. Goods and services that fulfill those needs have intrinsic worth (to humans). When those goods and services are valued primarily in a given currency (i.e. GBP, USD, EUR), that currency gains worth rooted in the intrinsic worth of those goods and services.

And even abstract financial instruments like mortgages, REITs, bonds, CDSs, CDs, shares of commodities, etc. are based on these fundamental things. Bonds are based on currencies--which are only worth anything if they're the primary denomination of goods/services with intrinsic worth. REITs, mortgages, etc. represent shelter. Commodities represent food, water, and medicine.

BTC represents... nothing? Energy loss? Honestly there's no analog. Snake oil is still oil, selling someone air--they still get air. And sure, you can still argue "well camgunz, even if it's literally nothing, if people want it, they'll put a price on it". But... isn't that really just super bad, like collapse of the civilization bad if it ever gets to scale? We really shouldn't be convincing people to turn their money into absolutely nothing. That seems very obviously not a good idea.

The worth of "food, water, shelter, medicine, socialization", financial instruments (including cryptocurrencies) depends on context. For instance water might be extremely precious in some situations (if you're dying of thirst), and have zero, or even negative value in others (like during a flood, because you want to get rid of excess water, even if if by some miracle it happened to stay pure). Hence, no "intrinsic" worth.

There's a difference between "can sometimes have negative value" and "can never, ever have any intrinsic worth". You're confusing the two here.

Or, to put it a different way, BTC isn't any less bankrupt because we sometimes grow too much corn. It's a complete non sequitur.

>>"Fixed supply doesn't mean it will always appreciate."

It seems to me that you believe that when the economy stay the same and the supply of money grows, money loss value.

Then, the other side of the coin ;-) is that when the economy grows and the currency don't, it increases value.

>>"[--] And if everyone does this, government no longer controls the money supply."

Governments already don't control the money supply. If a bank gives a credit, it's creating money in the system.

After giving a credit (and creating money in the process), it needs to increase its reserves. If the government don't give it enough reserves it have to go to the inter-bank market, that will create demand for reserves, and that increase the interest rate.

If the government want to control the interest rate it can't control the quantity of money.

>>"Just because I pay taxes in USD/EUR doesn't mean I can't store my cash in a fixed supply currency, "

You can do it already, for instance, buying gold. Note that the price of gold also move up and down. You can lost money buying gold and it will be not different with any other asset.