https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/chamath-...
This creates an environment there is never a reason to use the currency for a purchase, strictly because it's supply is completely limited and never increasing over time.
Since the world economy continues to grow as GDP, output, and the population grows, it stands to reason that if Bitcoin in any way parallels our real world economic scenario, it would continue to rise in price per unit, because the overall GDP continues to increase.
As a result, it in fact never stabilizes, unless overall GDP stops growing.
Since it never stops growing, it never makes sense to use it for a purchase, and so you have a flywheel effect of ever increasing upward price pressure.
In much of the rest of the world, the 40 years prior to WW1 were largely characterized by economic growth, while on an international (albeit decentralized on a national level) gold standard.
What event are you thinking if?
Gold tied assets hoarding caused the great depression.
[1] an especially bullshitty argument, since ideally we'd want to get rid of jobs that don't add (enough) value to make the economy more efficient. I think the wasted human resources and ingenuity are the greatest tragedy.
Under performing companies get much more efficiently "creatively destructed" in an economy that is running hot where only the more efficient, well tooled businesses can afford employees at tight labor market wages. On top of this, fewer human resources are left wastefully idle.
Perhaps the pre-WW1 period is too different from today because we're still living in the 100-year+ experiment if central banks and applied Keynesian theory. If the Austrian school's business cycle theories are correct, recessions are longer and more painful under central banks' manipulated monetary markets because malinvestments are rarely cleared from the economy: those enterprises get bailed out instead, and taxpayers foot the bill.
Do you have a source for asserting that people saving gold caused the great depression?
I mean, it wasn't strictly gold hoarding it was gold tied currencies hoarding.
At current price and block reward, Tesla's investment of $1.5B pays only 6 weeks of electric bills.
It’s weird to see so many opinions on this website that think BTC is a static thing that can’t or won’t adopt useful pull requests that miners agree are useful.
It’s like if it were the mid-90’s and everyone was just as skeptical of e-commerce of the web in general.
Useful things get better.
There was a fierce debate that lead to a hard fork over increasing transaction throughput by raising the block size, so I think it's really not a given that BTC will change to increase transaction speed.
Also, one problem people have with Bitcoin is that the idea of every node of the network storing and processing every transaction is fundamentally not scalabe. Sure BTC can change and adapt, but it's hard to overcome a fundamental design shortcoming.
When there is incentive (if there ever is) then miners will adopt changes that make sense. But you need a true consensus. This built in conservatism is a great feature of BTC.
Increasing block size is simply a bad idea. You do not move fast and break things in mission-critical code. Bitcoin is more focused on working (as it does) and remaining secure. Bitcoin is the best money the world has EVER seen, and it's not important to be able to buy frivolous things with Bitcoin. What is important is making sure value transfer is safe and secure. Those of us who routinely truly use Bitcoin understand we can easily send $50-100 or whichever value you prefer and put in low fees around $0.50-2 and just wait on the money to securely transfer. Not many of us using Bitcoin care if that takes 1-24 hours. The currency aspect is very beta yet, and may even take a few more years to mature and will have to come in layer 2.
The last time this happened we got Bitcoin Cash.
It will be a reserve asset, used to back actual payment systems.
And eventually other newer technologies will supplant it, as long as there are “synthetic bitcoins” that can be on that new network, crypto collateralized.
If that new network launches as a sidechain though, then free unstaked BTC will be a perpetually dwindling amount of coins, and perpetually going up in price like collectibles or gold. With no other thing giving them value other than everyone else wanting it, and the miners / HODLers shilling it. It is a perfect investmen vehicle, it can go to $50 Billion a free coin once most coins are staked in other things. So, ironically, competitors better in every way will drive up the price for those who don’t switch and keeo HODLing for decades. And mining rewards will be worth so much that electricity will be wasted on a bigger and bigger scale until people can’t afford to power their homes since bitcoin mining makes more $. It’s sad... but where is the flaw in the logic
Or alternately, just view a currency index like the DXY to see very closely that nothing comes close to this.
Here is what some real inflation data looks like (as viewedin terms of CPI). It can't even decide if it wants to stay positive or negative on a monthly basis.
That's strictly not a goal. The goal is a long-to-medium term target average.
> Or alternately, just view a currency index like the DXY to see very closely that nothing comes close to this.
DXY has little to do with domestic spending power, only the relative strength of one currency compared to a basket of other foreign currencies when spending abroad.
High vs low DXY measures the relative pricing of imports vs exports. Strong dollar means cheaper imports. Weak dollar means more competitive exports. This isn't really inflation related, it's a separate target. After all, I believe every central bank in the DXY basket has the same inflation targets to within a reasonable band. [1]
People overwhelmingly spend within the country not abroad.
> It can't even decide if it wants to stay positive or negative on a monthly basis.
That monetary policy takes time to be reflected in measurements in a multi-trillion dollar system isn't a bug.
The data you show me looks pretty. darn. good.
> ... and I'll send you a bitcoin.
Please don't. I care about the earth too much to have you blow 22 days (650kWh) of electricity and 100g of e-waste on you sending me one. If I wanted a Bitcoin I'd have plenty. You're welcome to sell it at an exchange, and donate the proceeds to an environmental organization like Ducks Unlimited [2].
That of course has the double effect of reducing the price, which reduces the quantity of electricity wasted on its production and security, which reduces CO2 emissions -- while also saving the wetlands.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/usdx.asp#:~:text=The%20....
[2] https://www.ducks.org/support/donateOnlineSecureN2-HCT.aspx?...
Average them out. 1.75%. Right on the button.
The ducks are going to love you!
Again, the goal is not to have the number exactly on every single year, it's to have it within a range. It's within a range. It's within a pretty tight range. Mission accomplished, even in light of the crazy pandemic years and everything else that's happened in the last 12 years.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/244983/projected-inflati...
> Should also note that MasterCard crypto transactions almost certainly won’t be settled on the blockchain.
And neither are USD transactions. In fact, USD doesn't even have a blockchain! The great thing with Bitcoin is once you want to cash out your Bitcoin, you can take it with you "on chain" without any intermediary (and it's a bit more convenient than carrying bags of cash).