Do bitcoins provide a consumption utility stream? Do they yield dividends. What sorts of productive risk-taking do they represent? When I buy a stock, it will perform well if the risks it takes in providing mutually beneficial exchange with business and households are successful. For bitcoins, there is no systematic market risk, because there is no capital stock. Why? The same reason as always. Deflation increases the burden of debt which decreases investment, even though the economy is awash in savings.
Our national economies do not possess cycles as you describe them. Here's a good article about macroeconomic business cycles: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/is-business-cycle.... While the level of inflation fluctuates in our economy, it does so on a much smaller scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_An.... What really jumps out from that graph is how the best economic prosperity the world has ever seen coincides with fiat currency ending the threat of deflation.
You theorize that the boom/bust swings will diminish in intensity until eventually bitcoin becomes stable.
Others theorize that the boom/bust cycles will grow in severity until eventually everyone just gives up on bitcoin.
So far there's very little evidence for the stability option and a lot of evidence (and economic theory) for the speculative bubble theory.
Do you have any evidence of the "market share" of bitcoin users who are in the market for purely currency reasons growing relative to that of those who are in the market for purely speculative reasons? From everything I can find out it seems as though the reverse is true.
Very simply, the more users are in Bitcoin the more vendors there will be who accept BitCoin. The more goods and services can be bought in Bitcoin during the relatively smooth periods the greater the proportion of people who like to have the currency for currency purposes, because it can be used to buy goods and services. There will be 'induced traffic', a network effect - more roads into Bitcoin will pop up because there's an incentive to start an exchange (you make money off of each transaction, after all!). More roads = greater demand for more BitCoin. It is the fact that some buying power of BitCoin still exists even given the boom/bust cycles that will support the currency in the long run, and that this buying power will on average be higher on every contraction than the previous contraction. The fact that an anonymous, decentralized currency that prevents double-spending is desirable (i.e. has inherent value) to a lot of people will also support this buying power, and support the currency in the long run.
Those were all companies which sold at a billion dollars or many billions of dollars and have sense been shut down or are worth a tiny fraction of that amount today.
And those are just examples from the last 20 years, we could go back to nearly countless examples of other speculative bubbles going back centuries.
So happy to have been there for the through the 90's.
The same thing could very well happen with BitCoin. Someone mentioned forking BitCoin and tweaking the algorithm to remove the artificial ceiling of 21 million units, and replace it with an algorithm which monitors all the transactions taking pace and adjusts monetary policy in response to them, in order to produce a steady inflation rate. Such a currency might very well be more desirable than one with deflationary tendencies.
Bottom line - unless someone figures out a way to replace BitCoin with something better, I see no reason to believe BitCoin is going away anytime soon.
There is no guarantee that BTC will survive. Larger currencies have fallen before it.
Do you want to see real political and economic change in your lifetime? Campaign finance reform: not the answer. Term limits: not the answer. Voting Libertarian: waste of time. "Balance the budget": too little, too late. Political activism: occupy my asshole.
The only solution: flip societal power structures upside down, and let us geeks take the reigns.
Now, you may argue that everything is Hunky Dory like tptacky, but I'd beg to differ. We need real social and economic change, right now, to ensure our continued prosperity into the forseeable future, and we're just not getting it from Washington. Make excuses or justify a Big Brother Statist tyranny driven by propaganda and ignorance all you want, ultimately none of that shit works long term and meanwhile we have a lot less freedom.
Let's play a different game now ...
Do you really want to change the system? Write blogs. Write books. Start a business. Do investigative journalism. Speak at rallies. Work on a campaign. Run for mayor. Run for congress.
There are a million ways to empower yourself and others, using bitcoin isn't any of them.
Imagining that bitcoin is the answer is about as naive as imagining that hitting "like" on your facebook feed is going to magically feed some starving child somewhere.
But some decentralized digital coin in some form seems like a good idea. The concept of a transaction log that tracks your money from start to finish is also interesting.
Bitcoin will remain a pyramid scheme due to its deflationary nature. But maybe a future coin can be invented that solves the problems with bitcoin?
I think the example from fiction, Cryptonomicon, is actually very helpful, because they understood they needed a big honking pile of gold to kick-start the legitimacy of the whole thing, if it's just free floating then it too easily becomes a pyramid scheme and you have people who just do currency exchanges but who never actually use the new currency as money. You want people to hold onto money because it's money, not because they think the money can go up in value, that's precisely what you don't want.
Unfortunately, there are now a lot of people in the bitcoin world who do what the exchange rate of bitcoins to go up, because they view bitcoin's as an investment and they still view dollars as "real money". And in most ways they aren't wrong. But they're also making it harder for anyone else to use bitcoins just as money.
Long term? People stop using Weimar Deutschmarks, Austro-Hungarian Whatevers, French Francs, shells/wampum, doubloons, US dollars ...
Ha ha ha ha
No. Traders learn, and then they die, and are replaced by new traders, who haven't learned.
*you may or may not agree with those ideals but it probably wasn't the best idea to try a new technical solution to currency and a economic philosophy about currency/central banks at the same time)
Second, we all already do use digital currency. Actual, physical currency (and deposits at the Fed) are called the monetary base or "high powered money". However, most people transact goods using debit cards, which is called "inside money". These are privately created dollars, and they change hands digitally. So, we're already there. (I'm avoiding credit cards since those are technically loans, not money).
I think no one cares for a large number of reasons but one of them is because you'd need to trust the people who run most of those currencies(i'm ignoring the bitcoin clones) and if you are going to trust someone, might as well trust a regulated entity like a bank.
Just look at how paypal screws people? Why trust someone else even more sketchy. However, precisely because pay pall screws people it might end up being the case that there is some market for a non centralized online payment system. But it certainly can't be deflationary and it ought to avoid rampant speculation.
I wonder what would happen if every 30 minutes the currency inflated by 100% percent. It would make sure no one ever held inflatcoin. You'd just use it as a transaction medium.
In what relevant sense to deflation and its effects is it new?
> There are a lot of new ideas here (i.e. divisible to 8 decimal places, de-centralized, etc.)
How are any of these relevant to the incentives created by deflation?
Edit: One quick thing I forgot. Keynesian economics is all about the idea that, if prices are "sticky" and cannot fully adjust in real time, then that leads to drops in output. The flip side of this, which is evident in the current crisis, is downward nominal wage rigidity. The fact that prices are slow to adjust partially mitigates the threats of deflation. So if anything, Keynesians have less to worry about from deflation than other factions of macroeconomists.
[1] http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-great-depression-a...
Anyway, this is all taking a left turn here. It has been fun, but there are probably better forums than HN for discussing macro-econ. Maybe I'll see you in one of the subreddits, and we can debate it in more depth there.
If you've got an argument, make it, but as far as I can see there's just conspiracy theories about the status quo and wishful thinking with no coherent basis for Bitcoin.
No. It's always "different" ground, same outcome.
The rest of it makes perfect sense, but why would we think this, rather than that market forces will drive prices up, and people will sell as a result, fulfilling demand?
I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure this state of affairs is not guaranteed.
So like 90%+ of what the stock market does then?
Can you point to a specific event in history where this actually occurred? Because so far all I've seen are people theorizing what will happen in this situation. Your argument would carry more weight if you backed it up.
Is that possible? In the event of a crash all buy orders will be fulfilled, ordered by price/time. The exchange rate can't move if there are no orders being executed.
And here's what happened on another exchange while Mt. Gox was down: http://bitcoinity.org/markets/btce/USD
Are you the kind to suggest "hey, I know how to make money! Invest in hot dogs like, right before the 4th of July, and then sell right after!"?
As the deflationary feedback amplifies the desire to hoard, the exchanges will become illiquid. Eventually, buyers will give up while waiting in absurdly long queues, and demand will loosen. Soon after, things will turn pear-shaped as the world's fastest liquidation occurs. The exchange rate will fall faster than orders can be fulfilled, so that less than $2.5 billion is recovered. After all, it was never really there anyway."
Nailed it.