You can not stop consuming (neither can the wealthy men).
So deflation have some lower limit (you must pay for food, water, clothes, shelter, drugs (in you get sick), etc.)
Wealthier you are more you consume in absolute even if it is not in proportion compared to poor people (this is the purpose to be wealthy).

The main reason deflation self correct is it discourage investments and favor savings.
Savings =  seeds in storage (less risky or no risk at all)
Investments = seeds in the soil to become more seeds (more risky)

The value of money depend on the quantity of goods available: if they increase, the value of money increase. If they decrease, the value of money decrease.
If the value of money increase 3% per year, the economy increase 3% per year. Investments promising more than 3% will be funded (in not too risky), investment promising 3% or less will not be funded.
If the value of money increase 2% per year, the economy will increase 2% per year. Investment promising more than 2% will be funded, promising 2% or less will be not.

Now, if we suppose a 3x risk premium, if the riskless increase in the value of money is 3% and someone promise >10% return for a reasonable risk, these projects will be funded.
If these projects are successful, the overall economic return will be 3%. The economy it is now larger, the investors get 4-5-6% per year (after profits and losses) instead of 3%.
If there are not projects able to return 10%, the growth will fall to 2%. People will increase their savings (they produce more than they consume) until they have enough and a 2% return will start to appear interesting. Then they will start to fund risky projects returning 6% (3 times 2%).

They can take risks because they have other savings. Even if their investments are wiped out, their savings are not and they are able to continue to consume as before.

In an inflationary environment, you are forced to have less saving (because they lose value) and more risky investments. And, because the good investments with good returning are not infinite, you end with lossy investments.

Money value up means less investments, which is ok sometimes, frenetic investment of all sorts of value destructing ventures is not always what the world needs.

The velocity of money comes into play. Assuming at some point you spend some of your interest received, you can be paid back again with the same money.

e.g. month 1 borrower pays lender 50BTC, lender buys stuff for 25BTC, now 25BTC is back in the economy and can be used to help make the next 50BTC payment, and so on. While it is very difficult to measure the velocity of money, I think I remember reading that real world currencies typically have a velocity of around 1 - for each dollar/euro/etc. that exists, it gets spent once per year on average. That doesn't mean that it can't be spent twice a year if the incentive to spend money is high. However, as BTC has some extreme deflationary characteristics, it is highly unlikely that BTC's velocity will be higher than fiat - the incentive to spend is low. A velocity of less than 1 will make it very difficult to pay back loans.

You lend because you want more, in the future, to spend or save.
You save because you value consuming now less than you value consuming later.
You save because of uncertain, so you want to have a cushion against uncertain.
But, everything, must abide to the law of marginal utility: any unit of goods you acquire satisfy a less important/urgent need or want.
The first scoop of ice cream will take care of your hunger (you need energy to live), the second scoop of your palate (you like the taste and the texture), and so on.
More money you have, less utility have the last unit acquired.
If you acquire enough bitcoins the utility to own another bitcoin will decrease. Maybe it would become more useful to buy a new house, or a new car, a new computer, pay for a surgery, give to a charity, etc.

If you have 1000 BTC and lend 100 BTC, the 10 BTC of interest will come from other people owning BTC spending them because they derive more utility from the service or the goods they acquired from the takers.
Remember, also, the 100 BTC are not a sure thing. They are a risky thing. You could strip bare naked the taker and end owning his car, his home and his business, but never recover the BTCs you lent him.
Like a bank making a loan, they could get the home but never get enough value from it to cover the loss.

If you continue to lend and just hoard BTC, the value of every BTC raise as well, so people, on a side, are wealthier (because their BTC grow in value), but you are no benefitting from this raise in value as you are not spending them. As you try to benefit, the value will stop to raise and  probably will start to fall.

Does that mean that if I don't spend, pari passu, I won't get my money back?

the japanese are old and the prductive generation is shrinking.

if i shoot you in the head and your heart stops, you did not die of heart failure.

Exactly my point. Someone's profit will have to be other person's loss. Someone will have to miscalculate for other to profit. There isn't a scenario wherein all can profit or all can calculate well (You will say that is not practical, but we are talking about an ideal world where everyone is happy. After all, that is the vision of bitcoin as well to some extent)

He misspoke.  Under virtually no circumstances will the lender profit while the borrower loses.  Typically, the failed borrower will ask a court for bankruptcy protection, and the courts will attempt to divide the losses between them the best it can.


On the other hand, he only misspoke in one sentence at the end.  The mistake is blatantly obvious because it reverses the entire meaning of the whole rest of the post.  What's your excuse for ignoring the rest of the post so that you could highlight the one line that agreed with your initial misconception?  Smells a bit trollish from here.

No, it is not a loss for the customer, he has traded his coins for something more valuable, the product. Both parties win in a free trade, it is a positive sum game.

Sorry to disappoint you, but our views are different.
I have put emphasis on my actual point. "poor" (orbital travelers) and "lost" were meant as irony.
Actually I think that most of the scenarios would be like that. In my opinion this is profit for everyone.
I would very much disagree with the world where everyone is happy (without relation to his abilities, effort and achievements) , I do not think this is the vision of Bitcoin and I hope it will never be its goal.


As to the double loss and bankrupcy protection. I am speaking about (other version of) ideal world where borrower would rather honorably die in starvation to repay his debt from his own property than not repay the debt, ask for some protection and break his promise to lender.