You're not supposed to say that explicitly, Atlas. You're supposed to pretend that "deflation is fine" or that "it will all balance out in the end". You've just broken every Ponzi rule by declaring your sinister intentions out loud.

Supporters of the current design lose the debate either way. If the price..
1. Keeps rising forever, then it's a Ponzi scheme which will collapse at some point.
2. Keeps rising sharply then falling sharply forever, then it's an unstable currency subject to severe manipulation and speculation.

I'm still begging for one argument against my proposed stable-price system.

I understand that. And my question was: How is this supposed to end? Will the price keep rising forever or not? Think well before answering because you lose both ways.

3. Rises to a point of equilibrium, and is used as an easily stored and transmitted gold-like asset. Over time, the purchasing power of Bitcoin will increase at a rate equal to the rate of the growth of it's economy. People will accept that even though their paycheck may be decreasing denominated in bitcoin, the amount of goods and services they can buy stays the same or increases. In addition, massive amounts of debt are no longer needed, as people can easily defer consumption and save, which benefits them in the future and provides the necessary capital for investment in infrastructure.

"In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

You're looking at newly born babies sir. Those don't use bitcoin. You should look at the natural increase of eligible users.

I feel compelled to respond to creighto's remark here.

People in general, me included, have a difficult time believing that out of the ashes of the recent economic collapse (the RE market collapse as well as the Madoff-like, greed based ponzi schemes) something as awesome, beautiful and as powerful could arise as the result of the efforts of a single, or perhaps and more likely, a group of technically/economically minded/skilled individuals.

The automatic, default response to anything novel and revolutionary, is at first, denial and ultimately, acceptance while pretending nothing new ever happened.

A perfect example of the emotional/psychological/thought/belief-based roller coaster that we all go through when faced with something so big and so 'surreal' is captured in this just as awesome, beautiful and powerful quote as BitCoin is, by William James:


Now, I've personally known a few people in my time who have achieved something revolutionary, not because they had any idea how to do it when they set out to do it, but because they all had the following things in common at the level of whom they were being:

1) an intention to create something Good (Good here is defined according to my Judeo-Christian belief system)

2) a complete surrender of their personal philosophy/worldview/doctrine in lieu of another's philosophy/worldview/doctrine. They answered their God-given Calling.

3) they executed and finished it

Steve Jobs... is one of these people.  Bill Gates... is another one of these people. In my view, Satoshi, whom as far as I am concerned at this point in time might as well be Keyser Söze, is one of these people as well.

I choose to create a personal relationship with Satoshi by starting with a $100 USD investment into BTCs, much in the same way I have created a personal relationship with Steve Jobs by owning a MBP, or Akio Toyoda, by owning two Toyota vehicles, mine and my wife's.

My trust in BitCoin, vis-a-vis, Satoshi, is 100%. I risk getting screwed over by BitCoin/Satoshi. Upon reading the whitepaper, I am confident that Satoshi's intentions are noble, despite any imperfections BitCoin's heuristics may have.

My suggestion to everyone here is to trust Satoshi until he cannot be trusted any longer.  I know this doesn't sound "revolutionary", but in fact, all of these skeptics and naysayers are actually PRETENDING to know that Satoshi is a scammer, and thus BitCoin is a scam. Fact is - they don't know anymore than I know that he is genuine. They want to peek around the corner of time when the only way to find out is to play the game. If indeed he turns out to be a scammer, the people with the highest levels of greed today risk getting screwed the most anyway. The other ones can shrug off the loss. One thing I am certain of, if Satoshi is proven to be a scammer, he will be no more, much like Bin Laden, or Ratko Mladic.

Barring any serious technical analysis of Satoshi's BitCoin heuristics/algorithm that can prove it logically unstable or easily defraudable by a large entity with much time/cash to spend on a systematic attack toward this purpose, I welcome you to the new world currency - BitCoin.

Dive in, the water's just fine (for now!)  

That point is so trivial we shouldn't be arguing about it. I was simply telling you to reflect upon the natural increase of eligible bitcoin users rather than the sheer increase in population which is based on newly-born babies.


Bitcoin's rate of generation will continue to decline beyond 1.1% reaching practically 0% long before 2050 if that makes you happy. Add to that that its user base grows much faster than that of human population, eligible or total. To cut it short: Deflation is inevitable.

I just want to add one more inquiry to my previous characterization of BitCoin -

the value add of having a decentralized currency does not come without some other, less visible/obvious costs.

Namely, all the good, bad and ugly stuff that human beings are able to do with centralized currency, will still be possible with BitCoin, once the gold/BitCoin fever is over and the currency is used en masse.

Thus, I assert that BitCoin is NOT a solution to the ethical/moral problems that arise in society. After all, the first thing one will do with an anonymous currency that can be sent to anyone in the world is abuse it for immoral purposes. By 'immoral', I am using my personal Judeo-Christian belief system here, which has been around for 4000 years or thereabouts, BC and AD combined. Apparently, some of this has already been done.

The cost of being able to transfer currency at will, to anyone and anywhere in the world, is an apparent shift/increase in responsibility from the group (e.g. "centralized") to the individual.

Now, the question is - if responsibility to make "bad" (e.g. self-destructive or destructive to others) decisions is given via means of BitCoin - will that eventually result in the massive corruption of the whole, e.g. the few or one bad apple will spoil the whole good bunch?

Or, does personal responsibility eventually, once all the "bad bunches" have been eliminated by self-destruction or mutual-destruction, result in increased responsibility for all people combined?

I know there is no easy answer to this type of ethical inquiry - however, I want people to beware that NOTHING comes without a COST - not necessarily a MONETARY one at that, and that eventually, "scary" or "pleasant" as it might be, we ALL get exactly what we are asking for. Whether we like what we get or not, in the end, is open to debate.

I am not denigrating or putting down BitCoin by any stretch of the imagination, merely adding some _human_ perspective to it and the kind of problems it will solve as well as create at the same time as a result of this transfer of responsibility.

Just a reminder of how "wrong" I've been for 18 months:


Doesn't look like perpetual deflation. Doesn't look like a crazy horse. Doesn't look like a speculators' den. Doesn't look like a nerve-wrecker with each single transaction. No, It's a perfectly sensible stable currency with a promising future.