The purchasing power of USD has fallen by 98% in the last 100 years. That's stable to you?

And let's not forget that in a "mature bitcoin world", the rate of BTC appreciation in purchasing power will be small. BTC will not increase by 10% in a month in a mature market. It might increase a few percent per year, and market participants will not have problems transacting in a currency which increasing a few percent annually, for they are already today doing so with a currency that is depreciating by that amount.

I think you are proving my point?

I'd rather PAY in an inflationary currency. Be it my employees or my groceries.

Today there is a flurry of news about how Silk Road is turning over $2 Million a day. And that is just SR. If no one is spending, how does that happen?

This whole "Deflation is bad" meme is just propaganda set loose by people who want to collect seignorage (the central banks) - aka Inflation TAX. Deflation is not bad, otherwise the computer industry would be in a recession since the 1950s.

In the FIAT world, a credit contraction is bad. And this causes Deflation in the FIAT world. Credit contraction is bad because everyone is forced to pay back loans instead of investing and consuming.

I bet you that, if given a long enough term, Bitcoin will be less volatile than any government fiat currency. On one hand, we have a currency with a fixed (non-volatile) supply, and on the other hand, we have currencies with very volatile supplies. To disagree with me, you have to make the absurd claim that a currency with a highly volatile supply will tend to be less volatile than one with a perfectly predictable supply in the long run. 

Bitcoin's price volatility will roughly resemble the asymptotic curve shape of its inflation schedule. Volatility is already far lower than a year ago, and a year from now will be lower than today, and so on. There have already been days this year where BTC was less volatile than EUR... an amazing statistic, for such a small market so soon.

+1

But nobody would take that bet. Last november, buying a car would move the market by 20% or more. Nowadays, this deal would go unnoticed.

Can you offer an example of a US business that legally pays its employees without bank involvement?

Governments issue currency and regulate commerce. They will not sanction a currency that they cannot regulate. It's not a matter of efficiency. It's a matter of control.

Not surprising, though. The US govt is waging war on many things, why not Bitcoin, English lawn or the number PI?

When was the last time the US govt won a war it waged?  I mean based on actual facts and not reports from
FOX news... 

I don't get the maths behind it. If everyone already had Bitcoins, then it would rise only according to the overall wealth increase, which the wages should match anyway, so you wouldn't have to change a damn thing. If everyone doesn't use Bitcoin and there are tens of competing currencies, investment vehicles and whatnot, why does everyone want to hold Bitcoin all of a sudden? Didn't they know Bitcoin's supply is limited before it hit the limit?


I don't get this either. When you decide to pay or have to pay, value transfer isn't affected by in which form you make the transfer. It only matters in which form you keep it until payment. That's not hoarding either.

Say you have Euros. You can convert them to Bitcoin and "hoard" them, or you can buy a camcorder with your Euros. Why do you buy the camcorder instead of buying Bitcoin if hoarding is so appealing? It doesn't make any sense. How is it different than having bitcoins in the first place? How is it not rational to buy the camcorder when I have Bitcoin but rational when I have the same value in Euros?

Well, obviously you can't. I mean, if money worked that way we'd just need to make everyone's money worth more and then everyone would be able to afford a palatial estate with solid gold fixtures and fittings and an army of servants waiting on their every word. Except that there's not enough land for palatial estates for everyone, or enough gold, and where are you going to get servants from if everyone's retired to their own palatial estate? Where are you going to get maintenance staff from too, for that matter?

Money is just a kind of token we use to divide up resources, and if deflation means that people with lots of money are getting wealthier then unless there's some kind of massive underlying improvement to the productivity of society - which you can have just as easily with inflation - every increase in their wealth as a result of deflation has to correspond to correspond to a decrease in the wealth of someone else.