Topic: 1BTC (69,000 loaves) ≠ 1BTC (20,000 loaves) if Bitcoin is a currency (Read 390 times)

Specifically: 1BTC = 1BTC (before adjusting for inflation).

The truth is that Bitcoin is very different from traditional currencies in this respect that whereas central banks inflate their currency's values all the time and deflations are extraordinarily rare, Bitcoin's value swings btween inflationary and deflationary depending on the current market conditions.

Why? Because the central bank is decentralized: We are collectively the central bank.

Its decisions are made independently by each user, and when the users unconciously make the same decision all at once, this dictates the market conditions (hence why the market went down).
To manage inflation, central banks can do i) increase interest rates, ii) decrease them. For each user, the corresponding options are i) buy, ii) sell. Selling is done when the price is in a bubble, buying is done when there is a dip.

There has never been a decentralized central bank in history. So people do not understand the mechanics of cryptocurrency and simply associate its inflation rate with its price. But the price is very independent from the interest rate, just as the exchange rates to foreign currencies are independent from the central bank's interest rates.

You're not trading BTC for other currencies, at the end you're supposed to be buying and selling goods with it. So 1BTC really is equal to 1BTC, purchasing power aside. And it is really in our interest for Bitcoin to converge at some price; to stabilize, so that the purchasing power remains the same, and out of the control of the government inflationeers.

I personally take that differently.  Call it consolidation or whatever but if I bought something for $100 back when Bitcoin was $60,000, what I see is that in today's value it means I actually paid around $33 for it.  So what I can do now is take $33 out of my pockets, put it back into Bitcoin and if it gets to $60,000 I will literally be able to say I paid $33 for that thing.  There is of course no guarantee this works, just a small market adaption strategy I often use.

It obviously works the other way around too, so now I get your point.  If you put a thousand last ATH in BTC then you have to pay three times more now for what you could have bought back then.  But on the other hand, Bitcoin is three times cheaper.  We never had such a volatile asset used as currency before (except worst Fiat disasters in history), have we?  So I guess we just need to adapt to its market conditions and understand there is probably going to be at least one more large drop in Bitcoin's price after the next bull run and be ready for it.  I think we all signed up for this when we started investing in and using Bitcoin.  Due to its scarcity, we have to have a different behavior compared to Fiat.

But you have been probably using Bitcoin for years long.  A $10 transaction you received in your wallet when Bitcoin was $1k would now be worth $200.  Sure, it was worth $600 at ATH, but you would still be on a profit.  This is my personal take.  I earn enough from yearly BTC growth to not care as much about and be affected by a sudden drop from ATH.  And unless I am spending EVERYTHING I earn, I am likely still spending from my early investments since with time they grew dozens of times.  Makes sense?

I do not see it as a debate honestly, because we have a historical graph to back up a fact with.  Even if far more people bought between 1k and 60k, every time Bitcoin grew it did actually exceed inflation rates and appreciated more in value than Fiat did.  Which still pretty much makes the 'never gained value so fast' argument valid.  We are 2,000% up from 1k, which was not too long ago, so there is that.  The inflation rate has fortunately not surpassed these gains yet.

I mean, we did lose a lot of purchasing power from ATH but BTC was what, under $5k only about an year ago.  So yes, having to pay 3 times more than ATH value sucks but even fairly new investors are still, even after this drop, under advantage.  So is pretty much any other investor except purchases made in the past few months.

I do not know, for the reasons I gave above I think it is quite unfair to complain about BTC's drop but anyone is of course free to feel different.  I feel like more often than not, BTC investments are providing gains and when they are not, it is just a temporary paper loss that always recovered by itself in just a matter of time.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I see with the outstanding features of bitcoin, it would be wonderful if it could become an independent currency, but it is true that it cannot and can never become a independent currency. I've always been skeptical about it, governments won't let that happen.

Given the existence of government and legislation, bitcoin as an investment would be preferable as a payment method. With volatility and limited supply, bitcoin is a great asset and investment, if held for a long time, there will be no investment that will yield as large a return as bitcoin brings.

An interesting example to express your own point of view. I also quite agree with this. We cannot say that the problems that take place in the past, present, and future will always be the same; in essence, the expansion of many problems around itself is always changing in the directions we see. be over time. So it's not wrong to see 1 BTC = 1BTC when we look at it again for a certain problem. Well, it's still what it is and external changes are included, and it's reasonable to argue who is right and who is wrong , so just relax and don't complicate matters from a simple point of view simple.

Only hardcore believers believe that 1 BTC is just 1 BTC. This logic applies to FIAT followers too. They all fall under the minority of the population while the majority including me focus on the current value for various reasons.

BTC's volatility is a double edged sword since it helps draw in more and more investors due to the numerous financial opportunities, but it cannot be used as a stable payment method in the long-term.

This is why I hope it finds some sort of optimal balance between the two at some point in the future.

Yes, but as I said before, what I want to emphasize is how the loss of purchasing power affects you if you use it, if you spend it to buy goods and services. I part HODL and part spend. So, I notice the loss of purchasing power when it comes to spending.

If you only HODL it is truer that 1BTC=1BTC.


Good point. It may seem silly but 1BTC≠1BTC if you have one Bitcoin with one input and the other Bitcoin with 784.

He hasn't made that precisely because he did value Bitcoin in goods (loaves of bread precisely) and not in USD or any fiat currency. And I think in all countries of the world what he is saying is true, you won't be able to buy anything, goods or services, at the same price in BTC as 6 months ago. The best way to avoid this loss of value IMO, is to use your fiat currencies instead of your bitcoins during bear markets, but unfortunately nobody knows if we are still in a bear market or if the current level of price will stay like that for a long time.

No, 1btc will only equal 1btc if the person don't value btc from the fiat perspective, no matter how hard you try to console yourself with this mantra it doesn't change the fact that the usd value of btc has dropped by some percentage. You don't necessary needs to hodl if you have this believe of 1btc=1btc, the fiat value does not matter, all that matters is your satoshi which you are willing to spend at whatever price btc is trading.
If you value btc in usd, 1btc = 1btc won't comfort you, all you see is how much in usd your portfolio has dropped. 

I don't know if it's consolation or how everyone is doing their finances or an advice not to sell but I've got used to it, wonder why haven't you already too.

Bear season
1BTC =1 BTC =1 BTC not matter what!
Buli seasons:
1 BTC = 1 phone 7 years ago now it's 1 BTC = 1 Bmw

If 1 BTC = 1 BTC and that's all why is anyone caring about what the price is in the first place?


And at this point we would have the argument that they never gained value so fast, so we're ending again in a debate about value and inflation, at which point some will say Bitcoin has gained 1000000x since its inception but obviously only a few bought at that time and far more did between 1k and 60k, and we will never hear the end of it.

But out of pure curiosity
Does 0.5BTC+0.5BTC=1BTC ?
Since it cost you more to use two inputs than one input? 


Do post this a few more times on this forum and you're going to get pitchforked, infidel 

Are you just repeating what I said?

Without time valuation  element  1 BTC = 1 BTC

But with the Time valuation element e.g price of BTC in consideration, the price of BTC last 2010 is not the same as the price of BTC this year but as I said it can't be represented as 1BTC ≠ 1BTC because in the mathematical equation we need to represent the different time valuation element (x, y) so better presentation would be 1xBTC ≠ 1yBTC

I don't know how you cherrypick lines in my post just to do your argument when all you do is just repeat what I said. Besides I am just giving my thought on how to present OP's idea in the right equation.

So I think you need to reread my whole post

---

In my opinion presentation in a correct mathematical equation is far more solid than any other argument. It is like proof of a fact.

So in what case is this a solid argument really?  Almost anything in this world has value and you could use this 'time valuation element' for about anything.  So?  What does it prove?  1 Bitcoin is still 1 Bitcoin, even if valued differently.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I think the problem lies in the equation presented.

1 BTC is indeed equal to 1 BTC.  so there is no problem with this representation of 1 BTC = 1 BTC
Since this equation is presented without a time valuation element which makes the equation correct.

But OP wanted to emphasize on the valuation of BTC at a different time like 1 BTC value in 2010 is not equal to the 1 BTC value of 2022 but this can't be represented by this equation 1BTC ≠ 1 BTC because this equation is missing a variable which is the time element of valuation.  If OP wanted to put an argument then he should use the proper presentation of the equation simply by adding x and y variables where x and y represents different time of BTC valuation. So I think OP should use 1xBTC ≠ 1yBTC where x and y is the time of BTC valuation .

Personally what I understand through the phrase "1 BTC = 1 BTC" is that Bitcoin is a scarce asset whose value should not be viewed through the lens of a fiat currency. Again the issue of value vs price.
Let's be honest, Bitcoin won't become a full-fledged currency until we can pay with it in the store at the street corner. Until then BTC is pretty much an asset, not a currency. Yes, you can use it to transfer money around the world with insignificant transaction fees and decently quick processing time, but there are still some steps to climb before I'd consider it a mainstream currency.

I think that this is the Bitcoin ascension path - first acting as a good store-of-value asset than slowly becoming the currency of our world. Makes sense to me.

It was the basic defense mechanism, you know. You lap on something to make you feel good and justify your shortcoming or missed chance. If anyone here got another chance to sell their BTC back when it was at ATH which was over $60k, I think everyone would take it in a heartbeat. Who knows, maybe a few more years when BTC price at $100k or goes as low as $5k. People wish they were buying or didn't sell at $20k.

Basically, we're human and build around that unreasonable gloating to overcome our mistakes or miss a good chance to do something, cope as you said. If anyone here thinks I was shiting on them for that, please don't. I think it's completely normal behavior to pull ourselves forward and make our lives easier, and less negative. If not then it will be full of depression and can lead to suicide which you guys must saw it occasionally on the news: "Man kills himself because lost his money in crypto". It's just sad.

Yes, because that is the closest we can get to another currency that lost its value hard and fast otherwise if you want to see weakening purchase power you can use any other currency you like like "dollar or yen"  but in most other cases this loss has a slow pace which can be seen as inflation rate and if you want to know the real value of currencies you have to look at price of groceries, utility bills, rent, etc. which is obviously rising against all fiat currencies at all times, sometimes slower and sometimes faster.

back when we were around the 45k price range, i wanted to buy a graphics card for around 450 bucks (around 0.009btc at the time on newegg), but i didn't pull the trigger, i was so naive, i expected this btc price to hold and i thought i'd wait a little longer for gpu prices to go lower ... now the same graphics card costs around $350 but 0.0177 btc 🤡, so yeah, this bear market fcked me

i've come to the conclusion that this mantra some ppl use when there's a major downtrend is one of many coping mechanisms, these people only see btc as an investment (some even as a get rich but-not-so-quick scheme) and nothing more, "hodl hodl until 250k next year" and never spend, they prolly never read the btc whitepaper and don't knowt btc was supposed to be used for

you had to used one of the most extreme scenarios in the world right now (a country with triple digits inflation) to try to prove your point about purchasing power, hmm... what about the dollar or the yen? you know, fiat currencies in countries that have had economic stability over the past few years

taint was not introduced about fungibility.. taint was about the tracing of a coins audit back to its origin coinbase reward that validated that the coin was created by the rules

it later become re-branded as a blacklist of treating different coins differently due to the purpose of who previously handled the coins and why


but here is the thing. fiat has [new definition of]taint too
when you receive fiat.
you have to fill in a taint report.. AKA a tax form where you have to inform the IRS where your income came from
where each form of income comes with different tax % levels.
yep a $100 received from a pension is treated differently than a $100 from an employer. vs different than a $100 gift from a relative
and yes the police treat a $100 from a drug dealer differently than $100 you got from your family.

a retailer may refuse to accept a single bank note of $100 or refuse to accept 1000 dimes. retailers would prefer to accept 10x $10 or 20x$5

currencies "fungibility" is not what people think it is. a $100 is not treated like another $100

What a coincidence! I've been just writing up a presentation on laws of logic and issues with them, and one of them is the law of identity, which is true only with certain limitations that we're talking about something in the same respect and of the same time. When 1 BTC = 1 BTC is presented, it's a simple identity of logic, A=A. However, it is only true when we're talking about 1 BTC in the same respect (in this case, purely as one unit of the Bitcoin currency) and at the same time (which also helps to fix the issue with the price, as the price changes over time). Each time I see it, I also tend to write that this is incorrect because of the purchasing power of Bitcoin that changes over time, and the disregard of this purchasing power is unforgivable if we're considering Bitcoin as a currency. So good job, op, I agree with your point.

I don't know what would have happened if what happened had not happened. Getting into thinking about that is quasi-philosophizing too, but surely it was the drop and the debate with you that led me to the conclusion, and, leaving aside what would have happened if what has happened hadn't happened, I think the argument would be equally valid if Bitcoin today was worth $0.4M as some theory predicted last year. The thing is that we could say that 1BTC ≠ 1BTC in a more positive way, because the purchasing power would have multiplied by almost 7 in less than a year.


What happens is that if we leave aside fiat shitcoins like Venezuela's, major currencies like the USD or the Euro lose purchasing power much more slowly. Like the British pound sterling, which was worth a pound of sterling silver in its origins and today is worth almost nothing in comparison but hundreds of years have passed.

I will comment strictly based on your title.  You say that one Bitcoin worth 69 thousand loaves is not equal to one Bitcoin worth 20 thousand loaves.  I think it is pretty clear even from your own title that one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin, but what differs is the quantity of stuff you get from it.

But on the other hand, while you can now get say 3 times less loaves with 1 Bitcoin, you can for example get a ton more Shitcoins using it than you could when Bitcoin was 69k.  And while for you loaves may be more important, maybe for me Shitcoins are.  In that case, you are in disadvantage while I am not.

Then think about it.  While there are things you can now buy in less quantity and other things you can buy in higher quantity due to changing purchasing power, there are some things that are still priced the same they used to be years, maybe even decades ago.  For example, the cost of Bitcointalk VIP membership.

So if we are talking about purchasing power, we will enter a long debate that, at least on my end, finishes the same way:  one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin and just because what it was worth yesterday is different from what it is worth today does not make two Bitcoins different.

Think Dollar.  You have $100 in your wallet.  Yesterday you saw a t-shirt that was up for sale at $100 and today it was reduced by a discount of 50%.  Yesterday you could get the t-shirt for 100% of your money and have 0% left in your wallet while today you can get the t-shirt for 50% of your money and still have 50% in your wallet to buy other stuff with or just hold on to.  Does that make your $100 from today different to the $100 from yesterday?

Does inflation change your $1 bill that you are still holding from a decade ago?  Besides purchasing power in some cases, there is no difference that I see.  $1 is still $1.

Anyway.  The discussion about 1 Bitcoin still being 1 Bitcoin no matter what has pretty much started from the debate whether Bitcoin is or is not fungible.  Some people say my Bitcoin is different from yours because they have a different history.  Some people say they are the same, because 'tainted history' is a made-up term that appeared only after Bitcoin was created and a decade ago there was no such thing.  I tend to agree with both sides.  I also agree with what Loyce or o_e_l_e_o once said here.  The most successful attack over Bitcoin is that they introduced this term, 'taint', which made us believe Bitcoin is not fungible at all.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG