Topic: Bitcoin can never become a currency. Part 1: scarce supply. (Read 833 times)

Actually I agree with you . Even I myself have posted a few posts in this behalf talking about how Economics looks unsustainable with Bitcoin as a terms of payment. But yes it is analyzed on our knowledge of Existing Economics and not to mention which is formed after seeing failure of gold as a currency which economically had pretty similar traits.
But yes when it comes to talking about reserve currency then I don't think it would work again. We had gold as tethered commodity for our currency before the Bretten woods Conference. But then with passage of time countries and especially bretten woods countries shifted to tethering USD as a base currency and after 1971 even that idea was cancelled and today no country has any reserve currency for issuing their currency. Even if make bitcoin as a reserve currency today. what are the chances that all this won't happen again?

You have interpreted the world BTC supply altogether wrong. Money doesn't works this way atleast as per our existing knowledge of Economics. What you are talking about is deflationary money supply which isn't good for Economy. OP is talking about the injections and the leakages to the overall Bitcoin circulating supply. I mean if you have 21 Million BTC in totality you will have that much of money in totality. Once this money has reached the hands of people and they spend the same our growth levels would increase. This is called a deflationary spiral.Actually their are two aspects to it. One is that limited success of Bitcoin as a mainstream currency itself proves that people are more interesting in hoarding rather than spending. Now when we are expecting a global economic scenario this becomes even more prominent. As when it reaches to every strata of society who know that this coin's value will increase the next day they would go on to hold it. If you feel that it won't increase everyday feel free to read theory of "Deflationary Spiral" on google any day. Now this is where people would be spending much less than what they are earning. Making Economics pretty unorganized. Yes if you are using it as an alternate source just like we are now then you might not face such a major issue.

n the case of bitcoin investing it is better to invest a small amount at first Most traders never buy or hold a whole bitcoin They keep a small amount so that if the price goes up they can make the same profit as the whole. Bitcoin investing is much better but has to wait a long time No one can say when the price will go up Bitcoin has more market advantages than the gold market.

Scarcity is one of the main Bitcoin's benefits. Bitcoin is divisible in fact, so its limited supply doesn't mean that we will have not enough Bitcoins in circulation. Gold is scare too, but it has been good as a mean of exchange for ages.

You might be right, but there is one thing I have noticed whenever people are talking about bitcoin being limited in supply; they just go ahead and say that there are only twenty one million BTC, but these people forget that Bitcoin also have fractions, and even most of the people that are buying Bitcoin these days are just buying fractions, and not one whole Bitcoin, they just buy like 10,000 Satoshi, more or less and things like that.

We have 100 million for every one bitcoin there is and that's a lot of it. The more people are buying into it, the increase in demands sets an increase in how much it is worth. So before we run out of supply just as you have said, it's definitely going to be taking a really long time.

That is a delicate question. In.a traditional, formal way Bitcoin can hardly be considered as a currency and limited supply is definetely one of the biggest obstacles although not the only one. However, people use Bitcoin as a currency and they will continue to do so. No country will ever use Bitcoin as their national currency and something that supports the financial system but people will continue to use Bitcoin as a payment method that is alternative to fiat currencies and it can function that way.

Isn’t it the natural way of progress? Production becomes more effective, we can produce more with the same resources and consume more accordingly. I hope you are not trying to state that we should get back to riding horses and using carrier pigeons for communication.


On the contrary, a use a setup where Bitcoin is a secondary currency accepted on par with the national currency. You must have not read my post. Moreover, I directly admit that it cannot be done, which, however, doesn’t change the fact that assuming the opposite is the most convenient model for analysis.


Again, you must have missed the point of my post. I do not model the setup where BTC is the only currency. The problem is that once it becomes widely accepted, thus gaining the properties of a currency, it destroys all competing assets and inevitably becomes the only currency unless the government applies restrictive measures toward it. And then come troubles.


The original whitepaper is titled “a peer-to-peer electronic cash system”. In that paper, Satoshi describes a system for direct payments between sellers and buyers, which serve as an alternative to the banking system. No matter how hard you try, you will find nothing about a global reserve currency. The main idea of my post (and the upcoming next posts) is to discuss the initial ideas, problems that emerged, and a solution to these problems.

As for a global reserve currency, it’s just a very desirable scenario for hodlers, who are still waiting for Bitcoin to hit 1 mil USD. I agree that it can be used for storing reserves to a certain extent, but not nearly as a fully-fledged supranational currency. The scarcity of the supply together with trade imbalances will lead to the accumulation of Bitcoins on the balance sheets of major exporters, which will be able to manipulate the available supply and hence exchange rates. SDR seems a much more adequate alternative.


No, this proposes a system where exporters gain power over importers, not speaking about other various hodlers. Out of the frying pan into the fire. We can propose a specific permissioned blockchain controlled by a board of national representatives for that purpose, but definitely not Bitcoin.


These are. Wars stopped being drivers of the economy long ago. This statement may have been legit in the pre industrial era, when economy was zero-sum and the overall wealth of one country could only be improved at the expense of the wealth of others. To a certain extent, it worked during the world wars. Nowadays, in the era of rapid technological advancement, a war is a lose-lose.


Again, we have SDR, which you mentioned yourself. What's wrong about that? Other countries rely on USD, because it is considered... reliable! There were days when a British pound played that role, but the US proved to run a more stable and powerfull economy and took up the baton. This seems quite natural, no conspiracy behind.


“Non-inflatable” and “stable” are words that don’t seem to get along in one sentence. Satoshi may have intended something like that, but he was wrong about the issuance model. In practice, we will only get the world of speculations and volatility.

I actually explained it in the post that you quoted. It’s a matter of comprehension of the term “currency”. As I said, any liquid asset can be accepted for payments. Many merchants would accept stocks or bonds not because they are currencies, but because they can be quickly converted into any currency. The same with Bitcoin: a merchant who accepts BTC for payments simply converts it into USD. He doesn’t pay wages in BTC and doesn’t by raw materials etc.

Think about it from another perspective. Say we have a Bitcoin-powered economy and we can count a GDP rate. There is a financial market (BTC exchanged into other financial assets) and some real economy (BTC exchanged into goods and services). The ratio of these components tells us to what extent BTC can be perceived as a currency. If the real economy prevails, we can conclude that BTC is more of a currency than a financial asset. At the current stage (and I suppose in the future as well), we cannot call Bitcoin a currency, for the real economy is just a tiny fraction of its turnover.

The barter trading is really the reason why bitcoin is having an expensive price because a lot of people and investors are buying bitcoin as an investment and as a safe asset. Bitcoin would never be a currency due to its decentralization that no one can control it, no matter what happens. Bitcoin would only be a currency if it will only become centralized.

Hello OP. Bitcoin's proposed "world-economy" scenario has been a matter of debate for quite long now.  Your analysis is based on the established understanding of economics. The one which says that an incessant pursuit of "growth" in GDP numbers is the only way for the economy to function. You are wrapping this idea in form of an analysis of what it would look like to have bitcoin as the only currency. In layman's terms, it naturally sounds like it cannot be done.

This premise that bitcoin will be the only payment method is false in itself. No bitcoin proponent sees bitcoin as the "only currency". The major argument is that it should replace USD/SDR as a reserve currency. This proposes a system where economic machinations will not become dependent on one country's geo-strategic requirements. Wars will not be used as a way to generate demand. These are not conspiracy theories. These are all very real outcomes of an economic system which has relied on the USD as a reserve currency and establishing supremacy of certain institutions in deciding how the world grows, through an indirect control of the economy. What bitcoin envisages is a world where Public spending will be transparent, traceable and decentralized, apart from every citizen having a hand in the pie of a non-inflatable stable asset.

That is the bigger picture for bitcoin's usage. LN enabling coffee micropayments would just be nice to have.

Because Bitcoin is decentralized it cannot be converted into currency Also most people prefer to use Bitcoin and do not want to convert it into currency If centralized it would be used as currency. There are also many countries in the world that do not use Bitcoin, they can deal with the currency but there will be many problems but it will take a long time for Bitcoin to become legal If the currency is not supplied properly Fiat will replace Bitcoin as currency.

I just anwer base on your subject. I think not the scarce or limited supply of bitcoin is the reason that it cannot be like a fiat currency but the way it was used because it always need an internet to transact which other people can't do. Anyway Bitcoin is already a currency which have a different usage but it can't be a world currency because it was not issued by the government and Banks has no controlled power over it.

Man, the concept of bitcoin and stocks is basically a barter trading, they are relaying on the law of supply and demand as you can see if the demand is low then, the price is low and if the demand is high then, the price is also high. Bitcoin have up's and down cause it basically using the law of supply and demand and as we all know, Barter trading is the first trading system that use the law supply and demand.

Bitcoin will never be a currency, it's more like a stocks or an good asset to invest with.

we'll have to start over again with BTC if we are going to increase its supply.  its been discussed in the early stage of bitcoin while its experimental but miners continue to mine til what it is right now. no reboot happened because of the consensus.

i'm sure its going to be alright if BTC isn't going to be used as currency. if you wanna pay $0.50 worth of BTC while the transaction cost more than $10, i suggest you pay thru paypal or altcoin if accepted or simply ask a person beside you for change.


there are merchants that accepts BTC, we don't need to turn it into USD. just send BTC to their wallet and we get the product we want. we can't call it barter because BTC is cryptoCURRENCY. we literally use BTC to buy something.

If it becomes unaffordable for average txs, it's going to be a problem for all of us.. Imagine having to spend $10 on a transaction you would've spent $0.5 at most years before. I get it that the 21M supply should stay the same, but if we ever get to the point where it becomes unaffordable for the average person to use BTC then lots of people will simply quit, leading to a decline of demand and therefore a price decline.

Why is that? It's literally like having a $0.99 item show up starting from tomorrow as $0.9900 in all shops. That doesn't change anything at all besides the fact that you'd have the possibility to own the 100th part of a cent. Think of exchanges, where you have $9,450.85⁰²³² with 4 digits added to the end. It doesn't change its value at all.

Yes brother you are right.. it is currently used as an alternative financial system and it is not possible for the government to control it.

I have verified the scarcity of the supply and I can say that the sample I have is due to ignorance about the use of bitcoin and disinterest. Because I did my sampling in the supermarkets in my city and offered to pay for my food with bitcoin, and they did not accept. What could be the solution?
If the country allows the use of Bitcoin as part of its economy, the economic sector and the population must be informed on how to use it.

Sure, in the same way that a hard fork increasing the block size can be easily changed theoretically.

I think you overestimate how easily the most sacred protocol rule in Bitcoin can be changed. Every Bitcoin user would literally be diluting their own wealth in such a fork. That's never going to be a popular proposition. They would only willingly do so if Bitcoin was on the brink of total failure due to breakdown of mining incentives. By that point I honestly think BTC is much more likely to be abandoned wholesale than to become a global reserve currency.


He didn't name it "global reserve currency" either, did he?

If he intended for that then yes, I think he designed it incorrectly.

A currency is by definition the most liquid asset or an asset that is accepted in exchange for all other assets. The key property is absolute liquidity: you know that you can use the currency to purchase anything you need without the need to convert it into intermediary assets.

There are less liquid assets that can be also used as a medium of exchange. For example, you want to sell me something, but I only have stocks of Apple inc. You may not need them, but you will likely accept my offer, because you know that you can quickly sell them any time at a market price. All coins that you mentioned have the same properties: being sufficiently liquid, they can be used as a medium of exchange in many situations, but that doesn’t make them currencies, as they are not accepted widely as such, whereby are less liquid than money. In my post, I try to describe what will happen if Bitcoin becomes a currency that is, gaining equal liquidity with a traditional fiat currency.

Barter implies exchanging less liquid assets that are not expected to be quickly sold in the open market, but are rather needed directly by the parties (you give me something that I need and visa versa) or at least known to be needed by a third party for the subsequent barter.

It is a currency? I mean just because it is not the main currency doesn't mean it is not a currency. Ethereum is a currency, litecoin is a currency, all the coins in the market is a currency. What you are trying say is "bitcoin will never become standard currency" which is totally different thing to say. I do agree that bitcoin not being the main currency is likely, after all not only scarcity but volatility and decentralization are all cause for bitcoin to be not a standard currency in any nation.

However that doesn't change the fact that you can use crypto to buy stuff and that means if you are paying with it, that is a currency. It is not barter neither, it is not like you give 2 chickens and get 5kg meat type of barter, it is really a currency that has a worth in any other currency as well.

There are some hardcore supporter that wouldnt want to change such fundamental thing. There probably wont be any consensus achieved in the future regarding this . 21 M supply and thats it  . Thats why all those bitcoin forks shows up. Some legit forks happened because they want to solve "problem" that arises from the current state of the network


By adding more decimals to it , that means the value will be much lower as well. In some sense, it will be the same as increasing the total supply. It wont be exactly the same but it is very similar