There is no causal relationship between inflation and the nature of dollars.
Well you did not answer my question. I
f dollar is similar to "RIGHT to goods" than where are my 97 $ worth goods? dollar is just piece of paper that i worth as much as someone is going to give for it currently. It has no value.
From that chart you can see that its value is continuously going to 0.
Average fiat currency dies after 27 years...
Your 97 $ worth goods are on the market. Borrowers are constantly producing goods and services to be able to earn salaries or revenue for their dollar loan payments. In other words, borrowers are obligated to use your dollars, which means that you have rights to their goods and services. So, it's pretty simple.
Your overall point is quite interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that since bitcoin is just some code in a database and doesn't correspond to real-world value, it cannot be considered sound money or a currency. You're right in that bitcoin originated in a form that wasn't backed by real-world value. Now, to create real-world value, all it takes is the faith of two people. That's it. Two people, amongst each other, have to agree that there is value in bitcoin, and all of a sudden, it's backed by everything in the world that has value.
A simple example is this, which happened to me last night. Some friends came to my dorm room, and we decided to play blackjack. We didn't have money - all we had were playing cards and Monopoly Deal cards (which is another card game). We decided that for that session, one Monopoly Deal card would be worth $1, and we played blackjack using the Monopoly Deal cards as chips. It is true that intrinsically, the Monopoly Deal cards have little to no value. However, in that room, and in that game, each card became worth $1 simply because we, amongst each other, trusted that we would honour the value. If one of the friends in the group who was acting as the dealer refused to payout the Monopoly Deal cards into real money in case someone won, then the cards would no longer be considered valuable.
Bitcoin is just what I described above blown up to a worldwide scale. Yes, bitcoins are intrisincally worthless. The moment a network of people starts to accept it, it instantly gains value. Now, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people worldwide consider bitcoin to be money - money in the sense, it has value, it can purchase food, goods, services, and whatnot. If 100,000 people consider something to be worth $X, it doesn't matter if that object is code or dog shit. It's still valuable, and it still works, because of global decentralized trust. Not to mention the actual hardware and electricity that goes into maintaining the proof of work required to create blocks. That's a different argument altogether.
Trust is the mother of all investment frauds. You invest a certain amount of money into someone's investment scheme, then some data about you and your investment is added into the organizer's database (DB) as a record of your investment, and all you are left with is TRUST. Trust that you will get your money back in the future. But that in no way means that DB record of your investment is valuable, i.e. that trust magically made it valuable. This record is just a mark of your investment. Nothing more and nothing less. You cannot utilize that mark like goods or services are utilized. Also, that mark is not legally enforceable like dollars are since they are debt certificates that grant rights to goods, services or collateral of the borrowers on the bases of their obligation to repay loans. So your mark or record in the DB is entirely worthless in economic sense. The same is true for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just a numerical mark added into the DB. It is a mere DB entry that, as such, has zero value, regardless of TRUST.
Good thoughts, and well put. Here's what you're saying:
Bitcoin is bad because it is based on -
i) Trust that you will receive your money back in the future
ii) A "mark" can't be used for goods or services
iii) Something that is not legally enforceable
iv) An organizer's central database
Dollars are good because they are based on -
i) Debt payable by a central entity
ii) An obligation for people to pay back loans
First and foremost, there are a few misconceptions about your idea of bitcoin. It is true that most speculators purchase bitcoin in the hopes that they can recover their money, with profit, in the future. However, for the people who use bitcoin as it is intended, they are generally doing it just to convert their fiat currency into a form of sound and secure money. Their purchase of bitcoin is not necessarily based on trust that they will one day get their money back, because they truly see bitcoin as money. (I, personally, feel the same way to some extent). That's point number one. The second misconception you have is that bitcoin can't be used for goods and services... it absolutely can. Your point was true in 2011 and maybe 2012, but it's 2019, and I can buy almost anything with bitcoin... things that even the dollar cannot buy.
Point number three may be a con; I'd agree with that. Bitcoin is not legally enforceable. Of course, it is a pareto optimality thing, because whereas buyers are worse off that they have no recourse if they send money to a scammer, merchants are much more safe when they accept bitcoin transactions. If you've tried PayPal, it's an utter nightmare for sellers. If PayPal was used on the dark web... imagine the utter shitshow it would be, speaking both legally and otherwise. So, yeah. Something not being legally enforceable is not always a bad thing. And of course, the fourth point... bitcoin is probably the furthest thing from a central database. That's the whole purpose of nodes, and that's the whole purpose of keeping the blocksize small: so that there can be an abundance of little databases peppered across the world who can verify and store what's going on, all the time.
Let's move onto dollars, shall we? It's very true that dollars are backed by something very tangible, and something that's unlikely to ever fall apart. However, it is eventually based on trust in a centralized system (which seems to be something you hate if it's in bitcoin, but something you praise if it's in dollars...?) Moreover, given an infinite timeframe, anything centralized is bound to collapse. All rules fade away (re: The British Empire), all fiat currencies die or inflate away into oblivion. Not to say that won't happen to bitcoin (it's a very young, 10 year old experiment) but it's much less likely to happen, since its value is based on decentralized, widespread trust which seems to grow day by day.
In conclusion, you're right that as of now, bitcoin is more risky. You see the government as more secure that a system of widespread trust, and I completely understand it. It's a rational position to have. But, over time, as the dollar inflates, as more governments turn tyrannical, as more and more restrictions are imposed... people will start craving freedom. People will crave power over their own money, and will want to stop being financially boxed in. People will crave... bitcoin.