Besides the miners that HODL since the early CPU and GPU days, and a lucky few who bought and cashed out before the last bubbles had burst, the majority only lost money.
Of course. Bitcoin is a zero-sum game. Bitcoin doesn't generate any revenue or produce anything. For every win, someone else loses.
Exactly the same as gold.
The same as stocks, the same as futures, the same of the universe, the same of the atoms...
Welcome to the jungle baby, it's the survival of the fittest
you guys are wrong. bitcoin is not a zero sum game, as ultimately it's use is when its converted to fiat for purchases.
therefore if it gradually appreciates against fiat, the holders of bitcoin as a group would gain. The holders of the fiat would lose. But bitcoin would be a net winner.
Wrong. Bitcoin is a zero sum game. All the purchasing power of bitcoin comes from fiat invested in it. And there is only so much fiat in it as it was invested. It's mathematically impossible for everyone to have more purchasing power than before. Someone has to lose. It only seems that everyone is winning while majority is holding and not trying to realize their profits.
bitcoin gains in purchasing power because more and more goods and services are being exchanged for it.
the bitcoin economy is growing rapidly while the bitcoin inflation rate is decreasing exponentially.
that is another reason why bitcoin's purchasing power is going to be alot higher in the future.
Wrong. New goods and services require capital investment. Monetary supply (credit money) expand to meet the demand for new captical. Central bank control cost of credit using monetary policy. These policies try to counteract extreme swings in business cycles. Why do you think fiat is so stable? Because its elastic
Your mistake is thinking goods are exchanged for bitcoin its not. Its exchanged for fiat. Bitcoin price is purely speculative
Its because you don't understand monetary economics
when central banks manipulate the cost of credit they don't only increase capital investment, consumption is equally increased, the net result is zero increase in resource allocation for capital investment.
even if the central bankers could only increase capital investment they have no way of knowing what millions of people actually want to consume, any allocation of capital they will make will be wrong.
these interest rate manipulation policies are exactly what causes the extreme swings in business cycles, fiat is stable? compared to what? this doesn't look stable to me:
goods are exchanged for bitcoin, the fact that people choose to foolishly convert their bitcoin to fiat afterwards doesn't change that.
i understand monetary economics perfectly fine.