Deflation or inflation, I don't think it really matters, because value or price is just a relative issue. Anyway, I was wondering about Satoshi's strategy and recently I saw some resemblance between the growth in amount of BTC and the world wide population ... watch the green line and 2040. Maybe it's unrelated, maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
Topic: [CHART] Bitcoin Inflation vs. Time - page 41. (Read 1197828 times)
Will we be able to measure or account for the coins that get lost and therefore deflate the system. Hopefully it will be an insignificant amount.
There's no general way to differentiate between "lost" coins and coins that are simply in long-term storage, so the answer to your question is "no."
Will we be able to measure or account for the coins that get lost and therefore deflate the system. Hopefully it will be an insignificant amount.
I thought we had been proceeding on the assumption that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future. Otherwise this whole discussion makes no sense...
hostmaster made a claim that "scarcity" would be greater in the future without specifying that the declaration was dependent on the assumption that bitcoin would gather steam.
I pointed out that there is no guarantee that "scarcity" would be greater. (It is entirely possible that bitcoin won't gather steam, and as such "scarcity" could be lesser in the future due to the increase in supply).
The fact that you assumed that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future explains why (as you've pointed out) your declarations "make no sense".
Now, if we choose to discuss what will happen to scarcity if bitcoin "gathers steam", then I would agree that the assumed increased demand would logically lead to an increase in scarcity, but to declare that "there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040" regardless of the future popularity of bitcoin would be a false statement.
This is exactly what I call petty semantics and nitpicking in general... The phrase itself ("there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040") already implicitly implies that bitcoin would live up to that and probably have gathered some recognition and popularity as money...
I thought we had been proceeding on the assumption that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future. Otherwise this whole discussion makes no sense...
hostmaster made a claim that "scarcity" would be greater in the future without specifying that the declaration was dependent on the assumption that bitcoin would gather steam.
I pointed out that there is no guarantee that "scarcity" would be greater. (It is entirely possible that bitcoin won't gather steam, and as such "scarcity" could be lesser in the future due to the increase in supply).
The fact that you assumed that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future explains why (as you've pointed out) your declarations "make no sense".
Now, if we choose to discuss what will happen to scarcity if bitcoin "gathers steam", then I would agree that the assumed increased demand would logically lead to an increase in scarcity, but to declare that "there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040" regardless of the future popularity of bitcoin would be a false statement.
Certainly.
So you are suggesting that hostmaster has some reliable ability to predict how much of bitcoin will be in circulation and how much will be "stashed away" 26 years in the future?
And what is so magical about the year 2040?
Will there not "be more scarcity" in 2014? How about 2020, or 2030? Will scarcity then decrease in 2050?
So you are suggesting that hostmaster has some reliable ability to predict how much of bitcoin will be in circulation and how much will be "stashed away" 26 years in the future?
And what is so magical about the year 2040?
Will there not "be more scarcity" in 2014? How about 2020, or 2030? Will scarcity then decrease in 2050?
It is common for a store of value (what bitcoin is positioned for by its deflationary nature) to be squirreled away. So you needn't be a prophet to claim the increasing scarcity of bitcoin, provided its limited and decreasing supply through the rest of years...
You do need to be a prophet to claim the increasing scarcity of bitcoin, since there is no way of knowing if bitcoin will continue to be desired, valued, and used in the future. The fact that something is in limited supply does not guarantee that it will continue to be used as a store of value. The teeth in my mouth are of limited supply, but they don't appear to be storing much value at all.
I thought we had been proceeding on the assumption that bitcoin would somehow gather steam in the future. Otherwise this whole discussion makes no sense...
These figures taken by themselves alone mean nothing. And yes, if the majority of coins are in few hands, things will be close to that, i.e more scarcity for Bitcoins in the future. Money stashed away is lost for the economy. Henry Hazlitt explains it very well...
Certainly.
So you are suggesting that hostmaster has some reliable ability to predict how much of bitcoin will be in circulation and how much will be "stashed away" 26 years in the future?
And what is so magical about the year 2040?
Will there not "be more scarcity" in 2014? How about 2020, or 2030? Will scarcity then decrease in 2050?
It is common for a store of value (what bitcoin is positioned for by its deflationary nature) to be squirreled away. So you needn't be a prophet to claim the increasing scarcity of bitcoin, provided its limited and decreasing supply through the rest of years...
You do need to be a prophet to claim the increasing scarcity of bitcoin, since there is no way of knowing if bitcoin will continue to be desired, valued, and used in the future. The fact that something is in limited supply does not guarantee that it will continue to be used as a store of value. The teeth in my mouth are of limited supply, but they don't appear to be storing much value at all.
These figures taken by themselves alone mean nothing. And yes, if the majority of coins are in few hands, things will be close to that, i.e more scarcity for Bitcoins in the future. Money stashed away is lost for the economy. Henry Hazlitt explains it very well...
Certainly.
So you are suggesting that hostmaster has some reliable ability to predict how much of bitcoin will be in circulation and how much will be "stashed away" 26 years in the future?
And what is so magical about the year 2040?
Will there not "be more scarcity" in 2014? How about 2020, or 2030? Will scarcity then decrease in 2050?
It is common for a store of value (what bitcoin is positioned for by its deflationary nature) to be squirreled away. So you needn't be a prophet to claim the increasing scarcity of bitcoin, provided its limited and decreasing supply through the rest of years...
It seems there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040. But i think more decimals we will be using at that time...
Bitcoin supply today (2013 December 29):
Approximately 12 189 325
Bitcoin supply in the year 2040:
Approximately 20 917 968
You are suggesting that 20 917 968 is less than 12 189 325?
These figures taken by themselves alone mean nothing. And yes, if the majority of coins are in few hands, things will be close to that, i.e more scarcity for Bitcoins in the future. Money stashed away is lost for the economy. Henry Hazlitt explains it very well...
Certainly.
So you are suggesting that hostmaster has some reliable ability to predict how much of bitcoin will be in circulation and how much will be "stashed away" 26 years in the future?
And what is so magical about the year 2040?
Will there not "be more scarcity" in 2014? How about 2020, or 2030? Will scarcity then decrease in 2050?
It seems there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040. But i think more decimals we will be using at that time...
Bitcoin supply today (2013 December 29):
Approximately 12 189 325
Bitcoin supply in the year 2040:
Approximately 20 917 968
You are suggesting that 20 917 968 is less than 12 189 325?
These figures taken by themselves alone mean nothing. And yes, if the majority of coins are in few hands, things will be close to that, i.e more scarcity for Bitcoins in the future. Money stashed away is lost for the economy. Henry Hazlitt explains it very well...
It seems there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040. But i think more decimals we will be using at that time...
Bitcoin supply today (2013 December 29):
Approximately 12 189 325
Bitcoin supply in the year 2040:
Approximately 20 917 968
You are suggesting that 20 917 968 is less than 12 189 325?
Thanks for the graphs, very much appreciated.
It seems there will be more scarcity for Bitcoins as near 2040. But i think more decimals we will be using at that time...
The list isn't as endless as you'd think.
Being first to market is significant, and the network effect makes it difficult for a cheap copy to usurp the existing infrastructure. However, if something significantly better (or better managed and marketed) comes along, it will almost certainly replace bitcoin.
Well right, duh. Those were just examples of "first" to significant market and the difficulty involved in toppling them.Being first to market is significant, and the network effect makes it difficult for a cheap copy to usurp the existing infrastructure. However, if something significantly better (or better managed and marketed) comes along, it will almost certainly replace bitcoin.
Just as Wang was unstoppable. Or Sony. Or Nokia. Or Blackberry. Or Apple "is" now. They all fall at some point (even though that will kill the Apple fanbois). But you illustrate my point when you say something will "almost certainly" replace BTC. Sure, just as something will almost certainly replace gold or diamonds.
That does not mean that BTC is dead or not viable before it has even really started.
Sure. Like Google has been succeeded. Diamonds have been. Gold. Kahlua. Bailey's. Microsoft. Amazon. Facebook. This list is endless. The point being that "first to market" has remarkable staying power. Not that BTC can't be replaced, but that it is likely to remain dominant for a looooong time.
Yahoo was the leading search engine and web portal, Google succeeded it. (Yahoo still exists, but without nearly the market dominant position it once had).
MySpace was the leading social media site, Facebook succeeded it. (MySpace still exists, but without nearly the market dominant position it once had).
There were many e-commerce websites that started before Amazon, Amazon succeeded all of them. Most of them don't exist at all any longer.
Microsoft certainly wasn't the first computer operating system. Microsoft succeeded those earlier operating systems.
Clearly, nothing can be gold or diamonds except gold and diamonds. However, there were many things that were used to store and transfer value before gold and diamonds succeeded them.
The list isn't as endless as you'd think.
Being first to market is significant, and the network effect makes it difficult for a cheap copy to usurp the existing infrastructure. However, if something significantly better (or better managed and marketed) comes along, it will almost certainly replace bitcoin.
First of all I suppose that for most of us bitcoin enthusiasts it would not really matter much whether bitcoin lived on or whether its idea lived on in some bitcoin 2 or newbitcoin or whatever. The fundamental idea is out of the bottle and will not go back in. I guess we completely agree on this.
That said, bitcoin is different from companies like Microsoft or Google and their products, because they and their products change a lot all the time.
Bitcoin, on the contrary, is relatively difficult to change. You need a 51% majority at the very least, and if you cannot gather an 80% majority for a particular change, the change will be a painful tug of war, involving a fork, cancelled transactions, double-spending, and all that. Moreover, that 51+% majority has to agree entirely on each and every detail of the change. Humans are notoriously bad at that degree of cooperation. Ants are much better.
In any case, may the best peer-to-peer currency be with us always! I wish you all a nice Xmas.
That said, bitcoin is different from companies like Microsoft or Google and their products, because they and their products change a lot all the time.
Bitcoin, on the contrary, is relatively difficult to change. You need a 51% majority at the very least, and if you cannot gather an 80% majority for a particular change, the change will be a painful tug of war, involving a fork, cancelled transactions, double-spending, and all that. Moreover, that 51+% majority has to agree entirely on each and every detail of the change. Humans are notoriously bad at that degree of cooperation. Ants are much better.
In any case, may the best peer-to-peer currency be with us always! I wish you all a nice Xmas.
Let me add that the points made here may well turn out to be moot, because bitcoin in its current form is just the first version of an independent, decentralized currency. It would surprise me very much if it were not succeeded by something better in due time.
Sure. Like Google has been succeeded. Diamonds have been. Gold. Kahlua. Bailey's. Microsoft. Amazon. Facebook. This list is endless. The point being that "first to market" has remarkable staying power. Not that BTC can't be replaced, but that it is likely to remain dominant for a looooong time. Bitcoin's design is ingenious. It deserves to function for years to come. But it is not the ultimately perfect currency. It has some shortcomings. For example, it is unsuitable as a world-wide micropayment system, because a very high number of transactions would overwhelm its current blockchain design. It is also too slow for daily casual payments, if you want to wait for an hour or more (in fact for an indefinite time) for the usual six confirmation blocks before you can fully trust a transaction.
You kill your own argument here with temporal issues. You even note it with "currrent blockchain design". You're saying that in the future, the system will still be limited by it's present issues. That's nuts. But it still seems unlikely to me that bitcoin is the ultimate currency and nothing better would ever be invented. Therefore I propose to use bitcoin as much as possible for as long as it lasts. I don't think it will be for so long that coin loss will become a major problem.
Maybe I have misinterpreted your post, but no one is saying that BTC is the ultimate currency, anymore than Bailey's is the ultimate Irish cream, or Amazon is the ultimate shopping site, or anything else. But soooo many of it's "shortcomings" count on it being static, and everything else changing. Bitcoins are a very attractive and useful brand new commercial "Medium of Credit Swap" delayed future-funding alternative but they and the networks that trade, fiat-value/fiat-devalue and exchange them are far too Byzantine to ever allow them to be directly usable as standard, stable, Medium of Labour-Exchange "currency".
That ain't true 'cuz yew sez so.It may not work that way this week, that doesn't mean that will not evolve shortly, given that there are any number of people NOW that are willing to trade their labour for bit coins--that part is all that ever really matters.
I wouldn't want to wipe my ass with paper currency. That wouldn't be sanitary. 
To be fair, he's got a point. Someone could get the first cocaine-addicted, Ebola-infected, bunghole.
Okay, I just started a thread called "Economic Idiocy", and after reading this thread, my faith in humanity is restored; Paulsy Krugman be damned!!!
Jump to: