Topic: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum (Read 135916 times)

I think firstly because bitcoin gives to you the bad rates returning of your investments, secondly there is no specific qualification needed to get profit, and for third its make online shopping easier and anonymous

That is right. But the deflation of the bitcoin will continue all the time as there is a limited supply of the bitcoin.

Since the halving is only happening once every 4 years that gives plenty of time to stabilize the price, if the price rises as will demand to a certain degree so the deflation will only hit when the demand is unable to keep up with the price rise.

You know some systems, when you change one variable, the system gets out of balance. It rebalances and afterwards all (or most) variables are seen to have changed.

halving will not change anything unless the price of bitcoin expected to increase

How halving will affect the wholewide system of bitcoin? And what is halving by the way?

Yes, that's true.  There are a couple of different ways of doing this that have been discussed, with the most likely that a new type of address would be developed to contain sub-satoshi values.  The first character of your address is always a "1", only because that denotes the address version.  There can, therefore, be at least 9 different types of addresses.

Not for the common man, no.  But it's still very much a working money.

Sure, but gold isn't used as a currency anymore, is it?  When gold was pegged to currencies, it was great but now that it isn't?  Not so much.

OP, I agree with a lot of your points, and your post was pretty well thought out, so I won't criticize it.  But I will say that the deflationary nature of btc makes it bad for btc as a currency.  As digital gold, it's great.  'Nuff said.

Okay, I more or less got that. Another small question I have is this:

If BTC will be widely adopted and become something like the new gold standard, the value of 1 BTC will have to dramatically increase in the next couple of years...

https://bitcoin.org/en/faq

... Is it actually true that 1 BTC could be easily divided into ever smaller units ?
I know that transactions are internally calculated using the smallest unit of 1 Satoshi.
So I guess we could just divide it further and have 0.00000001 Satoshi, and so on,
and call that new unit whatever. Yes ?

No, it's not. The short answer is those institutions & individuals that have a lot of bitcoins will have a vested interest in seeing that the bitcoin network remains strong, even if the transaction market (and it is a market) doesn't seem to be able to provide enough incentive to keep miners in the game.  That said, the transaction system is a market, and a balance between speed of confirmation and cost of transactions will develop as the block reward diminishes; and secondary settlement networks are expected to develop to handle the high transaction traffic, as the main bitcoin network starts to take a 'big transactions' settlement role.

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but what I'm wondering is this:
If the network is sustained by miners, then what happens once all 21 million bitcoins are in circulation ?
What I read is that there will still be an incentive to keep the servers running by charging transaction fees...
but will that be enough of an incentive and would the exact price of those fees depend on the demand of the servers ?
And how exactly would that even work ? I read the article below but it's still not quite clear to me. Is that basically an open question at this point ?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

I'm asking myself ,where is this all about??

pretty good talk at Mises Institute by Philipp Bagus explaining deflation:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8noyun-aIQ

We are already at page 32 ... and this is supposed to be the last word. 

Yes. I see it everywhere I look, and have seen it my entire adult life. You seem to expect to see *novel* interventions, and there are some (although you likely do not recognize them as such) but the majority of interventions have long since been institutionalized.  There simply isn't likely a "need" for new interventions (from the perspectives of the interventionists) because the structure is already in place.

As already noted by others, they just don't really ever work as intended. Too many variables; too many unintended, and often unnoticed until much later, consequences.

He believed markets could be wrong and deficient - incorrect market pricing. But there is no correct price in the free market, the participants decide what they value. The idea of an efficient market requires that you believe in masters - those who know better than the market actors.

Apart from logic - we see everywhere when the government tries to regulate a price considered wrong, they can drive the price for a while, creating either large hordes of wares or artificial scarcity. When they are overrun by the power of the market, turbulence results.

Logically, and per experience, fucking with market always creates mayhem. Therefore we look for other reasons to why governments tries to regulate. By governments I mean all kinds of organizations that rely on government force. Unless you regard governments as a benevolent entity, or if you regard a government as being the same as the people, it is easy to see other reasons for their fancy of interventions.

Keynesian economics is economic balance. Read some info

"According to Keynesian economics, state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity. He advocated the use of fiscal and monetary policies to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions."

"Keynes died in 1946; but, during the 1950s and 1960s, the success of Keynesian economics resulted in almost all capitalist governments adopting its policy recommendations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes




2008–09 Keynesian resurgence

"In 2008 and 2009, there was a worldwide resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among prominent economists and policy makers. This included discussions and implementation of economic policies in accordance with the recommendations made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression— most especially fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Keynesian_resurgence

Keynesian economics assumes all the institutions put in place would function as intended, and be managed by the people of the world, well those institutions are failing all the way to the city level, and we have regulatory capture where corporations lobby government to protect there industries. Arguable Keynesian economics doesn't work the idea failed in 1971, and was reborn as Neo-Keynesian economics a libertarian spin on the idea by free market Monetarists, proponents of a central controlled money supply - not a fractional reserve on a fixed supply of Gold, like the Keynesian economics original advocated,  Keynesian economics was bore from a will to make the world a more equitable place but the pendulum has now swung the other way.

Monetarists - Neo-Keynesian economics theory is dead it's arguably wore than Keynesian economics. Governments are powerless, they just manage whatever the corporations tell them to manage.

the latest e-mail leaks form George Soros, just solidify these ideas, he is making business deals in the Ukraine and is able to grantee the US will back them up with lethal force, who in a democracy can do international business and call on their government to back them up with lethal force in another jurisdiction?

I imagine history can teach us what we are destine to relearn.

Keynesian economics, favors government intervention. Do you see any government intervention today? No. This is the problem.