5 ms·

When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more. Considerin

When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more. Considering this, while it is true that all this makes deflation worse, I’d assume most bitcoin hodlers would not mind this.

doublerabbit 1y ago
What happens when all bitcoin is mined, societal collapse?
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  It will go from the near totality of people acquiring their bitcoins through purchase to actual totality.
- Hamuko 1y ago
  We have other coins too.
throw0101d 1y ago
> When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more. Which can limit economic growth. When money was based the amount of gold available, there were long periods of economic stagnation because of liquidity issues: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine The stagnation only ended when new sources of shiny rocks were found (California; New World). I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems. Yes, credit creation can be "too easy" and become a problem, but making it "too hard" (or physically/mathematically impossible) is even more dumb.
- logicchains 1y ago
  >there were long periods of economic stagnation During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation.
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    > During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation. I don't know of many things that are viewed positively that have been given a label with "depression" in it. > Figures from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz show net national product increased 3 percent per year from 1869 to 1879 and real national product grew at 6.8 percent per year during that time frame.[32] However, since between 1869 and 1879 the population of the United States increased by over 17.5 percent,[33] per capita NNP growth was lower. Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[34] > The dramatic shift in prices mauled nominal wages – in the United States, nominal wages declined by one-quarter during the 1870s,[14] and as much as one-half in some places, such as Pennsylvania.[35] Although real wages had enjoyed robust growth in the aftermath of the American Civil War, increasing by nearly a quarter between 1865 and 1873, they stagnated until the 1880s, posting no real growth, before resuming their robust rate of expansion in the later 1880s.[36] The collapse of cotton prices devastated the already war-ravaged economy of the southern United States.[17] > Thousands of American businesses failed, defaulting on more than a billion dollars of debt.[35] One in four laborers in New York were out of work in the winter of 1873–1874[35] and, nationally, a million became unemployed.[35] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States Seems like a grand-ol time.
    - ghghgfdfgh 1y ago
      If Congress had not demonetized silver in 1873, the metal’s decreasing value would have curbed the deflation of the time. I believe that this was one of the US Government’s greatest mistakes ever, because the reaction to the economic crisis in the 1870’s had a profound effect on the failure of Reconstruction. Friedman wrote a paper on this, called “The Crime of 1873.”
- fpoling 1y ago
  In US in 19th century stocks of banks that went bankrupt were used as a sort of paper money to solve the problem of money availability. So the finite amount of base money would just mean that derivative products would be used as practical money.
- mindcandy 1y ago
  > I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems. That’s quite a mischaracterization. We can at least agree that Bitcoin’s supply is set up to increase at a pre-set rate over time. The math problems are the means to enforce that rate. Not the controlling factor.
strogonoff 1y ago
It is under-appreciated that inflation actually is desirable in a working economy. Look at it this way. If your money (in money form) is worth less tomorrow than today, you are incentivised to spend it, thus fueling economic activity of all sorts (from going out and buying a drink to buying a car, traveling, investing). If your money is worth more tomorrow, then you are incentivised to tighten your belt and not spend for as long as you can. At scale, this negatively affects production, economic mobility, and so forth; the rich get richer and hoard the money. I do not believe any of today’s economies can be healthy and competitive (or even functional) with a deflationary currency.
- mkleczek 1y ago
  More and more people claim this system of stimulated growth is actually wrong and the root cause for global warming.
  - strogonoff 1y ago
    Sources who claims this, and details as to how? I disagree that it is the cause. The mechanism does not distinguish between “bad economic activity” and “good economic activity”. I.e., the same mechanism applies to positive progress (carbon dioxide sequestration, more expensive technology and techniques reducing environmental impact, etc.), it just requires proper incentive alignment and accounting for bad faith actors via regulation. A deflationary system with limited supply makes kings and ultimately defeats itself, as your money is decreasingly evidence of your effort and work and increasingly evidence of you having held to it for a while. (It is also a quality of the current system, but less so, and it should be even less so, not more so.)
- amjnsx 1y ago
  This argument falls apart when you consider technology though. And even daily essentials. No one would not buy food and water because they can get more in future. They need it now. The same goes for technology. We all know next year’s iPhone will be better than this year but we still buy them…because we need them now. I’d argue inflation’s incentives are worse - the constant need to invest/spend so that your money doesn’t lose value. It means money flows into anything and everything like zombie companies, over consumption, property. Those on the poorest end are just trapped because as soon as they get any money it starts depreciating.

doublerabbit 1y ago

What happens when all bitcoin is mined, societal collapse?

cjbgkagh 1y ago
It will go from the near totality of people acquiring their bitcoins through purchase to actual totality.
Hamuko 1y ago
We have other coins too.

throw0101d 1y ago

> When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more. Which can limit economic growth. When money was based the amount of gold available, there were long periods of economic stagnation because of liquidity issues: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine The stagnation only ended when new sources of shiny rocks were found (California; New World). I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems. Yes, credit creation can be "too easy" and become a problem, but making it "too hard" (or physically/mathematically impossible) is even more dumb.

logicchains 1y ago
>there were long periods of economic stagnation During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation. I don't know of many things that are viewed positively that have been given a label with "depression" in it. > Figures from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz show net national product increased 3 percent per year from 1869 to 1879 and real national product grew at 6.8 percent per year during that time frame.[32] However, since between 1869 and 1879 the population of the United States increased by over 17.5 percent,[33] per capita NNP growth was lower. Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[34] > The dramatic shift in prices mauled nominal wages – in the United States, nominal wages declined by one-quarter during the 1870s,[14] and as much as one-half in some places, such as Pennsylvania.[35] Although real wages had enjoyed robust growth in the aftermath of the American Civil War, increasing by nearly a quarter between 1865 and 1873, they stagnated until the 1880s, posting no real growth, before resuming their robust rate of expansion in the later 1880s.[36] The collapse of cotton prices devastated the already war-ravaged economy of the southern United States.[17] > Thousands of American businesses failed, defaulting on more than a billion dollars of debt.[35] One in four laborers in New York were out of work in the winter of 1873–1874[35] and, nationally, a million became unemployed.[35] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States Seems like a grand-ol time.
  - ghghgfdfgh 1y ago
    If Congress had not demonetized silver in 1873, the metal’s decreasing value would have curbed the deflation of the time. I believe that this was one of the US Government’s greatest mistakes ever, because the reaction to the economic crisis in the 1870’s had a profound effect on the failure of Reconstruction. Friedman wrote a paper on this, called “The Crime of 1873.”
fpoling 1y ago
In US in 19th century stocks of banks that went bankrupt were used as a sort of paper money to solve the problem of money availability. So the finite amount of base money would just mean that derivative products would be used as practical money.
mindcandy 1y ago
> I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems. That’s quite a mischaracterization. We can at least agree that Bitcoin’s supply is set up to increase at a pre-set rate over time. The math problems are the means to enforce that rate. Not the controlling factor.

strogonoff 1y ago

It is under-appreciated that inflation actually is desirable in a working economy. Look at it this way. If your money (in money form) is worth less tomorrow than today, you are incentivised to spend it, thus fueling economic activity of all sorts (from going out and buying a drink to buying a car, traveling, investing). If your money is worth more tomorrow, then you are incentivised to tighten your belt and not spend for as long as you can. At scale, this negatively affects production, economic mobility, and so forth; the rich get richer and hoard the money. I do not believe any of today’s economies can be healthy and competitive (or even functional) with a deflationary currency.

mkleczek 1y ago
More and more people claim this system of stimulated growth is actually wrong and the root cause for global warming.
- strogonoff 1y ago
  Sources who claims this, and details as to how? I disagree that it is the cause. The mechanism does not distinguish between “bad economic activity” and “good economic activity”. I.e., the same mechanism applies to positive progress (carbon dioxide sequestration, more expensive technology and techniques reducing environmental impact, etc.), it just requires proper incentive alignment and accounting for bad faith actors via regulation. A deflationary system with limited supply makes kings and ultimately defeats itself, as your money is decreasingly evidence of your effort and work and increasingly evidence of you having held to it for a while. (It is also a quality of the current system, but less so, and it should be even less so, not more so.)
amjnsx 1y ago
This argument falls apart when you consider technology though. And even daily essentials. No one would not buy food and water because they can get more in future. They need it now. The same goes for technology. We all know next year’s iPhone will be better than this year but we still buy them…because we need them now. I’d argue inflation’s incentives are worse - the constant need to invest/spend so that your money doesn’t lose value. It means money flows into anything and everything like zombie companies, over consumption, property. Those on the poorest end are just trapped because as soon as they get any money it starts depreciating.