Bitcoin Forum

Hi,

I have an Economics Degree From Sydney University and also hold a MCSE - I run an IT company.

The reason all the early adopters - read people with a shit load of bit coins, don't want to talk about the fact bitcoins is designed for deflation is because what it really means is this.

1 They mine themselves millions of bitcoins at the start for almost nothing
2 As speculators and Nebbies pile in on the action bitcoin goes up and up
3 The longer they can keep it going the more their bitcoins are worth.

See below a post ENCOURAGING Nebies not to question this fact, they then lock the topic.

Some freemarket - this is not the implementation of an idea I support - wait for bitcoins II or III or a similar idea which is more fairly distributed - the only way they are going to get money for free is from YOU when you buy THEIR bitcoins.  And who's going to buy them from you?


HERE is the original post.........

There has been a huge amount of tatter by the masses about how bitcoin is deflationary, how it's the next satan, and will end the world etc. I myself was interviewed by a freelance reporter (read, unemployed jouralism major) and he just wouldn't stop banging on about deflation, even after I'd said it doesn't matter. Throw in the recent threads on hackernews and Quora posts, it's getting really annoying to the point of distraction.

So I'm going to lay it down here, and I don't want to hear another peep about it.

Firstly this is the bitcoin project, it is primarily about bitcoin the software, the services around etc. One aspect of bitcoin is that it is deflationary.

The arguments are always about whether deflation is a good thing or not, so this is actually not a bitcoin issue (it's just something that effects bitcoin, because it's deflationary).

Firstly I must point out that economics is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, this means that there are many contradicting theories, it's not math, so there are many MANY things which tend to be plain wrong. Social sciences are the fields of scholarship that study society.

Hard science like math, physics, some biology and chemistry are ....well...hard. 1+1=2, gravity stops us floating away, take away our oxigen and we tend to die. These things are provable, you can run test after test and get the same result.

This is not so with economics where there are no tests, just some (often poor quality) data, and theories trying to explain that data. And from these theories predictions are made. It's very very shakey ground.

Who thinks what about Deflation

There are two schools of thought on deflation and inflation.
Keynesian economics, which favors government intervention and money supply inflation. This not surprisingly is the most popular school of thought with world governments (if someone told you to just print money and spend it you'd like them too).

This school not only supports inflation, but believes it to be essential to growth.

Then there is the Austrian school, which is is for a free market, against government intervention, and generally think inflation is bad and deflation is good. Again unsurprisingly these people are not popular in government circles around the world.

For more about why they think deflation is good see these links.
http://mises.org/daily/1241
http://blog.mises.org/3362/inflation-or-deflation/
http://mises.org/daily/4623

This is an argument between these two theories of economics, not bitcoin. At best bitcoin could be thought of as a modern experiment in deflation.

If you think deflation is just the devil, then fine, don't use bitcoin, just watch, you'll see soon enough whether it causes the bitcoin economy to stall, and you'll be in the position to gloat or eat your words. If deflation doesn't bother you then forget about it and continue living your life and spending your bitcoin.

But let me be clear, no more pointless natter about deflation worries. If you're a bitcoiner don't allow yourself to be drawn into a discussion about deflation, point them to this thread and say thats all you've got to say about it.

Nefario.

Yes, but we are all early adopters in a way. Just a bit later than the really early people. In a couple of years, Bitcoins will be more expensive / harder to mine, and people like you and me are going to make profit outta that. ^^

well i don't want to get into the whole deflation good or bad argument but i would like to comment on the early adoption of bitcoins you started you post with.

i feel like i got on board pretty late when i see it started in 2007 and looking at the charts. even though i'm not entering in at the best time, i have faith in it as a viable currency as i'm currently able to turn a profit while contributing to this bitcoin network. even if i lose money in the end, which would be an unhappy event, i'm still having fun participating in it all.

What people don't seem to realize is that distributing a new currency to the world from zero is a really hard problem. In fact, before bitcoin came around I couldn't think of any viable way of doing it. Bitcoin's way is pretty brilliant and is working out swimmingly so far. And, by the way, if you're writing on the forum at this point, you are in all likelihood a very early adopter. The people who start buying at $100 and $1,000 per btc will be seeing you as a rich tycoon who got tipped off early.

Are we?  Or are we adopting a beta implementation of an idea that will enrich the early adopters with despised us dollars which they can fund a bitcoins 2.0?

Think before you part with your money.

For some reason, I don't give two shits when someone says they have an economics degree.

Maybe it's because such degrees are frequently held by people like Ben Bernanke.

Well then thats a good reason to do it.

What the hell is a Nebbie?  or a Nebie?

Also, how can anyone possibly look at these forums and pretend that deflation is a big secret that we are trying to hide from the masses?  You can hardly swing a cat in here without hitting a dozen threads on the subject, including the one and only sticky topic in the Economics forum.

Gotta agree with you on this point.

Not singling out the OP as I'm sure there are some educated people out there that are very good at their profession, but generally I too have little faith in 'professional' opinions. It would be safe to say that most professionals only parrot what they have been taught by their relevant institution. Doesn't make it right, and Bernanke is a perfect example.

Paypal, dwolla, no one has a problem to begin with if its a one to one exchange.

The reason bitcoins is different is because the early adopters get it for free, encourage speculation, cash out, no vendors want in on a fluctuating model.  

Think about it - the only cash in is from speculators and a tiny amount of vendors.  The cash out comes from the early adopters and "miners" taking it OUT of the system.

Its a nil cash system bootstrapped doomed to deflation, is partly supported by the criminal element who is also successfully trying to steal it from others - in short its a beta project that I think has geeks in love with the technology, speculators in love with the rah-rah from early adopters and very few voices of reason.

The fact that people are actively discouraging others from discussing what deflation means and to say "my answer is this post" is frightening and morally poisoned.

You can't build a currency on trust with a base of skewed self interest.   Have you noticed how vile and rude these boards are?  I've never seen anything like it.  THIS is the community?

THanks for replying to my post.

Does someone have info/stats about bitcoin distribution ?

If somebody is interrested to graph flow and has experience making graphs, please contact me offline...

My friend, maybe I would have bothered to read all of your post if you weren't repeating directly things that are freely admitted by everyone, and using shockingly bad grammar considering your supposed degree.

Obviously this is what is going to happen. To quote directly from the wiki, life isn't fair.

Why are people trying to suppress the point that the system is unfairly designed?

Would it help if I told you I was a chief then?  Ben Bernake is also a man, do you only take economic arguments from girls?  The tone on this forum is so low, it seems infested with rabid self interest and wild eye'ed claims.

I think it was probably different when it was a hopeful little project.

Yeah my grammar has gone downhill its true.  I guess I mean why not try and make it fair?

Why other people of course? As with any item of value, theres always new buyers (new people being born everyday for one) and a market. Of course competition and profits may drop in the future but what the future holds for Bitcoin really is a guessing game at this stage. IMO its never been done before.

Best you get in now.

Lolwut, his post said the exact opposite of what you're trying to accuse him of.


I... what... even...


Downhill? I will assume here that English is not your first language.

Let me also point out that "making it fair" is not on the agenda, the agenda is making a cryptocurrency that will- blah blah blah, you don't need me to repeat that. Making it so-called fair would alter the system significantly and wouldn't allow it to work in any form we know of now.

Let me also point out that I had to point something that obvious out to someone with a supposed degree.

Why do you think its safe to say that most professionals only parrot what they have been taught?  That's very broad.  I mean it includes all disciplines and people graduating from them - how does the world manage to maintain doctors, engineers and historians?  Where is the true store of knowledge - TV and Wiki?

 Life is unfairly designed just look at children dying from hunger in Africa or children born with disability , if you dont like bitcoin go take code change it and make bitcoin 2.0 and you will BE early adoptors but stop complain how unfair it is. Good luck.

 ???

The facts are plastered all over these forums, as are all of the opinions for and against the system as designed.  I still don't see how you can continue to claim that there is some sort of suppression going on.  You are free to post your opinion that the system is unfair.  Other people are equally free to disagree with your view, and to post their rebuttals.  Is that what you mean by suppression?  Are we suppressing you by posting our disagreements?

I suppose I should have been more to the point and said that mentioning your econ degree probably doesn't mean much around here, so I wouldn't lead off with it if I were you.

Don't rely on titles to get respect.  Expect to have to earn respect with your actions around here.  Sounds good, right?

I don't see a flood of vendors and end users I see a flood of speculators and cheer leaders with vested interests.  Exchanging almost free virtual coins for real work does not sound like a system that will catch on.  It effectively forms a prisoners dilemma for the large early adopters which will end in 'cartel' style 'cheating' - then the speculators will dump and you are back to the geeks and the few bruised vendors.  Early adopters sneakily praise the technology and bash the system, but they are really participating in a ridiculous self enrichment scheme.

I'd give it 3 months.  There is absolutely no reason it had to be set up this way.  If it was a market solution the amount of bitcoins in circulation would be determined by buy in via the us dollar then a floating exchange - the reason its done this way with a limited supply and then divisibility to encourage a reckless rush of speculators which will enrich the early adoptors, never be taken up by vendors because the price is speculator driven, and then crash.

Still, as most people are doing it out of greed I don't feel that sorry for them.  I feel sorry for the people who are only looking at the rhetoric.

I am thinking about how I can do that, or promote a system that does.

Well put it this way. You only know what you know by reading a book. I can go read those same books and I'll come out qualified. But qualified at what? Did I learn anything new? Did I learn anything that wasnt already known? No. I am simply qualified to profess what is in those books.

Some of the greatest minds to ever walk this planet were 'uneducated'. Some of the greatest inventions were invented by uneducated people. People who not always followed the mainstream thinking/profession. Remember when the 'educated' institutions claimed the world was flat? It took someone to dare to go against the grain of mainstream belief to say it was round. And what ultimately put him in the position where he was proven right and the 'institution' of the day was proven wrong? Their 'belief' systems. The person that claimed the world was round refused to accept mainstream opinion. He questioned it and reasoned against it.

Likewise, I reason against your reason. I have no faith in your 'system'. It has failed me and it has failed millions of others. You believe what you choose what you choose to believe and you will ultimately fall with your system. I'll believe what I choose to believe and take my chances.

Truth, you appear to be slightly delusional. No one is hiding any of what you've said, don't you think they would have locked this topic by now if any of what you were saying was true?

Topics talking about everything you have brought up are everywhere on the forums, just close your eyes and point.

Providing context and an expectation of respect are different.  It enables people to have a rough guide of what knowledge to assume.  Its not a street fight or guns at dawn its useful information.

Yes I can see that.  i went straight to the economic forum post and the first one was basically everyone shut up about deflation, this is the final word, anyone who asks you about it - just tell them this is your answer.... I started thinking.... why?  I quote the post in my kick off thread.

Another reason you shouldn't mention that you have an econ degree:

How in the heck can you have an econ degree and at the same time fail to understand the perceived benefits of a deflationary currency?

It's odd to me that someone with an econ degree can have such a lack of education on monetary theory.

Check out a recent interview to Doug Casey (a famous investor /speculator) on Bitcoin:
Doug Casey on Bitcoin and Currencies
http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2011/06/doug-casey-on-bitcoin-and-currencies.html (http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2011/06/doug-casey-on-bitcoin-and-currencies.html)

I tend to agree with him is that the main problem is that Bitcoin is "backed by nothing" but the full faith and credit of adopters.
I would add that millions of bitcoins concentrated in the few hands of founders and early adopters means that these ppl can move the price as they please. That is quite bad.

I see no problem with a deflationary currency: even gold and silver are deflationary, and they worked fine a few thousands of years.

I can understand the uneasiness that such a characteristic would impose, but I have not yet heard any solid arguments backing the claim that a currency must be backed by something.  (and for some reason, gold is given a free pass, i.e. can be 'self-backed')

It is mostly because we are sick of having to read a dozen of these threads every day.  You don't need to trust me when I say that it has all been said here before (and many times).  You can check for yourself.

Personally, I would love to hear a novel argument against the design.  But that never happens.  Instead we get hundreds of people, none of whom ever bother searching or even just clicking on any of the many other topics on the issue, and they always end up posting what amounts to the same three tired arguments over and over again.

#1 - Deflation will benefit other people more than it will benefit me.
#2 - Inflation causes prosperity, deflation causes ruin.
#3 - We will run out of money.

By the way, I have no power or authority on these forums.  When I saw "we", I mean the people that disagree with the deflation = evilz theory, not the board moderators, but considering the sticky, I suspect there is some overlap.

In other news, early adopters who bought Van Gogh paintings 125 years ago made more money than those who came later. Of course, they also took more risk, because it was less certain that his works would become so desirable.

I know only 2 kinds of currencies: commodity-currencies: backed, or consisting of some commodity (precious or base metal, shells, or whatever commodity),
and debt-based currencies: backed by debt, and therefore some credibility to have debts paid, like courts, police, army, in short the state.

But Bitcoin is clearly none of this. Here comes the problem, until (if) it will become self-backed like gold and silver.  

Bitcoin is a service.  It is potentially the world's first service-backed currency.

The only person demonstrating a lack of understanding is you.  I'm making no statements about the perceived benefits of a deflationary currency.  These threads are clearly not a place to discuss bit coins they appear to be a bunch of insecure people looking to get rich.

I'm going to find a serious forum on bitcoins - does anyone have any suggestions?  Or maybe I'll just go back to the white papers.  You can all just stay here and debate the 'perceived' benefits of ripping people off, the rubbish value of education and how it doesn't matter if something is fair.

What a crowd.

Sorry if I've included some people unfairly in this description.

Shit, I think I missed something.  Who is getting ripped off?

OK, now someone is making sense.  Yes, I can see it as a service.  But from an economic modelling point of view its strutter is killing it - the service vendors want is price certainty and investors (as opposed to speculators) want a store of value.

The initial flood of bitcoins followed by a contraction and divisibility will lead to an almost central bank like situation where the "reserves" are held disproportionately by a tiny few.  Surely it can be seeded better and then yes, I can see the service built on top of the technology being a winner.

I see bitcoins as a prototype that others (including me) are and will learn from - so I'd say the if you want a quick buck the only guaranteed way would be in the exchanges - they win no matter what and currently people will sign up to 2 guys and a server and throw $100 mill at it!

Remember in the gold rush it was the publicans and the store owners who did very well with very little risk.

I'm sure a virtual currency is here to stay but I'm also fairly sure it won't be bitcoin  - bitcoin is like the bankcard of the virtual currency world.

What you don't seem to understand is that buyers of bitcoins want deflation because they think it is a good thing.  There is no conspiracy.  It is no secret.

You should read up on the perils of inflationism to understand where I am coming from.  Link: http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Part2_Ch13.aspx

I only have rumors - there are supposedly 2 500,000 bitcoin stashes and the 'founder' has over a million.  But I haven't been able to confirm that.  I would say the exchange owners may have accumulated a tidy sum as well - but I would like to see the spread also - my understanding is that the block chain acts like a ledger of everything that has happened, and every transaction writes it record in a way that references all others - meaning its hard to fake, I believe if you had more than half the hashing power of the network you could enforce you version of the ledger, and with pools like deepbit having close to half this might be a problem, but generally its an ingenious idea.

My problem comes from an economic analysis going forward and I believe its too late for this service to be restructured, so it will have to rise again in another form.  I think bitcoins will stay around in some form, to service a market, but this is internet beta from an economic modelling perspective.

Here's my prediction - the early adopters will cash out enough before the crash to have the capital to start bitcoins II.

Dude I studied for four years and run a youtube channel about the coming risk of hyperinflation - I belong to the austrian school of economics, follow the mises institute, Marc Faber, Jim Rodgers, Peter Schiff for the popular treatments.  For 30 years America had deflation and it was great!  Inflation is the way the Anglo American Cartel steals from the entire world.  I get it.  What you don't get is that THIS particular system is going to fail not because of deflation per se, but because the early adopters have used the deflation argument not to better everybody, but to enrich themselves.  It has encouraged ridiculous speculation that is harmful and driven vendors away.  The only cash in the system comes from speculators, and 5% vendors.  Its going to crash back to nothing - as soon as a vendor friendly bitcoin II comes along everyone will leave bitcoins for bitcoins II.

And the funny thing is bitcoins II will probably be funded by the early adopters who have some of the speculators cash to create a better system.  Bitcoin is a beta.

I agree that the odds of success are slim, if only because we are dealing with something entirely new.  My advice (and most of the advice I see on this forum) is that bitcoin should be viewed as a noble and risky endeavor.

Approach bitcoin like you would a "hot" stock tip or a novelty.  If you're a speculator, then don't risk more than you can afford.  Otherwise, have fun.

The times they are a changing. Time to put your faith into something else other than worthless paper

http://www.youtube.com/user/davincij15

Yeah, that's my take.  But I'd also emphasis that it is exciting and new, lets work on something sustainable if we want big goals, not big bucks.  And yeah nothing wrong with fun.

I haven't read anything in these forums by 'the early adopters' that supports what you say.

They say deflation is good.  OK, duh.

They say that speculation isn't a goal, but it's inevitable.


And as an austrian, how the hell do you know how much speculation is ridiculous?  (Where is that secret measuring rod located?)

I've made video responses to the guy - he knows who I am.  I am generally supportive of alternatives to worthless paper, but I'm trying to be a voice of reason here.  I don't like the way he's presented bitcoins as almost like gold and silver - its RISKY RISKY RISKY at the moment.  I think that he's going to do more harm than good in the long run with this approach.

I've listened to sefbot and whatch all 8 hours of the bitcoinshow, which is like an infomercial for bitcoins.  In all the blog pieces that are fed to the new outlets they write they downplay the initial wealth distribution like it somehow is irrelevant.

As an Austrian, its ridiculous to have daily speculation in a service that you want a vendor to use for everyday transactions.  Without the vendors the service usefulness is that of a casino.

Actually gold and silver are mostly only deflationary against fiat fractional reserve banking currency.  The gold and silver supply has increased steadily throughout history.  Its interesting to think of a medium of exchange rather than a currency because there is almost always more than one, at any time in society.  Good looks, cigg's in jail, drugs at a party, water in a hot car on a long drive, all these things go in and out of usefulness depending on the time context and situation.  Bitcoins could be very useful to drug runners and money launder's or something like it.  In war it could be bullets.  Gold and silver has traditionally been above all these currencies in that you can exchange them for what every OTHER currency you like.

If you got in a time machine and could go 4000 years back or forward, what currency would you take?

Gold and silver baby!

End of rant.

The initial distribution is irrelevant.  Also, what do you mean by initial?  Do you mean, like really initial, the first block reward?  Or do you mean the last block reward which won't happen for a century?  Or do you mean some block in between the two?  Which one?  Justify your decision for which magic block is the final block of the "initial distribution" period.

And are you kidding about the speculation?  Speculators are everywhere.  There is speculation in everything all day, every day.  Are you sure you aren't really concerned with volatility?  If so, isn't the volatility really caused by the relative smallness of the market?

There is a good reason why Google's Serge and Larry are billionaires while suckers fall over each other to buy GOOG shares for 500$ a pop.

I just started a company with 21 million shares, maximum, and me and three friends already have 2.5 million,  please invest, its irrelevant, because if you invest now, you'll have more than the next guy - its going to get harder to get in.  What did we do to get these shares?  Nothing really just plugged a computer into a wall.  What do we want you to do for us?  Oh, go to work and earn money and give it to us.   Why?  Because its the money of the future (and you can tell that to someone else and sell it to them higher!).  The volatility this creates via speculation means no vendors and interested, so its just new people giving money to original people.  The volatility is caused not by the size of the market but the lack of vendors - its just speculators swapping money between each other - the vendors are almost an afterthought.  This is a real shame and will collapse a good idea.

Waiting for bitcoins II.  Who convinced you to hand your money over to people that generated 2.5 million bit coins almost for free - the same ones that told you it didn't matter?  Of course it matters otherwise your buying NOTHING!   There is no serious vendor network and there never will be.  We need to think through how to get this right next time.

Hmm.  Well, I'm not an early adopter (any more than you probably are), and I don't see anything more than a potential problem with the initial wealth distribution.  And if they really want bitcoin to be successful (and retain their wealth), then they won't turn the potential problem into a real problem.

As for bitcoin speculation, if you agree that bitcoin is, for now, a speculative investment and toy, then it shouldn't surprise you that it is volatile.  You understand that bitcoin may not last; so does EVERYONE else.  That's another reason why it is so volatile.

Luckily bitcoin isn't the world's first currency, so that it can ride the backs of other currencies until it learns to swim, so to speak.  Vendors can price in dollars/bitcoins, keep some bitcoins, sell the rest.  When bitcoins have a history, people will be more willing to hold onto it.

Yep. nothing, just plugged many computers in to a wall and invented revolutionary currency and principally new asset class which has a potential to cut out lots of middlemen from money transfer biz and  often reducing transactions fees from 20% to 0.01%.

The invention was done.  The distribution was arbitrary.  Its going to be redone and if you've got a lot of bitcoins i'd suggest you start cashing them out so you can build bitcoin II

fixed that for you

Ironically, I am one of those who are extremely well positioned for emergence of Bitcoin II. Though, I really doubt that this Bitcoin II would be viable at all, for many reasons.

LOL nice one.

No I'm in dwolla's camp - I'm not buying this round.

Care to share?

I, for one, wouldn't buy into bitcoin 2.0 if bitcoin turns out to be a dismal failure.  Would you?

And the initial distribution for bitcoins II will be what exactly?

Hehe, as if there is any question.   :D

People who bought them did so from a personal relationship with the artist in a human kind of way.  Even as an asset it doesn't pretend to be a currency and has intrinsic value.  No one printed off 21 million Van Gogh's and hoard 2.5 million then pushed them on the net - for what its worth - I don't rate Van Gogh myself.  and the guy didn't cut his ear off for love, he had an inner ear infection that drove him batty

Your hehe is my point.  People are attracted to currencies either by force (fiat) or desire.  People desire an even chance

"intrinsic" value

Like the bitcoiners of old were guaranteed that there would be a market for bitcoin now.

Every day I'm more convinced that Bitcoin is so elegant, well designed and revolutionary, that there will not ever be a better replacement for it.
 

Spelling has no intrinsic value its purely communicative.  In english there were up to 15 different spellings of the same thing but people got the idea.  We grouped them together in one lot for the sake of religion and law.  I can see the value in that.  Have Uyo Notcied you cNa slitl raed tihs?  Weird - they did a study showing the human brain just needs the letters not the order.

Move over gold cranks - here come the bitcoin cranks!   ;)

the paintings didn't have intrinsic value.

The deflation causes hoarding and the initial distribution allows intervention like a central bank - they can crash it anytime they like or someone can steal it from them and do a mnt Gox.  There's no one using it as a currency - you need vendors first.

If your going Nihilist on me there is no such thing as value.  But in the world everyone else lives there is, they just don't know there isn't.

value is subjective.  you know that.  nothing has intrinsic value.

I'd agree with that

People have motivations when initial distributions are skewed for influences other subjects into blurring what intrinsict value is.... you know that.... no matter how you spell it....

You're skipping over thoughts.  Speaking clearly is useful - like spelling.  d0 yuo jasdfjkhskadfuhy?

Lots of ad hominem and false appeal to authority going on in this thread.

Truthseeker, the post you copied in your initial thread seems to be saying that whether or not deflation is good or bad is a separate argument from the viability of bitcoin. I see nothing saying people shouldn't discuss bitcoin itself or its virtues or flaws in that post.

What would be a "fair" Initial distribution?


Many people(many being relative to the size of the overall market) are interested in being vendors for bitcoin(myself included) and this is likely to grow somewhat in time.

You blame the volatility on the lack of vendors and the lack of vendors on the volatility. If they are both dependent on each other then we can solve both by easing one yes? So as the market grows the volatility will shrink which will bring more vendors which should in turn settle the volatility even more. Sounds like we just need a critical mass of people in the market(not counting people whose only involvement in bitcoin is speculating on the exchanges atm).

There were some other points but I don't remember them after reading through those 4 pages of posts. I may come back and add more if I remember.

Thank you for sparking this lively discussion Truthseeker, I hope you find what you seek. ^_^

This is a myth, deflation does not cause hoarding.

If you have a BitCoin, and everyone thinks there will be deflation, you have the right to hold that BitCoin and watch it appreciate. That is, a BitCoin today is the right to a BitCoin at any point in the future you wish. You could continue to exercise that right, by holding the BitCoin. But you could just as well sell that right to someone else for its fair market value. Unless there's some special reason you'd prefer to profit in the future, there is no incentive to hoard.

Say you had some gold. And say we all knew to a near certainty that gold would sell for $2,500/oz in a year. You could hold your gold for a year and sell it for $2,500/oz. But obviously, the price of gold today would rise to very close to that $2,500/oz anyway. So you'd have no incentive to hoard waiting for the price rise -- it would have already happened.

Most of the increases in the price of a BitCoin reflect not the actual deflation but greater confidence that the expected deflation will actually happen.

lol. ikn... um yes?

Actually it has to be the other way round. In the beginning, bitcoins had no demonstrated value. What vendor would have traded their real products for Satoshi's first mined block?

The speculators can see the potential future value of Bitcoin. Through their speculation they propel bitcoin's market price towards its potential future value.

Then, when the market value gets big enough, it will attract plenty of vendors. In the meantime, there are lots of people working on interesting products to layer on top of the Bitcoin system to provide vendors with greater usability in the form of website code, pricing tools, arbitration and escrow services, etc.

This is exactly what we've been screaming about at Bitcoin Venture Capital. Without a thriving economy based upon Bitcoin, Hackesr AND the early adopters CAN and WILL control the market the exact same way GS and a handful of others control the stock market.

I tried posting on this forum multiple times to bring attention to our site which matches people running startup that take ONLY BTC as currency with early adopters who are sitting on a bunch of BTC.

So far we have haven't had the interest I'd hoped for, and in fact when I even suggested it some early adopters came on the forum and chewed me out -- trying to explain to me that it would be awesome if Bitcoin just acted as some unregulated forex.

I'd say truthcracker knows more than 95% of people around here.

I've been looking for a way to reliably take a short position, but anonymous cash does not really lend itself to lending.

Aint a choice between the two.

The better model is to get vendors and customers interested via market research first, target groups of people you know want the service then launch it.  This 'service' has the conceptual mantra of a religion with suitable punishments for the heretics, trance like followers and a wary population.

The fact that 25% of the bitcoins are owned by 10 people does not make vendors want to subsidise this otherwise worthless stock.  THEY are creating the value, and the coins are only worth what THEY say you can spend them on.  No, this is the only way to get it up and running.  The rest of you have just give cash to people who generated coins for free, and you'll be left holding the tokens.

Any new technology has early adopters who invest time, effort and money to make it successful. As it is usually the case, the early adopters will profit more than late users. This is not something characteristic only to bitcoin. Actually (IMHO!) the users with the largest stashes of bitcoins are NOT the early adopters, but the ones who first developed GPU mining. There were some users who were doing it long before the first open source miners were released etc. However, I don't think the system was designed to give an advantage to early adopter, it's just how things work in real life  ;D

I read this thread subject in this guys voice

http://www.government-money-club.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/grant.jpg

Yes, everybody not agreeing with you is either inserious or crowd aka idot.

Your "sorry" makes it only worse.

The initial distribution was unfair. Bitcoin's are still have advantages over every other currently existing medium of exchange.

You'll get over it.

A very good commentary on the Doug Casey interview posted above:

The Economics Of Bitcoin – Doug Casey Gets It Wrong
http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2011/06/economics-of-bitcoin-doug-casey-gets-it.html (http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2011/06/economics-of-bitcoin-doug-casey-gets-it.html)

Truthseeker: Why is the initial distribution unfair? What would be a fair distribution? What changes do you think should be made for your hypothetical bitcoin II?

Maybe try here:
https://bitoption.org (https://bitoption.org)

what a bunch of rear view drivers   :P

It's good to be able to take brief short positions, although that is probably not the ultimate direction of this market, despite all the recent news.

Fortunately, it appears possible already.  Have you looked at https://bitoption.org/ ?  All bitcoin markets are in their early stages but already the machinery exists to buy put options.

Their FAQ explains how that's possible: "Is this Escrowed trading?  YES. You are guaranteed to be able to execute once you've purchased a contract."

Of course you said "reliably" and there you may disagree, because the site has so far relied on using the MtGox exchange.  But since these are separate businesses (AFAIK), they'll change that if enough of their users don't regain faith in MtGox.

The seen and the unseen.

Let's say that we take the OP suggestion that btc's design creates or created an unfair distribution.  I ask the following with no malice intended and am just interested to know what an alternative might look like.

What would an alternative cryptocurrency look like and how would interest in such a currency be promulgated?

Let's say further that this cryptocurrency was introduced with a finite supply.  How would it be distributed with a subjective fairness or otherwise?  How would interest be generated for use by users, merchants, speculators, market exchanges, etc.?

Don't forget that this is new and has never been tried.  The design in and of itself whereby people mine to bring the currency units into existence builds interest in and of itself.  That is IMO brilliant.  Then the market makers follow providing liquidity and then hopefully more minds are focused on the challenges to make this useful in POS systems, online sales, gaming, etc.

The fact that I can accept a payment wile vacationing in Vietnam by somebody working on a ship crossing the Indian Ocean while my wallet is on a USB stick in a safe in Mexico City and then confirm the transaction online is simply mind blowing.  

Also this endeavor must be compared against the use of fiat currency which are at this time the most widely used tool for commerce .  This is somewhat philosophical but so was the original question.  Centrally controlled inflationary currencies are the single most criminal and destructive thing to be wielded against individuals throughout time other than outright murder.  They steal purchasing power over time in a hidden manner while reducing the ability for participants to effectively plan how to allocate assets and time thus throwing a wrench into the works of civilization itself and its progress.  Once the distribution of coins evens out over time this type of thing will seemingly become nonexistent.  

With regard to the benefits or detriments to fractional reserve banking I have not read the threads on btc and the impact to fractional reserve banking or lending in particular.  

Lending is about growing trust with third parties, not so much about the type of money involved.

So if you withdraw cash from an ATM off of your credit card (therefore, a loan), the bank doesn't care whether they could ever trace the serial numbers on those particular bills later on.

With bitcoin, even though the money can be almost anonymous, the users don't have to be.  If you so chose, your brokerage could know all your relevant details, and you could know theirs, and if you failed to send them bitcoins you lost in a bad short trade, or to meet margin calls, or whatever, in many countries they would be able to pursue collections through the legal system just as they could enforce their contracts with those paying in older currencies.  (Contract law is about agreeing to do something beneficial to both parties, and the law doesn't reject agreements just because they might be unusual.  That is, except where politicians may react by restricting the legal rights of bitcoin holders.  In that case, your broker must fall back to a "sorry, no more business with you" stance.)

Amazingly, since senders and recipients can actually undeniably prove whether or not bitcoins have been sent and received as promised (see below), your broker would have to wait at most a few hours before beginning collections, rather than the 90 days it can take for some banks and money order companies to confirm & process claims.

(However, even though it's possible, I'm not advocating running to authorities to enforce bitcoin contracts.  We should solve these problems mostly with technology.)


Now back to your regular bank that totally loses track of their paper bills once they hand them over the counter to you.

Tracing that money might be easier with bitcoin, since there's a globally available database tool called Block Explorer that anyone can use to see certain aspects of the entire history of every "coin".  To a very foolish criminal, a bitcoin bank could conceivably say "You're actually still holding the money we gave you, so you can pay it back!" -- something impossible with paper currencies.  However a careful user's privacy is only slightly compromised.

(This also could allow you to verify YOUR bank is still holding YOUR money separately for you as agreed, but only if things were set up with that in mind.  I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking you can do this with today's companies like mybitcoin.com, which tend to pool the funds they receive.  Once funds are transferred even once after you deposit them, they can* become vastly harder to trace unless your "bank" takes steps to help you do so.)

*For completeness I should add that there is a peculiarity in the bitcoin client which may leave unexpected traces if someone sends funds directly back to themselves after receiving them.  This is processed differently from standard transfers to other parties.

Yes, I had already looked at bitoption.org.  Nothing worthwhile is there for buying, and I won't be leaving open orders to write contracts unless I can babysit the market 24/7.

The other thing I thought of is mining contracts, which are effectively short BTC.  I could sell a "mining contract" with no hardware at all, and purchase the BTC to cover it at a later time.


This is a good point.  I was wrong, that the nature of the vehicle (anonymous cash) does not really prevent lending.  It's the trust that the lender has that they will be repaid, which could be interpersonal trust, legal recourse, or maybe collateral.

I guess I'm an early adopter? But I don't care what you know.
Oh and now I'm an early adopter at my local food co-op. As such I get a good deal from my farmer. Also I bought into some radio frequency licenses early on and now my shares are worth more than if I bought them today. 

"The early bird catches the worm."

Everyone who uses Bitcoin anytime in 2011 is an early adopter. Probably 2012 also.

now you are making me wonder is i should just forget about bitcoins for now

Has truthcracker responded to the multitude of questions about how a "fair" distribution would be?

Btw, since the number of active users are growing, it's certain that earlier adopters have more coins than late adopters on average, but that doesn't mean that it would hold for individuals. I suspect most devs have much less than miners that came actually later. I don't see them whining though...

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about people that had the foresight to buy into Google's IPO. Life is unfair because nature makes it that way. The early adopters had no way of knowing for certain that BTC would increase in value. They took a risk, forwent other opportunities and fortunately for them, it paid off. Do you think any other crypto currency is not going to have early adopters? Any system that doesn't give early adopters an advantage is going to be worthless as a currency. There's a reason why the banks don't all just say "everyone has a million dollars in their account". That's because we aren't all equally productive and equally consumptive. You're probably a neoclassical economist judging from your post, which is probably worse than being completely ignorant of economics altogether. That kind of economist knows just enough to sound convincing and mislead others with damaging beliefs because it sounds like stuff the public wish were true or want to hear.

Deflationary currency is bad because you owe more on your loans every day.    Economic activity stops because everyone waits until tomorrow to buy something when it's cheaper.   You keep getting paycuts at your job.   And the incredibly-ultra-rich have their billions worth more.

Is it really difficult to understand why deflation is a bad thing?

Is it really difficult to understand why debt is a bad thing?

It's called interest. It's a feature of all loans. The rates would reflect deflation.


In general people will always have to eat, drink, wear clothes, get to work, educate their children, etc. Consumption will always exist. There's a time preference for now vs. later.


You get less pay but your pay is worth more and somehow this is a bad thing?


See above. Real value isn't going to change. When you have inflation, prices go up. When you have deflation, prices go down. Businesses can't charge as much as before but they can buy more with their money.

Prices tend to approach marginal cost of production, whatever the currency is worth.

given that the user base is still small, and mostly formed by computer-related people, id say were still early (or maybe just on time) to the party! if youve been following the news, positive mass-media coverage is just starting to roll in. Our paper here in Chile had a very good articule, expressing high hopes for the system. So id expect more people jumping in, which means that even if this turns out to be a bubble, you could still make a nice profit out of this, even with a small investment (like buying 50btc instead of renewing your 2 year old TV  and keeping them until 2013-2014 :) )

I really wish that more people would try to read Keynes.  His book (the famous one) is incomprehensible gibberish.  Ozzy Osbourne makes more sense.

If more people had that sort of personal exposure to his writings, there would be fewer of these threads defending his ideas as sacred.

Well, I would really like to know what Keynes has to say about early adoption of a new technology  :) in the famous book  ;D Ozzy, well... completely different story  :)  :)  :)

By probably not LinkedIn.

It would be great if we had a ranking system for entire topics. Like, if enough people vote a topic to be "trollish" or plain bullshit, you don't even waste your time opening it.

Check out how CPU mining early adopters look like now. This is exactly how GPU mining early adopters will look like in age of ASIC mining a year or two from now.

Now you have a choice. Either become a GPU age early adopter who would be teased about buying 2 BTC website logos or become a whining complainer about CPU age early adopters and their 10k BTC pizzas.

Think!

Truth Cracker, There is no way I could think of to change this. Believe me, I tried really hard to think of some way other than the encoding as it is as of now. Every change I thought, brought in some centralization, which bitcoin avoids.

There is no way that you can enter the value "US Dollar" into this peer to peer network and have it recognised for what it actually is. That relies on the interface with the real world, which means centralization.

Lets run with your scenario. You have a client and I have a client. Someone pays you 10 USD and you generate 10 coins and give it to him. Someone pays me only 5 USD and I generate 10 coins and give him. Whose chain is the correct one?

Almost any system you think of will have downsides eg. Ripple is fair, but it didn't catch up because of the lack of benefit to early adopters.

You know both coding and economics. Try creating Bitcoin 2.0 as the coding is right there and available.

Of course, you'd have to pay interest on your loans on top of the increases in the amount you owe due to deflation which puts up the cost of borrowing quite a bit. Not to mention that Bitcoin would have to deflate by several orders of magnitude at some point if it were ever to support a substantial proportion of world trade, and there's no realistic way to pay back a loan that's increased by that much.


Yes, which is why most of the population doesn't actually benefit from deflation. The real problem is investment in research and development, capital expenditures, etc. There's no incentive to spend money on better ways to produce food and clothes, more effective means of transport, etc...

I just love early adopters trying to shut up debate about how they are fleecing new speculators by diverting the debate to the wonders of deflation.  You lot just hate it when we talk about it - you just like the guy at the start of the thread who's completely threatened by talking about deflation - not because its not worth talking about, but because it exposes the model of wealth transference from new to you.

For a fixed money supply, the rate of average price deflation depends on investment.  Let's say that investment drops to zero, and consumption = production.  There is no deflation at that point.

So if there is ever "too much" deflation, then investment will die down and drive down the rate of price deflation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Where there is money to be made, there will allways be some backseat driver.

I hope you learned that in economics, everyone simply cannot gain the same wealth and prosperity. There is no equal gains in economics.

How about this for a novel argument - bitcoins has the seeds of its own destruction - instread of a level playing feild where everyone is encouraged to expand the concept to the real economy the early adopters use their wealth to pump up and hype the idea to speculators, dooming the concept and enriching themselves.  Is that plain enough for you?

And where there are backseat drivers there will be community pointing out what's going on to the passengers, and other people just shrugging their shoulders and wishing they were the backseat drivers.

The only thing plain about your argument is just plain dumb.

Without argument,your reply is more dumb..Truth craker has some solid points..There is too much speculation ongoing and it may likely crash and burst the system..

what solid points?

1 "bitcoins has the seeds of its own destruction"

that's bitcarrots


2 "instread of a level playing feild where everyone is encouraged to expand the concept to the real economy"

... instead of explaining something where everyone is encouraged to understand the concept to their real minds


3 "the early adopters use their wealth to pump up and hype the idea to speculators"

people told people.  OMG no way!?!?!


4 "dooming the concept"

doomed! doomed!  we're always doomed.


5  "enriching themselves"

increase in purchasing power = evil ...  got it.

imagining something doesn't make it likely.

Amusingly enough, bitcoin today is inflating at a furious rate, roughly 40% per year.  Clearly the rampant speculation of today has nothing to do with deflation.

I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers during the California Gold Rush, somehow the people who ignored the steady stream of negativity still managed to do okay.

Why? More specifically, you seem to be assuming that the proportion of currency in circulation to currency squirreled away for another day will remain the same, and I see no reason why that should be the case with a deflationary currency.

Surely if anything it's deflating - the price of goods in bitcoins has decreased over the last year.

Deflation is good for BTC holders. Prices are deflationary in terms of BTC because BTC goes up in value over time.

Haters gonna hate!

Is it really deflationary? What's to stop other crypto currencies from being formed? Wouldn't that essentially be like printing more currency? Where is the scarcity?

Since bitcoin is open source, you could start your own chain of bitcoins right now and quickly mine lots of coins with a CPU. But it would be worthless since no one is accepting it.

If people started using it, don't you think there would be traction to start other chains of bitcoin type currencies?  It would take awhile for the momentum to build but I bet some of the lines would start taking off. People with mining equipment might diverge some of their resources to the new chains which yield better retruns. Speculators would want to get in on the ground floor at dirt cheap prices. Eventually the ball would start rolling.

It would be interesting to see pairs like BTC1/BTC2 on the exchanges  ;D
Kind confusing after a while...

I found this cool pooled mining club that allows you to MINE WITHOUT RIGS!!
And helps you stay ahead of the difficulty curve!
The address is www.bit39.com
ref. # 0238-404
contact me if you have questions

It seems to me that too many people are putting the terms Bitcoin and economy into the same sentence.

The entire point of Bitcoin is to seperate currency systems from economies.

All currency systems including precious metals and yes Bitcoin are a confidence game...nothing more...nothing less.

With paper money, transactions are validated by a mutual understanding of legality between the buyer and seller.

With precious metals, transactions are validated by a mutual understanding of value between the buyer and seller.

With Bitcoin, transactions are validated without knowing anything about the transaction.

Users of paper money are confident in the legality of their currency.

Users of precious metals are confident in the value of their currency.

Users of Bitcoin are confident that the transaction will be validated...nothing more.  What transactions are worth is an entirely seperate issue. 

The holders of any kind of currency should understand that the value of their transactions will change over time.  In fact, the longer you hold onto a currency the greater the risk that it will one day be worthless.

It's fair to comment on the perils of the Bitcoin economy however, to say that Bitcoin as a currency is any worse than paper money or precious metals is misleading.

Truthcracker it is hard to tell from the present what will happen in the future. In the next 3 to 6 to 9 months we may be considered early adopters.

How is it unfair that Bill Gates and his buddies got to buy microsoft stock when it was pennies to the dollar in respect to todays price of stock of that company or any company for that matter?

I am invested in silver. Yes I believe I got in early, not the earliest. But in the end I will likely sell my silver to someone who doesnt know any better that the market has peaked in silver and that they will be left holding the bag.

How are those two scenarios any different than bitcoin?

Also maybe the most presumptuous. I gave an analogy of buying microsoft stock and silver (at a "unfairly" low price) and selling at a higher price. 

In the case of Bill Gates and his buddies, they're not just rich because they "got in early", they got rich because they managed to get their operating system in front of 90% of the world's population. They worked very hard to achieve that and so, they deserve it.

Silver is tangible; it has inconvenience in hoarding a lot of it, and that's the price you pay to store substantial wealth in it. It took a *long* time for it to appreciate its value today.

Bitcoins have no great inconvenience to store, except maybe not having enough bank vaults available - where a wallet will ironically always have to pay the fees for existing there until it no longer exists itself. It also appreciates at a massive rate. Plus, it required extremely little real work to create - it is the most efficient "value token" ever created, by only requiring the cost of electricity. Hardware is moot, since it's cycles would have been lost anyway, and the use of which didn't require further human interaction. It is printing money that may have value in the future. The production of coins as a percentage of coins already produced *exponentially drops*, which means the value of further coins exponentially rises. This benefits the early far far far more than the middle and later, without doubt, and is a problem because BTCs are created as a trade of value token, but no value was created when they were made, so it's resorted to speculation on future value, and nothing more.

If somehow bitcoins survive 50 more years, a car might cost 300 nanoBTC based on the number of BTCs that exist. That means that 1 BTC would be the equivalent of 3.3 Million Cars. No one with violent means would accept anyone else having that much power in spendable currency....when there's not even the inconvenience of building the ship to carry it across the ocean...get in, torture, transfer BTC, kill owner, go spend. Don't think people won't do it - massive hacks already when it's worth $15-30/btc.

I don't think anyone has a problem with people taking risks and getting high rewards (in the case of microsoft). Those were high risk, lots of work, high reward, though. Bitcoins are low risk, with MASSIVE reward, and it won't gain mass appeal because of that. Which powerful business man, soccer mum for that matter, is going to accept a million sweaty kids having more "money" than them? A grand total of zero.

For the next 100 years, Bitcoins are a game of speculation. Even people accepting BTC for trades are forced to speculate on future prices. I love the idea, but it's not going to work as a currency in our lifetimes, so I feel a change of mind coming on.

EDIT:

I've noticed a few people around on these forums who also recognise this, and have tried to encourage a viable bitcoin economy to stop it failing. It seems they've all complained about not having much success, though. The global bitcoin stock exchange has like 5-6 floats on there, and half of them are for mining operations. The only other businesses putting through a lot of coins are exchanges and gambling sites (although that may be a random made up comment, because I don't really know, just that those are the only exchanges I see people saying they've spent money through).

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/681/original/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSYKrihqkR8

http://www.youtube.com/user/truthcrackers

DisInflation is fabulous!

Deflation is terrible.  You cannot have an economy based on "tomorrow" prices will go lower. 


I don't know if bitcoin is deflationary or inflationary.  But, I'm watching.

Ooops, am I missing something here?

Don't we all want to invest money with minimal risk and maximum return?  ;D

Because most responsible people fundamentally know that you can't get something for nothing, unless its a ninja strike and no one saw you come or go.

If I understand the system of BTC. What prevent us of saying fuck the rules thought by Satoshi ? And say that mining will always create 50BTC (or more). If the most accept this rule, it will become the new rule. And we can change the rule whenever we want. Isn't it the spirit of BTC ?  ???

Just for the fun :D
http://blockexplorer.com/t/3Cid9igPD7

Boatloads of BTCs  ;D

Compared to the number of people in the world, those who buy into bitcoin now are more or less doing a ninja strike.

Please note, effectively nobody in the world knows about bitcoin and among those who know, very few are willing to buy bitcoin or offer products and services for bitcoin.
 

yah I agree, but I was talking about soccer mums and business people not buying into Bitcoins because they don't "trust" it yet (those who do know).

:D I know bitcoin and I want bitcoin to buy a VPN access. And because it will be bitcoin it could be secret. The only interest of bitcoin is reliability and privacy. everything needed by the black market. :D

There are already lots of anonymity programs for sale through bitcoins.  I'm sure many other programs and types of software will follow.  An economy based entirely on software, with a little black market, is fine for the time being.  As far as I'm concerned. 

I read through this whole thread and not once did truthcracker address a question that has been asked several times, what is "fair"?  What is an alternative method of distribution that you would propose that would provide incentives for adoption thus propagating the currency to general use? What is a "fair" way to start using a system of money?

I have however seen him repeatedly state that mysterious "others" are suppressing his arguments and controlling the conversation for gain.  I see multiple well-thought out rhetorical arguments addressing his points, but mostly ad-hominem attacks accusing the forum at large of a united conspiracy.  Heck, even the title reflects this.

People can purchase BTC on an exchange today with nationalized backed currencies.  They can also trade goods and services to receive BTC directly.  I have done both, and quite enjoyed direct barter trade.  This involves some "speculative faith" on my part, sure, but it also involves me bringing tangible value to the economy for the benefit of both myself and the person with whom I am trading.  The network effect of currency requires that we believe a system of money will give back stored value as well as that more and more people will continue trading in those goods in the future.  The design of the BTC system is quite elegant, and also quite novel.  By any metric, we are ALL still very early adopters in the technology life cycle, so nobody can say for certain what is going to happen. 

Truthcracker, you are free to take a short position in BTC and bet against it with money.  There can be no "bitcoin II" if there is not any serious thought given to potential weaknesses in the existing system.  However, you can be certain that there will be plenty of ideas that come along and will claim to be bitcoin II, whether it is successful or not, just given its current level of penetration into the public awareness.  These are growing pains, and any idea which can withstand the test of time, of speculators, of hackers, of challenges we are not yet aware of can be said to have gained confidence and acceptance at a wide scale. This takes time.  The current adoption curve of this entire idea is still quite early.

I'm long BTC, and likely to remain so.

It's not a problem, nothing actually happens. People just build the deflation into the present value. When you buy a bitcoin, you get two things: the ability to have a bitcoin in a year, and the ability to have a bitcoin any time you would like it in exchange for giving up that bitcoin in a year. Thus a bitcoin today *must* be worth slightly more than the present value of what a bitcoin is expected to be worth in a year because it includes a bitcoin in a year plus an additional option.

I don't get how that would actually work. If people are building deflation into the present value now, they will still be doing so in (say) a year, and the two will roughly cancel out.

That's only true if you can make use of the bitcoin now in a way that's worth more than just having a bitcoin in a year's time, though. It also implies nothing about the value of one bitcoin relative to goods and services now as opposed to in a year's time; the extra value comes from the ability to invest bitcoins in other things.

hmmmmmm

I dont get it.. i'm a newb and I know all this. the deflation is controlled and well known and needed.

Yes, but why would 51% accept this rule, since it would be a bad idea? Inflation would skyrocket worse than any currency around now, including eventually the hyperinflation that Zimbabwe suffered.

If such an idea would get anywhere to 51% acceptance (doubtful) we would get a block chain split on our hands because remaining 49% will say "no way, we will keep our deflationary bitcoin but you boys have fun with your inflationary bitcoin without us". This would be a permanent network split.

Exchanges with have two crypto currencies, and there will be an exchange rate. I'll stick with good old deflationary bitcoin. Keynesians are welcome to sesspit of inflatocoin they desire so much, but not at my expense this time.

In fact, you do not have to wait for 51%. You can split the network right now. All it takes is to hire one of dev team guys (or any student who just read a book on C/C++) for a few hours to get inflationary version going. Go for it, finally! I beg you!.

Lots of people talk the talk and no one wants to walk the walk.

I imagine there'd be 51% of people with their new inflated coins with no value. Then there's be 49% of people with coins that have value.

This is a very interesting topic, will be cool to see what happens with bitcoins first hand

Nothing is preventing this, it's open source. But it means splitting the chain and creating a new currency. So your starting a new project from scratch. You should be able generate interest in this project and "catch up" with BTC for, say, $5 million in advertising. At that point you could commit to buying the first $100 million worth at $15/. Now you are ready to compete with bitcoin.
Oh, and I still am not interested. I'll stick with Satoshi's idea.

Dude, there isn't a debate.

Austrian economics is the equivalent of Phlogiston while Keynesian economics... is just science.
And, yeh, it is popular around gov't circles, despite being patently false, but that's because rich conservatives have business partners that, usually, want less regulation and less government intervention.

If you wanna hear a RELLY funny story about rampant deflation, search "The Great Depression" in Wikipedia.

Ha!