Bitcoin Forum

I trust the fiats was supposed to have printed limits to keep orderly speculations and maintains good values, but due to greeds in the regulatory systems, the authorities has made the central banks a temporarily Inheritance while still in power of authorization.

For that, they bridges the order of the fiats printed limits as they prints more for their own selves which lingers to a much number of the fiats being printed becoming irregularly viral and speculated abusively and devaluing the printed currencies.

Imagine where some highily profile persons(prominent person) places withdrawal order from the bank were they rejects old printed note/coins and only in request of the Mints.
Does it mean the old printed are for the poor? Or is there lost of values in the Old prints over the Minting?

Still, a highily profile man(prominent person) is attended to in the bank by the cashier's or event the branch bank manager in an honorable and executive manner while the poor and the average man are attended to like they came to beg while in request of their own funds stored in the banks.

If we can compare this Centralized fiats to decentralized cryptocurrencies, we would understand the equality and benefits of storing our funds in cryptocurrencies in the decentralized blockchain networks by which we are the autonomous to decide how we regulates our funds by ourselves unlike the fiats where the authorities tells you what to do with your funds.

This thoughtfulness has really thought me otherwise that those crypto enthusiasts who anticipates/wishes for crypto currencies especially the most dominance (Bitcoin) to be physically felt may actually not know the resultant of inconveniences the future of crypto currencies may hold against us in the future if such agitation is actualized were  Bitcoin or Cryptocurrencies are being printed or physically felt. Most definitely we would undergo those segregations and monopolies in the centralized system.
So, let us just keep to enjoy the dividends of the decentralized fund system on digital crypto currencies.

No fiats wasn't supposed to have limit supply and maintains good values, so you're wrong in the first place.

Fiats is supposed to have unlimited supply because human populations is unlimited, everyone need to have fiats in order to buy something, so the government need to print more and at the same time not make citizen to lost their trust in fiat.

Although Bitcoin is decentralized and fungible, but you're not entirely correct because banks and government do "segregate" Bitcoin holders. They will treat people who own "dirty Bitcoin" different to people who own Bitcoin from regulated CEX.

As you bitcoin is a digital currency that doesn't have direct printed mint unlike the fist you knows very well. Again, bitcoin is decentralized currency while other shitcoin are centralized currency.. to bring it down, we have DEX and CEX, in Dex (Decentralized Exchange which is relatively to a platform where you only connect your wallet to swap your coin without you sending the coin directly to the exchange), while CEX (Centralized Exchange is a platform you uses just like they way you uses Binance or Bybit to trade, you directly deposited your coin over there and they have all necessary control over your coins).

Priority is not given to anyone first in exchange or on digital currency, unlike the banking system where the high profile personal jeopardized the bank system and they placed high priority on them due to their balance and their returns to the banks maybe they are trading on their capital. So, I don't such would happened so soon, already we know bitcoin to be digital currency which is operating online and not as paper cash and will not likely to happen soon.

If you find a dollar bill from a safe and sewage the value of the bill will remains same which is $1. Old notes will be destroyed after a while and the equivalent amount will be printed for the usage by the central banks.

Banks treat their customers is their wish and of course they make money from people who have more balance, TXs, and loans in their bank so if that person is rich they will be treated better than average joe who deposits $50 a month, no offence but this is how every business works.

---

There should be a limit, cause if its availability is unlimited the value of the fiat will be zero as per the law of demand and supply.

Let me quote Venezuela and Zimbabwe as examples for what will happen if the government prints unlimited amount of money with no reserves.

There are times when you will be in a long cue in a bank and you become angry seeing some special customers being ushered into the bank and given preferential treatment. But Bitcoin offers everyone an equal opportunity to carry out transactions without limitations. But we can only enjoy the freedom and equality Bitcoin offers when we avoid centralized platforms. This is because we will also face the same problems we were facing in conventional banks. Using decentralized P2P platforms for transactions is the means of enjoying the benefits of Bitcoin.

Well, technically that's one of the reasons why fiat money was inveted. So that people stop hoarding their gold and that government would have this god-mode on their federal reserve. But that's not really the reason they are printing it more these days. Reason is always a sudden crisis that government needs to deal with promptly.

Because if government that doesn't have fiat money, but something like money that's backed up with gold or bitcoin reserves, that country can collapse during bad times, because it can just ran out. Ideally it doesn't but there are times like the great depression in US on 1933, when Roosevelt made executive order that forced their citizens to sell their gold to government (for paper money) with fixed price. Government needed more of the gold, and citizens had to get something for it, in order for them to keep buying stuff.

A little Joke; even during bitcoin transaction processing or approval those who set higher transaction fee are been prioritized by the miners before those who set low transaction fees. Shouldn’t that also be seen as prioritizing the rich over the poor by miners?  ;D




I continue to say this, whenever anyone who hasn’t adopted bitcoin before comes into it and sees or experience the level of decentralization, freedom, anonymity that it presents they would immediately reduce there usage or dependence on the fiat currency. The fiat currency is simply a way to which the government controls the financial freedom of the citizens, they print more when they want to devalue the amount hold by people or when they want to pay for loans and increases the value through limiting its supply

Well I agree with you but checking out on the terns to which the fiats would maintain good values, the central authorities in regularities of the fiats can not just keep printing much more monies unlimitedly as it pleases without limited control otherwise, if it easily spreads and everyone easily gets reach to it as much we all want to be rich, then the currency would encounter deflation and be underated to the highest esteem yielding to inflations in the stock markets.

The government has records of total money printed in the central banks and if by tracking records there are losses probably lost or damaged, they would reprint in replacement. That is why if an individual could reject faded/tore printed currencies, the bank would always accept them and return back to the central banks to take the records while considers reprinting for replacements.

The contrary is that the central banks are not limited to print more monies, they considers printing more monies based on population increments and also the architectural goals of an economy.


The decentralizations of Bitcoin is a sort of its users equality by which there is no practices of segregations.
At the intension of Bitcoin transactions, there is no executive treats in acknowledging the Big Bitcoin Whale accumulators while little amount such as those owning fractions are being considered as less privilege as the banks do.

You talked about some interesting points regarding the limitations and inefficiencies of the fiat system, which, to a real degree, economists view reforms carried out by officials that can cause problems like inflation and the inability of an individual to get caught based on his or her status or wealth. This could render currency that has less value and can increase social inequality. And the reason is that celebrities are treated differently compared to ordinary people in financial institutions; it is an example of inequality, really. So, it does really show how the central institution can create different value chains. On the contrary, decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin solve those problems by creating an atmosphere of control decentralization and making transactions more transparent ,, and they do that absolutely for free. In this way, the distribution of power, without middlemen and without intermediaries, can reduce such conflicts and give ownership to individuals over their financial assets. On the contrary, equally relevant would be complications arising when the system has fully developed. As you showed, if we were to print and formalize all cryptocurrencies as fiat currencies, then we would have further issues, inefficiencies, middlemen, or abuses. This takeaway can be used as a means of pinpointing strengths and weaknesses in both systems. Yes, fiat systems do have their drawbacks, but do bring in certain stability and regulation that the systems are still working to capture. Of course, the balancing act between the benefits of decentralization against monetary policy and economic activity is always a difficult challenge.


You're right, it was for this reason that fiat money was created-to afford more flexibility in monetary management than what the gold-backed system had allowed. The power of governments at the wheel of steering the economy and strongly responding to crises has been a great benefit, sometimes during periods of low economic activity.

The situation you have alluded to, during the financial crisis, is an excellent example of how, by providing government with a tool in fiat money, they may provide a semblance of stability against serious challenges. By allowing the government to raise investment, they were able to finance and support the economic activities necessary for recovery. As to say, it speaks to a larger issue with fiat currencies reliance on governmental surveillance taken to an uncomfortable level and inflation of the currency if done unwise.

Entities such as cryptocurrencies are distributed systems and introduce certain new enhancements that can offer an alternative to fiat systems. They provide transparency and reduce reliance on central authorities, but not without their challenges regarding complexity and flexibility.

That is one of the most sentiments happening in the banks. Infact, it gets the lower and average people thinking if everyone there in the bank really came to make transactions of their own funds or if they came begging the banks for money.

The worse segregation sentiments at the banks is that  the rich can successfully execute transaction withdrawal order even at when experiencing network issues by the bank staffs bridging the due process protocols but would ask the average and lower classes to go and come back when the network comes up.
That is inequality


That is just the truth. Running a Bitcoin transaction definitely has no Bitcoin whales any executive attention while belittling Bitcoin fractions holders.

The case of transacting with Bitcoin using a decentralized network is an equality transaction firm. Perhaps... Transacting on the P2P is strictly anonymous and the network is not structured on given segregative sentiment oders as the banks does.

banks are financial institutions that are built primarily for the sake of profit maximization. The way they treat the more influential and regular customers in a manner that's different from the other that's not a major customer is just the normal way of prioritizing what's more valuable to you above what's less valuable. It's the general issue that's associated with centralized institutions and they're even worse case scenario where you have funds in certain banks and wouldn't be allowed to get access to it while some big and influencial customers are being granted access to thier finance.


Crypto offeres a decentralized financial system that gives no preference of such to one who is a major or minor holder. You own full ownership of your funds which is an advantage because you don't even know who is who but the only thing ks between you and the network which affect every one equally. It allows you to carry out your transaction whenever and however it pleases you.

Printing excessive amounts of paper money is a problem that can lead to consequences like inflation especially when it has been done on several occasions such as with American dollars during COVID-19 pandemic which caused a fast rise in prices. More often than not, centralization favors the rich rather than average people, thus increasing wealth gap. However, it is important for one to note that bitcoin and other virtual currencies are faced with their own challenges as well. For instance, there is huge ownership inequality in which a small fraction of bitcoin owners hold the greater part of supply.

As much as decentralized coins give users more control over their cash, they come with risks too such as scams and hacks. In just the year 2021 itself, fraudulent activities accounted for more than 14 billion dollars loss due to crypto thefts. If bitcoin were to be more accepted by society, it might risk being centralized again resulting into problems like those faced by fiat currency. Therefore despite having advantages and disadvantages for both systems, perhaps finding an equilibrium between them could be the best way to go ahead.