I really don't get why so many people still seem to have a problem with this one.  Providing if/as/when it becomes necessary additional decimal places can be added it matters not how much of the bitcoin in existence is 'hoarded' and not in circulation.  It doesn't matter if the total bitcoin available for all world transactions is a small fraction of a single bitcoin.  It will still be plenty.  Its value is determined by demand which is determined by the the cumulative number and value of the transactions people want this tiny amount in circulation for.  Obviously the value of those not in circulation is determined by the value of those that are.

Needless to say in this extreme situation anything other than the tiniest amount of hoarded bitcoin coming back into circulation would play havoc with the price because unless it was only used for a tiny number of vary low value transactions the value of bitcoins in this circumstance would be immense - which is also why we are very unlikely ever to get to this.  Because way before the price got that high people would be bringing some of their savings into use.

I'm failing to see why this is so widely perceived as a problem.  Of course none of us knows. Paul Krugman and his ilk may be right.  This is one of the things that makes this experiment so exciting.  We will all find out in due course.

And I suppose it's kinda fun seeing people saying they 'know' what the results of the Bitcoin/cryptocurrency experiment will be because they are so certain that their knowledge of economics or the theory of money tells them what is 'inevitable'.

Are you beginning to wonder by now why not only nobody is agreeing with you on this 'counterfeit'/'quazi' thing but people are also suspecting you're trolling?  You say you think may be being trolled but I strongly suggest you have a look first at what you're saying and have a think why others think it ridiculous before calling everybody stupid for failing to 'get' what you alone appear to be understanding.

I think if I may be as bold as to summarise your position (without the all the negative and derogatory connotations of which you appear to be so fond):
 
Just as issuance of additional fiat currency without a corresponding increase in things on which to spend it devalues existing notes of said currency in any economy that makes use of them, the issuance of units of any currency (or other medium of exchange whatever its legitimacy) without a corresponding increase in things on which spend it will also result in price inflation.

Counterfeit currency if it gets detected and destroyed may cause a bloody nose but has no overall effect on monetary supply.  Undetected counterfeit currency has same effect as QE.  Common usage of an 'outside' currency also has the same effect e.g. USD in Argentina.  It is especially the case where central banks fail to control inflation.

So are you saying bitcoin is bad because it (like currency inflation, like undetected counterfeit currency or any 'outside' currency) is contributing to inflation in the US?  It would be very easy for Bernanke to counter this simply by switching the 'printing press' off a few minutes earlier than he would otherwise have done! As it is if people are spending money on bitcoin that they would otherwise have sitting in the bank or hoarded in gold then we are doing Bernanke's job for him in having more money circulating!

Or might you be saying bitcoin is bad because on the assumption it will become worthless it is like detected counterfeit currency because its holders will get a bloody nose when everybody simultaneously 'discovers' it has no value because something in an old rule book says it shouldn't have?

Surely it can't be both other than in the very short term?

No, it is incorrect to say it is 'not correct' because of not taking the exchange rate into the equation.  Of course you are welcome to include that in your own assessment of yours or anybody else's investment but it is perfectly reasonable to make the assessment of an investment on the basis of the currency in which it was invested alone.  Would you think me 'not correct' in saying I'd made a good profit from stocks I bought in euros even if the profit was more than wiped out from a pound perspective by the exchange rate having changed?

How about this for a baseless totally speculative 'theory':

Could the manipulator with the magic massive disappearing walls over the last few days be a benevolent manipulator who is using the orderbook as his palette to draw the shape of the chart over time so it looks like we've bottomed out?  It would appear the the 'manipulator don't care' when it comes to having some of his walls bitten into so I'm wondering about a possible longer term motive than manipulating just to buy or sell within the timeframe of the daytrading ups and downs.

Given what I was just saying in my last post that the bottom could potentially end up almost anywhere a manipulation of this nature could have a much bigger goal of changing sentiment by 'drawing' the chart of a solid bottom.

The scenario you describe of what's been happening is I'd say not far off the mark.  It is also true to say if this overall effect happened so far there's no reason why it could not continue for some time over some further percentage.  However I'm guessing the value required in order for there to be enough bitcoin liquidity for buying goods and services and for making long-distance transactions is a long way down from where we are.  Not that I'm reckoning we'll get anywhere near there but in theory as long as we're above that level the current price is nothing more than the outcome of our beliefs.  I don't believe anybody's statement of how low it will get is guessing, no matter with how much conviction.

That first three months of the 6 is only 'millpond flat' on a chart that shows what happened since.  At the time average weekly gains were still substantial, just not ridiculous as it was in the three months that followed.  However I do think including the months in this chart as part of the making of the bubble is a stretch - and looks to me a sign of those wanting to paint the current price as 'too high'.

edit: ...not that I'd mind if it did go substantially lower before turning around.  I don't have as much in my fiat pot as I do in btc but I'm still holding off from going all in again till I'm confident we're past a substantial risk of a large drop for the foreseeable.  Right now doesn't smell right for me still.

I am doubtful, given the number and aptitude of minds working on the various pieces required for a p2p exchange at the moment, that there is anything here that has not already been thought of but just in case... (btw. mods, feel free to move to an appropriate subforum - I didn't think 'just an idea' would fit under 'Projects').

In Brief

The Hot Potato Pound (HPP) is called 'Hot Potato' because whilst the plus is that it is very cheap and easy to use to transact a user either needs to pass it on quickly or redeem it as not to lose too much value.  It's 'Pound' because it works for me as a Brit though the same protocol could be used -  and may well end up being used first - for other currencies such as USD or EUR.

A decentralised p2p coloured coin issuing/redeeming idea that works on the principle of an issuer's bitcoin deposit (held in escrow by a Open Transactions multi-signature system as described elsewhere) warrantying redemption.  The incentive for issuers to redeem on demand is destruction of their bitcoin deposit upon proof of failure to redeem.  This could not only solve the trust-in-issuer problem of coloured coins but give us an instrument that has the potential to be in competition with on-line credit card or contactless technology (and M Pesa etc) for cheap, secure, easy transactions in fiat currencies.  I can see it working either as the primary means, or in a 'basket' of coloured coins to be used in Open Transactions.

The issuers/redeemers make money because the decaying coin values are worth less on redemption, dependent on duration, than at issue, the difference being the issuer's (minus a redeemer's fee).  The rate of decay and the amount of deposit representing each Hot Potato Pound is in flux, determined by supply and demand:  The rate of decay is determined by issuers (needs to be sufficient to be worthwhile participating) whilst the total deposit ('reserve'/'backing') is determined by HPP holders (needs to be enough for them to be confident in redemption).

Preamble

It seems like an age since I thoroughly read and participated in fellowtraveler's The Holy Grail thread on a p2p exchange idea (and others linked from there) where ft introduces the idea of combining Open Transactions and Bitmessage for the orderbook and exchange side of things.  But what has been grabbing my attention since is the trust issue in relation to coloured coins.


As I mentioned above a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and these issues may already have been resolved but if not I think I have a means of solving it.  There will be flaws and one or more may be insurmountable but even if useless in and of itself an element of it might be useful for someone else's ideas.  So feel free to respond as critically as you like

I think the best way of explaining it is to illustrate how I envision it working:

In Practice

Let's say I start this thing, become the first Issuer/Redeemer (call me I/D1) and decide to deposit 100 bitcoins which I do by locking it into an Open Transactions escrow system as described in the aforementioned thread.  I am going to secretly set a minimum decay percentage acceptable to me personally but will publicly offer the first customer an extreme 10% per week decay (just to illustrate the example).  My first customer comes along with £500.  The customer sets up his HPP wallet and sees what £500 worth of HPP would be backed by.  He sees 100 bitcoin, is satisfied and sets on the wallet his own minimum deposit he'd be happy with to 'back' his HPPs (or equivalent £ value which would update with exchange rates*).  I accept the £500 cash and ensure an appropriate 'receipt' is created (steps taken with timestamped proof of handover of cash or of bank transfer etc.).   I issue an HPP coloured bitcoin worth £500 at time of issue.  The whole of my 100 bitcoins are 'locked in' at this stage against a mere £500.  However I have £500 cash to do as I wish with providing I remember always to have access to £500 at any time to redeem to anyone who should demand it on risk of my bitcoin being destroyed.  The ratio agreed at the time of this deal  (10:1) becomes the Current Valid Deposit Ratio (CVDR).

Someone else who would like some HPP decides to get involved when she mentions it to a friend who has Bitcoin and likes the idea - let's call her I/D2.  I/D2 and her customer only want to dip in their toes so even though the customer only wants £10's worth the issuer simply does not want to tie up 2 whole bitcoins.  Her customer would be more than happy with 1 bitcoin backing her £10 (and also sets her wallet minimum ratio to 2:1**).  The system checks that the proposed 5:1 ratio for this deal is not below any existing minimums set by wallets containing HPP.  In this instance, given there has only been the one other transaction and that the first customer's minimum ratio is also lower than that proposed by this deal, upon this transaction being made the Current Valid Deposit Ratio is lowered to 5:1.  As a consequence of the new CVDR if we go look at I/D1s position again we'll see now that the £500 HPP is now backed by 50 bitcoins so the Open Transactions escrow system releases half the bitcoin deposit and makes it available to be used by I/D1 against more HPP issuing.  In the meantime I/D2's customer is also OK with a decay of 10%/week so the deal goes ahead.

Let's say it's a week since the first deal and the original HPP have ended up in one person's wallet who looking at it sees it is now only worth £450 decides to sell or redeem it.  I'm guessing an open market would establish itself but let's say rather than selling it on he goes to redeem it.  He finds lets say I/D3.  I/D3 who has Bitcoin deposited but has not as of yet issued any HHP.  He has however decided to offer pounds of his own so he can offer a redeeming service so he gives the £450 to his client who returns the HPP (with all proofs of the transaction taken care of).  Having no immediate customers lined up for the HPP he 'redeems' it with the system which involves I/R1 sending him his £450 + redeemers fee (I have not thought how it would be determined nor of the system of trust involved in 'clearance' between I/Ds).

It is now a week since the second deal and somebody has a decayed £9 worth of HPP.  On that day a new HPP issuing deal is going down with a customer who will only go for it if the decay rate is halved.  As it happens the minimums of all the I/Ds who have issued HPPs is less than or equal to half the going rate so from this day forward the new customer's HPP along with all those of all other HPP users will halve (The holder of the £9 will now lose 'only' 5% in the next week).

In the event that we got to a situation where prospective customers were not buying because the amount backed becomes too low (e.g. a halving of GBP/BTC) or the decay rate too high - or the converse where the CVDR or decay rate are insufficient for one or more I/Ds there needs to be a way of 'forcing' minimums/maximums that are holding up everyone else either to accept new rates within a given time or within that time to redeem one's position.  For instance if a customer has insisted on a ratio which at the time was fine but given most people accept much lower is limiting the HPP available to be issued the HPP holder would be given the option of redeeming their HPP or accepting the new rate.  Rather than this being done by committee the idea is that the rules are built into the protocol.  Likewise if as in the example above another halving of GBP/BTC occurred I/Ds would have the option of topping up their bitcoin to cover their positions, of reducing their positions within the network of I/Ds by passing it on to someone else or by redeeming enough to reduce the ratio.

I have many more examples in my head that I think would work and there will be many more others can think of, some of which may not work at all!  So rather than me going on and on about it I think I have given enough here for many of you to get the gist of it.  I'd be very grateful of any and all feedback

Tf

* assuming a going rate of £50/bitcoin a £500 HPP backed by 100 bitcoins would be the equivalent of .2 bitcoins/per pound (£10) giving us a 10:1 ratio of backing:HPP

** Just to clarify, for this current deal, given the issuer is happy to tie up 1 bitcoin to warranty him £10 (a 5:1 ratio) he accepts this.  However he would be happy to accept a minimum of 2:1 and sets his wallet accordingly.

BitPay has in the first instance (for their merchants requiring fiat conversion) to be doing transactions at a rate that enables it to immediately pass the transaction on to an exchange.  Unless they are going to be determining rate to the customer on the size of the order (by calculating it from the order book) the most important thing is liquidity so they don't lose out on slippage.  With only 1% charged on to the merchant I can't see how they could select the exchange that would best suit the customer without risking losing their margin on slippage.

I think the point of showing their rate based on a single bid price is that it is simply passing on the rate it will be getting itself for the conversion.

You can always see BitPay prices here.

And this is how 24 hr volumes and bid prices stand this morning...

This quote is not new.  It has been this way for a long time officially although either their algorithm was more complex than that or at times they over-rode it manually because there have been times before when gox was the outlier but it was still used.  My guess on seeing the announcement is that this means of determining price has been discontinued and superseded by the new one where they are specifically excluding gox and using another means (maybe using btce, bitstamp and cbx (although cbx is really small volume in comparison with the other two).

It is a variation on the old way that I have been using as my means of determining price for some time.  Hence the spreadsheet that gives me this that I occasionally share:



This is the first time I've seen the mtgox volume at less than 50%.  That's quite something.  We live in interesting times

With volume as low as it is the last 24 hrs the percentage volume mtgox has has dropped immensely in relation to the others.  Below 60% is nice but I think it would need to stay there or lower as volumes increase (or for something drastic to happen to mtgox - or even just for people to believe something drastic is likely to happen to mtgox) for another exchange to have a good chance of taking over as the main trading exchange.

As an aside, with the the price so far ahead of the others my algorithm is currently taking mtgox as an outlier my btc net worth calculation ignores it and works on the basis of the closest two of the other bid prices.   I'm hoping my algorithm is not giving the picture of the 'truer' evaluation but I guess we won't know until the dust settles with the gox withdrawals and prices get closer together.

It is especially ironic after their having spent a fortune on that full page ad in the G8 mag.  I guess there'll be plenty who raised an eyebrow on seeing the ad wondering if it really is time to look seriously at Bitcoin.  Now they'll be ROFLing with the obvious answer: 'No'!

But to be honest I'm OK with more and more reasons for uncertainty holding the price back.  It gives more time for those for whom Bitcoin is an answer right now to their situation time to get using it and tell their friends.  Excuse my prejudice but I would rather they be the primary beneficiaries of future price hikes than G8 attendees!

It also helps people keep focused on bringing forth a solution to the distributed exchange challenge.

Well if the theory of the gox price rising because of an exodus of btc in order to cash-out elsewhere has any merit then I guess people are using localbitcoins or some other service with a gox-linked price (or they're not in a hurry to convert back to USD) because it's certainly not driving the price down at bitstamp or elsewhere at the moment.  The proximity-to-gox is certainly a bigger percentage than average but there is no correlating down as of yet to gox's up.

And even if it weren't there's a whole plethora of more plausible explanations - such as, off the top of my head, it being possible for criminals to see more without artificial light - before we need to start looking to tiny gravitational and magnetic differences as have any likelihood of affecting our behaviour!

It's like the homoeopathy thing.  I won't deny some people who go to homeopaths feel or even get better.  But until experiments can isolate 'water memory' as being the most likely factor there's a long list of probable causes to explore before we can reasonably assume there is anything in it.

Yes, and isn't that fantastic? What's also magnificent is through our discovery, exploration and development of scientific principles and methods we have a means of differentiating between stuff that just seems like it ought to explain something and the times where correlation actually does mean causation.

Having said that I'm tending towards thinking we need the dreamers to come up with really random propositions unhindered by too much knowledge of how things work and how we know stuff - so that the more methodical of us have things to test for!  Even if 99.9999% of them turn out to be baseless every now and again we will come across something that is potentially world-changing - and that has to be worth the price

Apologies if that was a bit deep for this time of day (if you're anywhere in the region of GMT)

Well yes and no.  If you look at those documents you'll find quite a morphing having happened in its short life.  I suspect they originally sold the idea to their original sponsors as a coordinated pooling of ideas to assist businesses protect themselves and their customers.  That's the tone of that first speech.  I don't think it is as straightforward as money.  The likes of you and me don't understand the lure of political influence and power and I suspect their abandoning of first principles in order to cowtow to what their Government and police authority 'partners' want is a means of wielding more power.  I don't know where money comes into that.

But did you get the tone of that video?!  The 'paradise lost' quasi-religious theme with the advent of the internet portrayed with sinister music and dark tones.  If they'd been around in the early 90s they'd have pushed the governments to ban the internet and have 2 or 3 AOL-type content providers that they could have in their pockets.  To have an organisation that simply doesn't get what today's technology delivers and promises to deliver let alone tomorrow's have any kind of influence on legislation and enforcement is frightening!

Does anybody know a journalist who might be interested in looking into this? If you do or know someone you think might know someone please forward this or share accordingly. I've just been doing some preliminary searching into ICSPA - the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance and am frankly taken aback by what I've found. I think it needs someone with investigative resources/criteria who will have their questions taken seriously and someone who also has the means of selling the story - if there is indeed a story - to ensure word gets out on this.

I know ex-forces guys sometimes struggle with what to do with their lives once they leave but this is a cracker! An ex-RAFfie with a lot of connections and too much time on his hands appears to have woken up one morning in 2011 and thought "I know what, I'll set up an organisation to internationally co-ordinate policy-making and policing of anything internet-related worldwide. We'll get a load of corporate money together and use our contacts to get some political credibility then become the go-to people for more powerful governments and police authorities to get them to implement what we want whilst using the same political clout to bully governments in developing nations to comply, thus bringing the whole of the internet under our control. In the meantime by portraying the internet as a scary place full of nasty people and organisations we'll easily push ourselves as being the saviour of the innocent internet user, and by giving ourselves an authoritative sounding title governments, businesses and the people will just believe we are actually a legitimate organisation accountable to... well, actually it doesn't matter who people think we're accountable to as long as they don't realise it is in fact nobody! Excellent, now where did I put David Blunkett's number?!"

I kid you not! Two years later ICSPA runs out of this office in Chesham, Bucks; they have a video from David Cameron saying why he supports the organisation, they appear to have both Europol and City of London Police in their pockets, they're establishing a foot-hold in Latin America and they're given two pages of the official G8 magazine to lobby participating delegates as to why Bitcoin and all new money-transmitting technologies should be banned (using the usual 3-excuse-rhetoric of child porn, terrorism and money laundering), with the exception of the 'trustworthy' existing credit card and banking names and technologies thus keeping all internet-related financial transactions in the hands of the existing oligopolies.

What I want to know is who do they think they are that they can become judge and jury of the pros and cons of innovative technologies and also enforcement co-ordinator of its own verdict? How did such a policy come about? In their big Glen Eagles conference last year? Where is the agenda? Who is driving it? How much influence do they actually have? How on earth does somebody get to wield such power without ever having to supply a service to a customer or canvas for a vote?!

I'm struggling to figure out if this is a couple of people, mainly the ex-RAFfie nobody blokie (whose name is John Lyons) and Blunkett, just having a go and seeing how far they can push this thing or if it really is a scary beast that's like a cross between the sinister organisations of Ayn Rand and George Orwell's dystopias. Either way I think people ought to know. I think it's time to put ICSPA under the spotlight and see what there is to be seen.

     

http://www.newsdeskmedia.com/files/G8-UK-2013.pdf (page 60)

https://www.icspa.org/uploads/media/John_Lyons_-_Chief_Exec_speech_launching_the_ICSPA_in_London__July_5th__2011.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzSHlmLX8nY

Check out "We've reached out to governments across the globe on your behalf".  Excuse me.. on whose authority are you claiming to be doing anything on my behalf?!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=04935HdkvoA

I had also a few months back been failing to find this...

The mtgox:bitstamp 24hr USD volume ratio is about the lowest I've seen at the moment at around 2.6.  I know this tends to happen when volumes are low but would be interested to know if there is a chart showing total volume and volume differences over time to see if what looks like a trend to me checking in at irregular intervals is borne out by the facts.  Anyone?

Until today I've had no time in the last few weeks to see if there was a reason for the falling SD stock price and have only now caught up with this thread over the last few days (from here).

Erik,

I have much respect for you but disagree fundamentally with the way you appear to be seeing this situation with the 'loan', my thinking being more aligned with Pale Phoenix, ThickAsThieves and Peter Lambert.  

My claim is that the betting pool belongs to the business and was sold as part of the assets of the business.  Your starting point appears to be that it was a loan and that you may withdraw that loan at any time without consultation. And though you have moved from this in what you are currently proposing you appear still not to have shifted from the belief that it was and is a loan.  

I strongly request you:

• accept given there was no documentation of this that the situation is not as clear cut as you have portrayed it;
• accept given you do not own the company 100% that you do not have legitimate authority to decide on this and act on this unilaterally;
• look to a means of resolving this with shareholders, whether debating here, arbitration or whatever;
• agree not to do anything with said pool until the issue is resolved.

I am not right now expecting you to accept my point of view unequivocally, only to accept that those not happy with where you are on this right now are not 'making a fuss' but have a case that needs at least to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand.  If you take this money from SD you need to understand others see this not as 'repayment of a loan' but as taking the money from SD.  I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to or use of this money but let's get the basis on which this money is being removed (e.g. as an equivalent of a 'director's loan' or as repayment of your 'loan' to the business) first.  If it is established it is yours then you should not need to pay out of your own pocket to replenish it at all.  However if it is the business's then if taken at all it needs at some point to be repaid in full.  What I'm saying is we should establish what is what before such a transaction should take place.

Given that there was no list of liabilities and assets there is no indisputable proof that the pool was an asset.  Neither is there indisputable proof that it was there as a loan.  We can all regret it was not made clear but what neither you nor any of us can legitimately do is to retrospectively and without agreement say 'this is what should have been written in the documentation and I shall therefore act accordingly'.

It is not that anyone is trying to take this money from you.  But if I am not alone having made the assumption the betting pool belonged to the business then this will have formed part of people's assessment of the value of the stock at the time of purchase.  What I'm saying is you already sold the same proportion of that sum as you did the rest of the assets and future profits to stockholders and that this asset was already reflected in the popularity and price of the stock.  From this perspective you sold the asset therefore can not subsequently claim it's yours to have back.

My case is simply that a betting pool is as essential to a gambling business as widgets are to a widget seller - in fact more so because you can simply stop selling widgets when you've run out of stock whereas a gambling business always needs the means to pay out on a run of consecutive big wins.  It is therefore not unreasonable to have assumed the betting pool was an asset owned by the business and consequently sold as part of the business.

You might have been lucky from day 1 but it would have been ludicrous to have started the business depending on a run of losing bets in order to pay out on the wins.  You provided a betting pool and increased it in accordance with probable requirements whilst the business was entirely yours and you were free to see that as part of the assets of the business or as a loan.  Only if you decided to separate business money from your own and maybe use a separate bank account or set up a limited company would you have to decide one way or the other.  What happened when you brought a partner on board?  You are not obliged to tell us given it was a private agreement but it might help if we knew how ownership of the money making up the pool was determined at that juncture.

You didn't need to.  Not only did we know there was a betting pool from the discussions regarding its size and associated risk of losing the bank but it also goes without saying a gambling business has to have the means to pay prizes.  The serious omission if you wanted it form part of the arrangement, was stating that this money did not belong to the business and was therefore not part of what was being sold.

But we knew the amount of the betting pool - the business's operating capital - and nowhere was it ever mentioned that that money was not SD's.

I can see you see it as 'letting the site use your coins' but when people set up a business requiring assets, such as stock or a betting pool, this is the capital investment made.  You can't seriously regret using your coins given that SD would have fallen at the first big win had you not?

I think the following analogy illustrates how you have been failing to understand this:


I believe a better analogy would be had you bought a server to host the site yourself then when selling the business, retained ownership of the server whilst assuming the buyers would somehow guess the server is not part of the deal*  only to say a few months down the line: "btw, that server is mine and I am on the company's behalf using company money in the form of this month's profits to buy it from me".  Can you see how shareholders might take exception to this?

I understand this is not what you are proposing to do at the moment and appreciate given the way you are seeing this that you are 'giving up' your monthly dividend...


But my primary concern is that the betting pool not be lessened.  If anything that should be increasing slightly over time.  If the amount of the betting pool represents the acceptable risk of the business running out of funds and that is sometimes less then there is an increased risk of running out of funds meaning a means of increasing or replenishing the pool needs to be established in the longer term.  As has been pointed out part of the MPEX agreement is that it not come out of the dividend so whether or not you are taking a part or the whole of the current pool this is something which will need addressing.  But in the meantime if you were to take the money without planning to replace it full then to the extent it is short is not only the taking of an amount some believe is not yours to take but is also an increased risk of the business being caught short in terms of payouts.

I hope this is not coming across in an accusatory manor.  It is not my intention to lay blame nor to imply wrongdoing on your part.  But we do have a fundamental disagreement here which I'd like you first and foremost to acknowledge is an issue and secondly to suggest how you would like to see it resolved.


* - which incidentally would have been obvious had you been charging the business for its use (or in the case of the loan, had been charging interest)

I always enjoy these kind of analyses so thanks for sharing.

You do however appear to be conflating money-supply inflation with price-inflation.  And whilst I am not trying to claim they are unrelated there are many potentially wildly moving variables that would need to remain constant for a 10% money-supply inflation result in a 65% loss of purchasing power in ten years.  It wouldn't matter by how much Bitcoin's money-supply inflation is slowing down year-on-year if people stopped using it, gradually or suddenly for whatever reason.  Price-inflation is the determinant in retaining or losing purchasing power, not money-supply inflation.

For the record though my opinion that Bitcoin is more likely than not to end up at a price orders-of-magnitude higher than it is today remains irrespective of price behaviour in the last couple of months.