Bitcoin Forum
November 02, 2024, 12:46:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Common misconception  (Read 1902 times)
mcgravier (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 08:17:21 PM
 #1

As in title, there is a certain myth that i'm hearing often:

it goes: "rise in the currency value (aka deflation) triggers hoarding"
while the truth is: "raise in the currency value triggers SPENDING"

It's repeated often by Keynesians. I'll try to bust it here and now, with my limited intellectual and linguistic resources.

1. That myth is against rule of supply and demand.

It is pretty obvious, that if something suddenly gets expensive, there will be more people willing to sell it with interest.

2. If the myth was true, then it would rise currency value straight to infinity. There was no such event in history known to me.
While there were such occurrences with consumable goods (ie during food shortages), this doesn't apply to any modern currency, as neither BTC, nor USD can be consumed - only exchanged. Theoretically gold can be consumed by creating jewelry but it can be easily recycled.

3. Market punishes hoarding for no reason.
During 2011 bitcoin bubble, the winners were guys who had bitcoins earlier - because they believed in that system, or for any other reason and exchanged them during bubble for goods, services or fiat. Every single person, who hoarded bitcoin during its peak price, either lost, or froze their funds for a very long time. This applies to every bubble.

Don't take me wrong, hoarding happens, but it is result of uncertainty, as people trying to secure their wealth in trustworthy assets - like gold just after the crisis in 2008. Or like food during war. Bitcoin is neither food nor trustworthy asset (at least not right now).

Now how do I explain 78% of coins sitting idle?
Well there was hoarding at some point - probably during times when BTC was nearly worthless. But it stopped. Because of reasons I've explained earlier. Those bitcoins will be spent bit by bit, preventing price spikes like the one in 2011.
Exactly opposite from what Keynes told ya.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 09:38:43 PM
Last edit: November 15, 2012, 01:15:19 AM by hazek
 #2

Interesting, as it happens I was just today trying to find a few mises.org daily posts on this topic and write an article of my own about it so for anyone who wants the actual Austrian perspective on this matter, here are a few articles you should research before you try and apply common sense to this issue:

http://mises.org/daily/3733

http://mises.org/daily/3707/The-Virtue-of-Hoarding

http://mises.org/daily/3449/The-Yield-from-Money-Held-Reconsidered


(I'll edit as I find more)

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
crispy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 10:22:52 PM
 #3

Quote
"rise in the currency value (aka deflation) triggers hoarding"

There's a small particle of truth in that:

Some people value the projected appreciation of the asset more than the immediate liquidation thereof.  When there's a spike in the value of an asset, whether it's Bitcoin or Google stock, the projected rate of return (relative to other assets) goes up, making "hoarding" more attractive.

However, on cannot get any tangible benefit from the appreciation of some Bitcoin without eventually spending it. 

In some ways, Bitcoin is demonstrating Gresham's law, as users who prefer it to fiat currencies keep the BTC somewhat out of circulation.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003


View Profile
November 14, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
 #4

However, on cannot get any tangible benefit from the appreciation of some Bitcoin without eventually spending it. 

Which is also the main purpose of bitcoins - a medium of exchange  - and is the one most important fact most who mistakenly believe that "hoarding is bad" forget or just don't understand.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
November 14, 2012, 11:42:47 PM
 #5

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all. This is simply not true. Currently, the situation is that the Bitcoin economy is growing faster than the monetary base, causing deflation. The reality is, the economic growth will stagnate and eventually reach zero, and if monetary expansion also reaches zero, there will not be inherent forcing on either inflation or deflation.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 12:08:27 AM
 #6

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
November 15, 2012, 12:10:57 AM
 #7

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.
Lost wallets are proportional amongst all holders of bitcoin. Although the value of an individual BTC may go up, this demurrage will cause the balances to decrease to compensate.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 12:51:11 AM
 #8

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.
Lost wallets are proportional amongst all holders of bitcoin. Although the value of an individual BTC may go up, this demurrage will cause the balances to decrease to compensate.
If you lose your entire wallet, my balance stays the same. I don't see how that could possibly be proportional amongst all holders.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
November 15, 2012, 12:54:48 AM
 #9

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.
Lost wallets are proportional amongst all holders of bitcoin. Although the value of an individual BTC may go up, this demurrage will cause the balances to decrease to compensate.
If you lose your entire wallet, my balance stays the same. I don't see how that could possibly be proportional amongst all holders.
But you are as likely to lose your entire wallet as I. Random bankruptcy is a form of demurrage.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2012, 01:01:22 AM
 #10

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.
Lost wallets are proportional amongst all holders of bitcoin. Although the value of an individual BTC may go up, this demurrage will cause the balances to decrease to compensate.
If you lose your entire wallet, my balance stays the same. I don't see how that could possibly be proportional amongst all holders.
But you are as likely to lose your entire wallet as I.
Maybe, maybe not. I know I have my wallet backed up six ways from Sunday, notwithstanding that it holds a whopping .25 or so BTC at the moment.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077



View Profile
November 15, 2012, 01:54:52 AM
 #11

I think the misconception is that BTC is inherently deflationary at all.

Not exactly. How many wallets have already been lost? Do you think that's a thing of the past? Even with a completely stable - not growing, not shrinking - economy, that small trickle of lost wallets will continue to deflate the currency once it's stopped being generated. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is going to deflate over time. The supply will get near 21 million, and then slowly drain away.
Lost wallets are proportional amongst all holders of bitcoin. Although the value of an individual BTC may go up, this demurrage will cause the balances to decrease to compensate.
If you lose your entire wallet, my balance stays the same. I don't see how that could possibly be proportional amongst all holders.
But you are as likely to lose your entire wallet as I.
Maybe, maybe not. I know I have my wallet backed up six ways from Sunday, notwithstanding that it holds a whopping .25 or so BTC at the moment.
Then that is work done, and payment received.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


View Profile
November 15, 2012, 02:02:06 AM
 #12

Long duration deflation encourages hoarding, short duration deflation encourages spending.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2012, 01:37:38 PM
 #13

Long duration deflation encourages hoarding, short duration deflation encourages spending.

Hardly, having products to spend the money on encourages spending, deflation has nothing to do with it the only thing deflation and inflation effects is prices.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
November 27, 2012, 01:34:24 AM
 #14

BTC is not the ONLY currency in the circulation, the theories about deflation and inflation do not apply here

It is more like gold/silver, their prices are not stable, but they won't affect deflation and inflation





FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2012, 01:52:58 AM
 #15

good OP

The 78% stat also rests on another misconception, the idea that bitcoins are always allocated. In reality many people have access to the same pools of coins and the top of each pool is repeatedly skimmed from and replaced. There can be complete rapid turnover of every person's bitcoins without touching nearly all of the actual blockchain coins.

Seals has X coins belonging to other people. More than all of them are used every month, yet somehow 80% or so of them never move.

Bitcoins are fungible. You will never know what is happening to bitcoin ownership no matter how cleverly you stare at the blockchain or pig entrails.


Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
November 28, 2012, 09:11:08 AM
 #16

4. Bitcoin is a new currency


While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 10, 2012, 04:49:58 PM
 #17

As in title, there is a certain myth that i'm hearing often:

it goes: "rise in the currency value (aka deflation) triggers hoarding"
while the truth is: "raise in the currency value triggers SPENDING"

It's repeated often by Keynesians. I'll try to bust it here and now, with my limited intellectual and linguistic resources.

1. That myth is against rule of supply and demand.

It is pretty obvious, that if something suddenly gets expensive, there will be more people willing to sell it with interest.

Supply and demand dynamics only work that way if there is a relative change of value somewhere in the economy.
But in your example EVERYTHING changes value by the same amount.
So you may think you win by selling your bike for 15% more but the next day you realize that all other things are 15% more expensive and the 15% you made on the bike was actually just fair given the current economical situation.
So the next bike you want to buy (so you can sell it for the 15% difference) will already cost you 15% more.
The profit you can get from this is a one time correction between your current stock and future rise in price.
And even then  if you never bought the (cheap) bike in the first place you would get the 15% for free on the money you still had on your bank for not spending it on the bike.
So with less effort (not trading te bike but hoarding the money on the bank) you could have capitalized on that 15% just as well as by trading the bike.


Quote

2. If the myth was true, then it would rise currency value straight to infinity. There was no such event in history known to me.
While there were such occurrences with consumable goods (ie during food shortages), this doesn't apply to any modern currency, as neither BTC, nor USD can be consumed - only exchanged. Theoretically gold can be consumed by creating jewelry but it can be easily recycled.
That's not how these things work.
For you to be able to take something from someone there needs to be someone to take it from.
In the end this process results in a monopoly-like situation and not infinite deflation.
You can only excert economical power if there is an economy.
If you are the economy (because you own all the moneys) then there is noone to excert power on.
So for there to be any value to the money it needs to be functioning as a means of value exchange.
If someone were to take their wealth beyond the borders of a monopoly they will find that they start to hurt the economy so much that the value goes down.
This monopoly situation is a kind of parasitic thing and parasites would be stupid to kill their host, right?
So in the end we will see some big players in bitcoinland taking control and becoming local monopolies and then controling the value down to ensure a stable value of their coins.

Quote


3. Market punishes hoarding for no reason.
During 2011 bitcoin bubble, the winners were guys who had bitcoins earlier - because they believed in that system, or for any other reason and exchanged them during bubble for goods, services or fiat. Every single person, who hoarded bitcoin during its peak price, either lost, or froze their funds for a very long time. This applies to every bubble.

This is not an argument against hoarding.
In fact, the biggest hoarders are the people who had the early bitcoins.
They hoarded them despite bitcoin being almost worthless.
And the people that started hoarding at the peak, they will propably be winners too, if they are willing to wait some more. Nothing about bitcoin prevents it from going higher than anything we've seen before.
And that peak was just one of the rare occasions where it was not an optimal time to start hoarding bitcoin.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!