[CHART] Bitcoin Inflation vs. Time

[phelix]

+1 impressive

[1714720899]

1714720899

[clone4501]

Great reference charts and contribution to the forum...Thanks!

[hazek]

I think this shouldn't be lost so I set it as sticky.

[johnniewalker]

Eventually that little line on your graph will level out. Once all BTC are mined and in the hands of bearers, inflation will be impossible because the amount of BTC is FINITE!

[DannyHamilton]

Eventually that little line on your graph will level out. Once all BTC are mined and in the hands of bearers, inflation will be impossible because the amount of BTC is FINITE!

True, but since that is approximately 127 years away, can we assume that the bitcoin supply will be inflationary for the entire lifetime of anyone alive today?

I suppose it depends on whether you count "lost coins" as a reduction in supply against the generation of new coins, and how high the rate of lost coins is in any given year.

[hgmichna]

… since that is approximately 127 years away, can we assume that the bitcoin supply will be inflationary for the entire lifetime of anyone alive today?

Doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is already deflationary in the sense that their price is rising.

The reason is that, while the money supply inflates, demand inflates even more. There is inflation, but there is no effective inflation. The price behaves deflationary, unlike that of the dollar or the euro, which is truly inflationary.

[whitslack]

I suppose it depends on whether you count "lost coins" as a reduction in supply against the generation of new coins, and how high the rate of lost coins is in any given year.

Even "lost" coins are not truly lost. They're more like gold that has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. It will be expensive to get them back, but it's not impossible. And the technology to do it will get cheaper over time. Eventually a device that fits in your pocket will be able to brute-force a private key to reclaim the "lost" bitcoins. The people actively using Bitcoin will have long since moved on to stronger cryptography.

[whitslack]

Doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is already deflationary in the sense that their price is rising.

The reason is that, while the money supply inflates, demand inflates even more. There is inflation, but there is no effective inflation. The price behaves deflationary, unlike that of the dollar or the euro, which is truly inflationary.

I must beg to differ. Prices (of goods) may be holding steady or even going down, and yet inflation may still be cheating people out of purchasing power. Inflation is never good (except for debtors), even if prices are falling. Inflation means prices are not falling as quickly as they would be if inflation were not present, meaning your purchasing power is still being stolen. In the case of Bitcoin, we know the inflation well in advance, and we all agree to it when we get into Bitcoin, so it's not insidious or evil like the inflation perpetrated by the central banks, but it is still significant and not negligible.

[DannyHamilton]

I suppose it depends on whether you count "lost coins" as a reduction in supply against the generation of new coins, and how high the rate of lost coins is in any given year.

. . . will be able to brute-force a private key to reclaim the "lost" bitcoins . . .

You are mistaken.

It might be possible that weaknesses/flaws are eventually found in SHA256, ECDSA, and RIPEMD-160 which would break the cryptography used by bitcoin, but without discovering flaws it will never be possible to brute-force a private key until computers are no longer made of matter, and no longer use energy to operate.

As far as I know, the SHA256 algorithm is not vulnerable to quantum computing, but I suppose that if someone happened to reuse an address and then lost the coins so that their public key is known, in that special situation if quantum computing ever reaches significant enough abilities, it might be able to crack a private key. But we are talking about an analogy closer to gold that has been pushed below the crust of the earth at a tectonic subduction zone than sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

[whitslack]

It might be possible that weaknesses/flaws are eventually found in SHA256, ECDSA, and RIPEMD-160 which would break the cryptography used by bitcoin, but without discovering flaws it will never be possible to brute-force a private key until computers are no longer made of matter, and no longer use energy to operate.

I wouldn't discount the possibility that this entire class of "bit-mixing" message digests may be broken some day. A brute-force search will not need to search a 256-bit key space. Successive breaks of the cryptography may significantly narrow that search space. Besides, you don't even have to search the whole 256-bit key space. There are numerous private keys that all produce the same Bitcoin address, and you only need to find one of them to claim the funds at that address.

As far as I know, the SHA256 algorithm is not vulnerable to quantum computing, but I suppose that if someone happened to reuse an address and then lost the coins so that their public key is known, in that special situation if quantum computing ever reaches significant enough abilities, it might be able to crack a private key. But we are talking about an analogy closer to gold that has been pushed below the crust of the earth at a tectonic subduction zone than sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

I didn't say anything about quantum computing. Indeed, SHA has not yet been shown to be vulnerable, nor has ECDSA. I don't make the mistake of assuming that they are not vulnerable, however.

[hgmichna]

Doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is already deflationary in the sense that their price is rising.

The reason is that, while the money supply inflates, demand inflates even more. There is inflation, but there is no effective inflation. The price behaves deflationary, unlike that of the dollar or the euro, which is truly inflationary.

I must beg to differ. Prices (of goods) may be holding steady or even going down, and yet inflation may still be cheating people out of purchasing power. Inflation is never good (except for debtors), even if prices are falling. Inflation means prices are not falling as quickly as they would be if inflation were not present, meaning your purchasing power is still being stolen. In the case of Bitcoin, we know the inflation well in advance, and we all agree to it when we get into Bitcoin, so it's not insidious or evil like the inflation perpetrated by the central banks, but it is still significant and not negligible.

I cannot follow that argument, for more than one reason. I will mention only one here: The money supply inflation of bitcoin is known precisely in advance, therefore everybody knows exactly what to expect, and therefore nobody is being cheated.

[whitslack]

I cannot follow that argument, for more than one reason. I will mention only one here: The money supply inflation of bitcoin is known precisely in advance, therefore everybody knows exactly what to expect, and therefore nobody is being cheated.

I didn't say anyone is being cheated. This is how Bitcoin differs from the fiat system. I'm also not arguing that Bitcoin should have been constructed in any other way. What I am saying is that Bitcoin is presently inflationary and that trying to hide this fact by pointing to the increasing value of bitcoins is dishonest. You cannot dismiss the inflation simply because the growth in demand is outpacing the growth in supply. The inflation deserves to be recognized and understood for what it is, not swept under the rug.

[hgmichna]

I cannot follow that argument, for more than one reason. I will mention only one here: The money supply inflation of bitcoin is known precisely in advance, therefore everybody knows exactly what to expect, and therefore nobody is being cheated.

I didn't say anyone is being cheated.

But you did.

This is how Bitcoin differs from the fiat system. I'm also not arguing that Bitcoin should have been constructed in any other way. What I am saying is that Bitcoin is presently inflationary and that trying to hide this fact by pointing to the increasing value of bitcoins is dishonest. You cannot dismiss the inflation simply because the growth in demand is outpacing the growth in supply. The inflation deserves to be recognized and understood for what it is, not swept under the rug.

I fully agree. However, I don't see anybody hiding the facts or sweeping them under a rug. I think that most bitcoin users know the bitcoin production rate exactly. It was Ƀ50 per block in the first four years. Now it is Ƀ25 for the next four years, then Ƀ12.5, and so on, asymptotically approaching the final total of Ƀ21 million. One block is generated, on average, every 10 minutes.

Show me a bitcoin user who does not know this. And then show me anybody who tries to sweep this fact under a rug. I have never heard of anybody trying that.

[robamichael]

Is it possible to determine the number of Bitcoin users?

It would be interesting to see the number of users, or perhaps number of in-use wallets, versus the money supply/inflation rate.

[whitslack]

Is it possible to determine the number of Bitcoin users?

It would be interesting to see the number of users, or perhaps number of in-use wallets, versus the money supply/inflation rate.

It's not possible to determine the number of Bitcoin users, but a fairly good (I think) estimator, at least for relative comparisons, would be the number of Blockchain.info Wallet accounts since it's reasonable to expect the number of wallet accounts per human user to be almost exactly 1. (In other words, it would be rare for a human to have more than one Blockchain.info wallet account.)

[robamichael]

Number of transactions would be nice too, since it relates the "usefulness" of Bitcoin to the amount of bitcoins in circulation (minus the destroyed).

[whitslack]

Number of transactions would be nice too, since it relates the "usefulness" of Bitcoin to the amount of bitcoins in circulation (minus the destroyed).

Number of transactions is a pretty meaningless metric. If you move money from one address to another, that's a transaction. If you play SatoshiDice, that's two transactions per wager. Neither of those are related to the "usefulness" of Bitcoin.

[robamichael]

It is far from a meaningless metric.

The more transactions there are, the more exchange is there within the economy. Of course for transactions to increase, there must be increased opportunities - this growing number of market opportunity is a sign of growing economy.

If you believe this metric is meaningless, what would you say if the number of transactions lessened by 90%? Would you say that nothing has changed? The economy is fine?

[whitslack]

It is far from a meaningless metric.

The more transactions there are, the more exchange is there within the economy.

This is a fallacy. Transactions simply represent money moving between addresses. They do not represent money moving between people. And in particular they do not imply trades of bitcoins for goods or services. I can shift money back and forth between two addresses all day long and pump up the transaction count, but I wouldn't be doing anything for the Bitcoin economy.

If you believe this metric is meaningless, what would you say if the number of transactions lessened by 90%? Would you say that nothing has changed? The economy is fine?

I wouldn't say nothing has changed. I'd say that the number of transactions has decreased by 90%. That's all I really could say. It might be the case that less trade was occurring using bitcoins. However, it might instead be the case that more trade was occurring using bitcoins and it was simply being represented using fewer transactions (i.e., more efficiently). Neither the number of transactions nor the sum of the transaction amounts tells me anything conclusive about the amount of goods and services that are being traded for bitcoins, which is the metric I would use to represent the health of the Bitcoin economy.

[DannyHamilton]

. . . it would be rare for a human to have more than one Blockchain.info wallet account.

Really?  I think I've got 5 of them at the moment.