It is known fact that having money, makes it easier to earn money.
Hence the term "capitalism". We understand that when we place savings in shares of a growing company, our savings are put to work by that company, productively, and yield a reward in dividends paid from cashflow and/or appreciation due to growth, all of which are general benefits (at least as long as the management and organization is not sociopathic, which turns out to be a bad assumption). Why is it so difficult to understand that holding bitcoin yields value appreciation realized in purchasing power? It is a share in a distributed corporation, governed not by contemporaneous management by the pre-programmed management embodied in the code running on the nodes of the network. It is adding value by creating social benefits. The market prices those benefits. Shareholders are rewarded for providing investment capital by buying those shares which we call bitcoin.
The price is deflationary, and exactly because the supply of bitcoins is inflating while the wealth of the world is increasing.
If the world's "wealth" -- meaning energy consumption -- continues increasing exponentially then we will all die in fire. If that is your inflationary paradise, we have very different world-views.
Everyone who knows anything about finance knows that a currency has to "punish savers" to work.
No, everyone who is brainwashed by the Keynesian school "knows" that. It is a false knowledge, which has never been true, as history demonstrates abundantly.
Saving wealth in money is not good, because money should not be used in saving wealth but used for transacting wealth.
Your complaint about bitcoin boils down to this: You can't force people to use their savings on what you want them to use it for. I regard that as a feature, not a bug.
The coin that succeeds is the coin that attracts people by it's utility and use, not because it seems attractive as an speculative investment oportunity.
You don't see the store of wealth use case as a beneficial one. I do.
it is reasonable to ask: which valuation is more likely to correctly reflect the economic value added by the security?
If bitcoin would become big, then it means that A LOT of worlds resources are spent on running a network...
Why should any more resources be used to run the network than those which add economic value? Why should any less resources be used, for that matter? Ah I see, again you aspire to be a central planner. Why is your planning better than a soviet appatchik's, or a western central banker's? Both are miserable failures. It is hubris, effrontery, to pretend to know better how to price money than does the invisible hand.
Poll
