LN+segwit vs big blocks, levels of centralization.

[The One]

Nope. Inflation is caused by increasing the money stock/supply, as in creating money out of thin air - fiat money. Velocity is just a guide of economic activity and does not cause inflation.

A buys ? for £10 from B, who then buys ? for £10 from C. Velocity is 2. C buys ? for £10 from D = velocity is 3 and so on. The higher the velocity = higher transactions made. Nothing to do with inflation.

No, the velocity does matter.  But let's first get the terms right.

Inflation/deflation has to do with the value of a monetary unit (say, the price of a bitcoin).  If the price of bitcoin rises, there is deflation, if the price of bitcoin falls, there is inflation.

Debasement has to do with the creation of monetary units (the increase of the monetary mass).

Fisher's formula, which is valid for any *currency*, goes as follows:

M * V = Q * P

Here, M is the monetary mass (the amount of coins)
V is the velocity (the number of times on average, a single coin is re-spend per year)
Q is the total economic value of the economy exchanged for the currency (in a "value unit" that is constant, say "a Big Mac") in one year
P is the price of that value unit (the number of coins you need to buy one Big Mac), which is essentially the inverse of the coin value.

As such, we have:

1/P = coin value = Q / (M * V)

In order to have no inflation or deflation, the monetary mass times the velocity needs to increase (debase) proportional to the increase in the amount of economic value that is bought with it (the increase in adoption).

What deisik says is theoretically right: one could start with Q = one pizza, and an ultra-low velocity (a coin is spent once in a year), and by the time that Q becomes the world economy, you never hold a bitcoin longer than half a milli second, and spend it immediately, and keep the value of a bitcoin constant.
But people don't spend their money faster because they have the technological ability to spend it !

In reality, if one wants the coin value to remain about constant, one has to augment the monetary mass (print money) with the increase of the economy it buys, and the velocity is a matter of "economic mood", but is not a very changing quantity by orders of magnitude.

It is the job of a central bank to try to keep M about in pace with the economic growth, but most central banks debase somewhat more and create a light inflation (diminishing of the coin value).  For instance, the European central bank has as a target, 2% inflation, and will print in principle enough money for this to happen ; however, the recent times, banks were not willing to accept so much new money, so the ECB doesn't achieve an inflation rate of 2%.

Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in money stock/supply. This is a principle when using M*V = P*T whereas M is the amount of money in circulation. Increases of M = inflation. Increases in P = price inflation. Inflation has nothing to do with value, ie, price of bitcoin. When price of bitcoin goes up = purchasing power goes up = one can buy more goods/services and vice versa.

The target 2% in price inflation which government term inflation is the problem with fiat. Prices do not go up instantly, there is a time lag. Also new money tend to go into assets - shares, properties - both are not calculated as part of price inflation. thus price inflation is always lower than inflation rate. One also needs to take into account of productivity - cheaper goods - that brings temporary relief to price inflation. During this manipulation, fiat money has been debased.

[The One]

A buys ? for £10 from B, who then buys ? for £10 from C. Velocity is 2. C buys ? for £10 from D = velocity is 3 and so on. The higher the velocity = higher transactions made. Nothing to do with inflation.

I didn't understand what you meant to say

Andy buys bag of apples for £10 from Bob, who then buys bag of onions for £10 from Clare. Velocity is 2.
Clare buys a chair for £10 from Dave = velocity is 3 and so on.
The higher the velocity = higher transactions made.

[deisik]

I can't possibly fathom how my words could be misinterpreted so severely

Obviously, I'm talking about the circulation velocity from an economic point of view which as I think I made pretty clear when I said that the increase in the velocity of money has the same effect as the increase in monetary base itself.

We agree, but why did you mention then:

In other words, inflationary forces should overwhelm deflationary ones, and you will get inflation as a net result. And this is where LN and instant, free of charge payments are intended to hit hardest

How could one interpret these "hard hitting instant, free payments" as suddenly increasing the velocity of money by many orders of magnitude (the same orders of magnitude that would bring bitcoin from a one-pizza economy to a world economy, say) otherwise than you thinking somehow that the speed of the transaction itself plays an important role??

You only see what your eyes want to see

In fact, I thought that my point that was sort of self-evident. Right now, people are not inclined to transact because, first, transaction confirmations are slow and, second, transactions fees are nebulous. Both these factors have a multiplicative effect (i.e. they don't cancel each other but rather intensify). If they are removed, first, people will transact more on their own (fast and cheap transactions), but that's not the major set of consequences (it is only a subset, in your speak). It is often said that there is a vicious circle in Bitcoin, i.e. there are no merchants because there are no buyers while there are no buyers because there are no merchants (or something to that tune, you get the idea). With instant and cheap payments, there will be a beneficial circle. Low fees and faster transactions will certainly lead to more merchants starting to accept Bitcoin, and consequently more buyers (and so on). On another, higher level, the increase in the velocity of Bitcoin would cause lower but more stable prices (since there will effectively be more coins in circulation), and that will also contribute to wider adoption of Bitcoin among merchants. It is now evident as well that you are not an economist by any means (not a good one, at least)

[deisik]

Andy buys bag of apples for £10 from Bob, who then buys bag of onions for £10 from Clare. Velocity is 2.
Clare buys a chair for £10 from Dave = velocity is 3 and so on.
The higher the velocity = higher transactions made.

You should consider the situation with reference to time

The inflationary effect follows from the changing relationship between the time it takes to produce some good (which remains constant) and the velocity of money (which increases). For an outside observer it looks as if more money is chasing the same amount of goods per unit of time, which causes inflation (producers raise the prices). Henry Hazlitt explains it pretty well in his book (in the part on the dangers of excessive saving, i.e. hoarding), though he considers the opposite situation, i.e. when people stop spending and prefer saving, thereby decreasing the velocity of money (which leads to deflation)

[dinofelis]

I can't possibly fathom how my words could be misinterpreted so severely

Obviously, I'm talking about the circulation velocity from an economic point of view which as I think I made pretty clear when I said that the increase in the velocity of money has the same effect as the increase in monetary base itself.

We agree, but why did you mention then:

In other words, inflationary forces should overwhelm deflationary ones, and you will get inflation as a net result. And this is where LN and instant, free of charge payments are intended to hit hardest

How could one interpret these "hard hitting instant, free payments" as suddenly increasing the velocity of money by many orders of magnitude (the same orders of magnitude that would bring bitcoin from a one-pizza economy to a world economy, say) otherwise than you thinking somehow that the speed of the transaction itself plays an important role??

You only see what your eyes want to see

In fact, I thought that my point that was sort of self-evident. Right now, people are not inclined to transact because, first, transaction confirmations are slow and, second, transactions fees are nebulous. Both these factors have a multiplicative effect (i.e. they don't cancel each other but rather intensify). If they are removed, first, people will transact more on their own (fast and cheap transactions), but that's not the major set of consequences (it is only a subset, in your speak). It is often said that there is a vicious circle in Bitcoin, i.e. there are no merchants because there are no buyers while there are no buyers because there are no merchants (or something to that tune, you get the idea). With instant and cheap payments, there will be a beneficial circle. Low fees and faster transactions will certainly lead to more merchants starting to accept Bitcoin, and consequently more buyers (and so on). On another, higher level, the increase in the velocity of Bitcoin would cause lower but more stable prices (since there will effectively be more coins in circulation), and that will also contribute to wider adoption of Bitcoin among merchants. It is now evident as well that you are not an economist by any means (not a good one, at least)

Again, the rhetoric judgement of the counter party betrays the weakness of the argument.

It is not the recent technical hurdles of bitcoin that suddenly are the cullprit of bitcoin's mainly speculative use.  Bitcoin's speculative use has been pushed by the explicitly deflationary publicity of it, the fact that there "never will be more than 21 million coins that are going to buy up the whole world" or something of the kind.  

That, plus the fact that there's no real demand for such a payment system, and that *in reality* if you want to use bitcoin to pay for something, you need to use MORE third party services (your bank, an exchange....) than if you were simply paying with fiat.  In those cases where you can easily pay with fiat, bitcoin has nothing to offer as a payment system.  It is only *if you have a good reason not to use fiat or banks* that bitcoin/crypto offers something and dark markets were quick to adopt that for instance.

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency, apart from starting to seriously debase it, which is totally against its belief system.

Of course, you are right that, if hodlers stop hodling and use their coins to buy groceries, this will increase vastly the overall velocity of the currency and have a seriously inflationary effect !  But when hodlers will decide to stop hodling, they will sell for fiat, not for groceries, because until they decide to stop hodling, no incentive will be there to sell groceries for bitcoin.  In fact, this "transition" and this "inflationary pressure" is what people would call "bitcoin crashing".

There is no smooth mechanism in such a system to maintain a stable price.  You get an instability upwards (deflationary spiral) or you get a crash, because it is a speculative asset.  I don't see how one can have a smooth transition from "I'm holding my 10 coins because 8 years from now I'm a millionaire" to "I'll buy groceries with my 10 coins".

[BillyBobZorton]

I can't possibly fathom how my words could be misinterpreted so severely

Obviously, I'm talking about the circulation velocity from an economic point of view which as I think I made pretty clear when I said that the increase in the velocity of money has the same effect as the increase in monetary base itself.

We agree, but why did you mention then:

In other words, inflationary forces should overwhelm deflationary ones, and you will get inflation as a net result. And this is where LN and instant, free of charge payments are intended to hit hardest

How could one interpret these "hard hitting instant, free payments" as suddenly increasing the velocity of money by many orders of magnitude (the same orders of magnitude that would bring bitcoin from a one-pizza economy to a world economy, say) otherwise than you thinking somehow that the speed of the transaction itself plays an important role??

You only see what your eyes want to see

In fact, I thought that my point that was sort of self-evident. Right now, people are not inclined to transact because, first, transaction confirmations are slow and, second, transactions fees are nebulous. Both these factors have a multiplicative effect (i.e. they don't cancel each other but rather intensify). If they are removed, first, people will transact more on their own (fast and cheap transactions), but that's not the major set of consequences (it is only a subset, in your speak). It is often said that there is a vicious circle in Bitcoin, i.e. there are no merchants because there are no buyers while there are no buyers because there are no merchants (or something to that tune, you get the idea). With instant and cheap payments, there will be a beneficial circle. Low fees and faster transactions will certainly lead to more merchants starting to accept Bitcoin, and consequently more buyers (and so on). On another, higher level, the increase in the velocity of Bitcoin would cause lower but more stable prices (since there will effectively be more coins in circulation), and that will also contribute to wider adoption of Bitcoin among merchants. It is now evident as well that you are not an economist by any means (not a good one, at least)

Again, the rhetoric judgement of the counter party betrays the weakness of the argument.

It is not the recent technical hurdles of bitcoin that suddenly are the cullprit of bitcoin's mainly speculative use.  Bitcoin's speculative use has been pushed by the explicitly deflationary publicity of it, the fact that there "never will be more than 21 million coins that are going to buy up the whole world" or something of the kind.  

That, plus the fact that there's no real demand for such a payment system, and that *in reality* if you want to use bitcoin to pay for something, you need to use MORE third party services (your bank, an exchange....) than if you were simply paying with fiat.  In those cases where you can easily pay with fiat, bitcoin has nothing to offer as a payment system.  It is only *if you have a good reason not to use fiat or banks* that bitcoin/crypto offers something and dark markets were quick to adopt that for instance.

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency, apart from starting to seriously debase it, which is totally against its belief system.

Of course, you are right that, if hodlers stop hodling and use their coins to buy groceries, this will increase vastly the overall velocity of the currency and have a seriously inflationary effect !  But when hodlers will decide to stop hodling, they will sell for fiat, not for groceries, because until they decide to stop hodling, no incentive will be there to sell groceries for bitcoin.  In fact, this "transition" and this "inflationary pressure" is what people would call "bitcoin crashing".

There is no smooth mechanism in such a system to maintain a stable price.  You get an instability upwards (deflationary spiral) or you get a crash, because it is a speculative asset.  I don't see how one can have a smooth transition from "I'm holding my 10 coins because 8 years from now I'm a millionaire" to "I'll buy groceries with my 10 coins".

If you have to buy bitcoin, then of course it feels pretty stupid to buy stuff with it, since you have to go through the problems of exchanges, pay fees etc, and all to get the same stuff you can buy with fiat, so this is nonsense.

But if you get paid in BTC, you have a bigger incentive to buy with BTC. For example, the small amounts I get from the sig campaign, it's pretty tempting to spend them on small purchases like a videogame. In steam, it's easier to pay with BTC than to pay with the regular credit card purchase. I have to get my credit card out, put the date and pin, get the card of the bank to put the 4 numbers to verify the purchase, and I need to load the credit card if it's not loaded so it takes a bank transfer too. It can be a mess. With BTC is just a click, of course, a click if you don't first have to buy it, then it's just stupid.

To take advantage of BTC, you need to be paid in it, so the circle is closed.

But anyway, BTC will never be a proper mainstream payment system without segwit and lightning network, until then it's a better gold, and that makes it undervalued.

[dinofelis]

But if you get paid in BTC, you have a bigger incentive to buy with BTC. For example, the small amounts I get from the sig campaign, it's pretty tempting to spend them on small purchases like a videogame. In steam, it's easier to pay with BTC than to pay with the regular credit card purchase. I have to get my credit card out, put the date and pin, get the card of the bank to put the 4 numbers to verify the purchase, and I need to load the credit card if it's not loaded so it takes a bank transfer too. It can be a mess. With BTC is just a click, of course, a click if you don't first have to buy it, then it's just stupid.

Yes.

To take advantage of BTC, you need to be paid in it, so the circle is closed.

But this is the vicious circle: bitcoin will be handy money, when bitcoin is handy money.  This is a "symmetry breaking" problem, in a way: once you're in one equilibrium (that of fiat), it is essentially impossible to flip to the other equilibrium (that of bitcoin), because there is a huge "mountain of inconvenience to go from one equilibrium to the other one, but on top of that, bitcoin is entirely designed to be deflationary, which is, by itself, a "repulsive" for being used as a currency (you don't want to SPEND something that will grow in value, do you !).

But anyway, BTC will never be a proper mainstream payment system without segwit and lightning network, until then it's a better gold, and that makes it undervalued.

I don't see it as "gold".  I see it as a financial speculative product, like complicated derivatives, that are too complicated to try to have any fundamental analysis of, and just play greater fool games with.  The stuff the financial world is fond of, and has already cupboards full of it, 10 times the world economy.  The kind of thing that exploded in 2008.  This stuff is not under valued or over valued, as it is a speculator's token.

It is zero at t = 0, it will be 0 at t = t_something, and in the mean time, it goes sky high.

[deisik]

It is not the recent technical hurdles of bitcoin that suddenly are the cullprit of bitcoin's mainly speculative use.  Bitcoin's speculative use has been pushed by the explicitly deflationary publicity of it, the fact that there "never will be more than 21 million coins that are going to buy up the whole world" or something of the kind. 

I don't think that deflationary publicity per se has any relevance to Bitcoin rise

In real life things don't work according to some convoluted (or maybe not so convoluted) theory. You are again putting the cart before the horse and now fail to see the forest for trees in addition to that. First, any theory follows the reality, and if someone says that something works along some theory, you shouldn't interpret it literally as if things really cared about any theory (it is no more than a metaphor, really). Further, I never said that the current issues were the cause of Bitcoin speculative use. Basically, I say that the issues we face today prevent Bitcoin from turning into a full-fledged currency competitive with the most advanced and successful fiat currencies out there. You seem to be failing at basic logic here. Metaphorically speaking, the absence of proof is not proof of absence

[jonald_fyookball]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

[The One]

Andy buys bag of apples for £10 from Bob, who then buys bag of onions for £10 from Clare. Velocity is 2.
Clare buys a chair for £10 from Dave = velocity is 3 and so on.
The higher the velocity = higher transactions made.

You should consider the situation with reference to time

The inflationary effect follows from the changing relationship between the time it takes to produce some good (which remains constant) and the velocity of money (which increases). For an outside observer it looks as if more money is chasing the same amount of goods per unit of time, which causes inflation (producers raise the prices). Henry Hazlitt explains it pretty well in his book (in the part on the dangers of excessive saving, i.e. hoarding), though he considers the opposite situation, i.e. when people stop spending and prefer saving, thereby decreasing the velocity of money (which leads to deflation)

I think you have H H on hoarding, velocity, inflation misunderstood.

Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in money stock/supply = Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in bitcoin stock/supply. Bitcoin stock is 21m and the supply is getting lower as bitcoin approach 21m. No inflation but can have deflation via permanent lost bitcoin.

[The One]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

Nope. It is medium of exchange, whereas the value slowly goes down every year.

[deisik]

Andy buys bag of apples for £10 from Bob, who then buys bag of onions for £10 from Clare. Velocity is 2.
Clare buys a chair for £10 from Dave = velocity is 3 and so on.
The higher the velocity = higher transactions made.

You should consider the situation with reference to time

The inflationary effect follows from the changing relationship between the time it takes to produce some good (which remains constant) and the velocity of money (which increases). For an outside observer it looks as if more money is chasing the same amount of goods per unit of time, which causes inflation (producers raise the prices). Henry Hazlitt explains it pretty well in his book (in the part on the dangers of excessive saving, i.e. hoarding), though he considers the opposite situation, i.e. when people stop spending and prefer saving, thereby decreasing the velocity of money (which leads to deflation)

I think you have H H on hoarding, velocity, inflation misunderstood.

Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in money stock/supply = Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in bitcoin stock/supply. Bitcoin stock is 21m and the supply is getting lower as bitcoin approach 21m. No inflation but can have deflation via permanent lost bitcoin

I've read him literally decades ago

But he certainly didn't talk about inflation and deflation of monetary base (as you mean it), but rather about prices of goods and services. It is really hard to misunderstand Hazlitt, he is one of the most coherent and easy to understand authors. But if you continue to insist, I will find his book and quote him to you, though, I think you can easily find him yourself. In any case, this understanding of inflation and deflation is inconsequential since I made it perfectly clear that by inflation I mean depreciation of currency while by deflation, consequently, its appreciation. I guess you will have to stick to my use of terminology since this discussion (about the velocity of money affecting inflation rates) was my invention, after all

[thejaytiesto]

But if you get paid in BTC, you have a bigger incentive to buy with BTC. For example, the small amounts I get from the sig campaign, it's pretty tempting to spend them on small purchases like a videogame. In steam, it's easier to pay with BTC than to pay with the regular credit card purchase. I have to get my credit card out, put the date and pin, get the card of the bank to put the 4 numbers to verify the purchase, and I need to load the credit card if it's not loaded so it takes a bank transfer too. It can be a mess. With BTC is just a click, of course, a click if you don't first have to buy it, then it's just stupid.

Yes.

To take advantage of BTC, you need to be paid in it, so the circle is closed.

But this is the vicious circle: bitcoin will be handy money, when bitcoin is handy money.  This is a "symmetry breaking" problem, in a way: once you're in one equilibrium (that of fiat), it is essentially impossible to flip to the other equilibrium (that of bitcoin), because there is a huge "mountain of inconvenience to go from one equilibrium to the other one, but on top of that, bitcoin is entirely designed to be deflationary, which is, by itself, a "repulsive" for being used as a currency (you don't want to SPEND something that will grow in value, do you !).

But anyway, BTC will never be a proper mainstream payment system without segwit and lightning network, until then it's a better gold, and that makes it undervalued.

I don't see it as "gold".  I see it as a financial speculative product, like complicated derivatives, that are too complicated to try to have any fundamental analysis of, and just play greater fool games with.  The stuff the financial world is fond of, and has already cupboards full of it, 10 times the world economy.  The kind of thing that exploded in 2008.  This stuff is not under valued or over valued, as it is a speculator's token.

It is zero at t = 0, it will be 0 at t = t_something, and in the mean time, it goes sky high.

Derivatives are useless. Bitcoin has objective usefulness: to move wealth from A to B across the globe, open 24/7, no borders etc. It has unique features.
The fact that other cryptos exist don't change the fact that bitcoin has the strongest network effect that gives you a peace of mind knowing it will not get delisted the next morning from an exchange, and this will only grow the longer bitcoin is alive.

I don't see how you can put it at the same level of derivatives.

[dinofelis]

Derivatives are useless. Bitcoin has objective usefulness:

There's a difference between having an objective, and realizing it. 

I don't see how you can put it at the same level of derivatives.

Because crypto is mostly a greater-fool game with a delusional grandiose story behind it that can, at first sight, sound exciting and not entirely improbable (replacing fiat / replacing contracts and law / ...).  Like derivatives, but with a nebulous underlying: "the world's payment system", or "the world's legal contractual basis" or something of a kind, rather than a more economically tangible underlying.  Yes, in principle, crypto could do useful things.  Derivatives too.  They are invented to hedge risk.  But most of the time, they are financial gambler's instruments.  Like crypto.  Yes, you can also use it to pay something if you really insist, or to run a smart contract, or to rent disk space, or to have prediction markets, or to reward blogging or .... But that's not what it is principally used for and traded for.  It is used and traded essentially to buy low and sell high ; to be a fool, and find a greater fool.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  It are essentially gambler's tokens ; like derivatives.

[jonald_fyookball]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

Nope. It is medium of exchange, whereas the value slowly goes down every year.

according to what definition?

Dollars are an asset, are they not?

Their value is speculated on, is it not?

[jonald_fyookball]

Derivatives are useless. Bitcoin has objective usefulness:

There's a difference between having an objective, and realizing it. 

I don't see how you can put it at the same level of derivatives.

Because crypto is mostly a greater-fool game with a delusional grandiose story behind it that can, at first sight, sound exciting and not entirely improbable (replacing fiat / replacing contracts and law / ...).  Like derivatives, but with a nebulous underlying: "the world's payment system", or "the world's legal contractual basis" or something of a kind, rather than a more economically tangible underlying.  Yes, in principle, crypto could do useful things.  Derivatives too.  They are invented to hedge risk.  But most of the time, they are financial gambler's instruments.  Like crypto.  Yes, you can also use it to pay something if you really insist, or to run a smart contract, or to rent disk space, or to have prediction markets, or to reward blogging or .... But that's not what it is principally used for and traded for.  It is used and traded essentially to buy low and sell high ; to be a fool, and find a greater fool.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  It are essentially gambler's tokens ; like derivatives.

People do use Bitcoin though.  You've always been a pessimist on this.

[The One]

Andy buys bag of apples for £10 from Bob, who then buys bag of onions for £10 from Clare. Velocity is 2.
Clare buys a chair for £10 from Dave = velocity is 3 and so on.
The higher the velocity = higher transactions made.

You should consider the situation with reference to time

The inflationary effect follows from the changing relationship between the time it takes to produce some good (which remains constant) and the velocity of money (which increases). For an outside observer it looks as if more money is chasing the same amount of goods per unit of time, which causes inflation (producers raise the prices). Henry Hazlitt explains it pretty well in his book (in the part on the dangers of excessive saving, i.e. hoarding), though he considers the opposite situation, i.e. when people stop spending and prefer saving, thereby decreasing the velocity of money (which leads to deflation)

I think you have H H on hoarding, velocity, inflation misunderstood.

Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in money stock/supply = Inflation/deflation - increase/decrease in bitcoin stock/supply. Bitcoin stock is 21m and the supply is getting lower as bitcoin approach 21m. No inflation but can have deflation via permanent lost bitcoin

I've read him literally decades ago

But he certainly didn't talk about inflation and deflation of monetary base (as you mean it), but rather about prices of goods and services. It is really hard to misunderstand Hazlitt, he is one of the most coherent and easy to understand authors. But if you continue to insist, I will find his book and quote him to you, though, I think you can easily find him yourself. In any case, this understanding of inflation and deflation is inconsequential since I made it perfectly clear that by inflation I mean depreciation of currency while by deflation, consequently, its appreciation. I guess you will have to stick to my use of terminology since this discussion (about the velocity of money affecting inflation rates) was my invention, after all

Please do so. I will await for the quote.

Yes i have read the book, plus many many other economic books. I think, over the decades your memory is playing tricks on you.

No. If everyone were to create and stick to their terminology, then the human race will not communicate clearly with each other. We should do our best to follow the dictionary and the original meaning of the word, using the correct semantics.

[The One]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

Nope. It is medium of exchange, whereas the value slowly goes down every year.

according to what definition?

Dollars are an asset, are they not?

Their value is speculated on, is it not?

Yes, but a 'bad' asset. The value is debased all the time. One needs interest on saving to compensate for inflation, look at the interest now... piddling small. Don't bother speculating on dollars. There are better assets that will bring one a better return.

[jonald_fyookball]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

Nope. It is medium of exchange, whereas the value slowly goes down every year.

according to what definition?

Dollars are an asset, are they not?

Their value is speculated on, is it not?

Yes, but a 'bad' asset. The value is debased all the time. One needs interest on saving to compensate for inflation, look at the interest now... piddling small. Don't bother speculating on dollars. There are better assets that will bring one a better return.

Sure, but I'm sick of people saying Bitcoin can't be a currency and an asset, because it is in fact both.

[The One]

But now that bitcoin is a speculative asset, there's almost no possibility to revert it to a currency

You keep saying this without a basis.

US Dollars are a speculative asset, as is every major currency.

Nope. It is medium of exchange, whereas the value slowly goes down every year.

according to what definition?

Dollars are an asset, are they not?

Their value is speculated on, is it not?

Yes, but a 'bad' asset. The value is debased all the time. One needs interest on saving to compensate for inflation, look at the interest now... piddling small. Don't bother speculating on dollars. There are better assets that will bring one a better return.

Sure, but I'm sick of people saying Bitcoin can't be a currency and an asset, because it is in fact both.

Of course it is both. If one isn't spending btc, then one is saving... just like any other currency. Saving is an accumulations of asset.