Bitcoins' Value

[ZephramC]

Does anyone see a problem with deflation and massive hoarding after all of them have been printed out?

More and more people see problem in that. Especially newcomers. But this properties of bitcoin are at the same time the reason why many people want and love bitcoin in the first place. This not a bug or flaw, it is a feature, an advantage!
Anyone who wants inflationary money or discouraged hoarding or some form of taxation redistributing wealth have many possibilities already. Both in fiat money and in some altcoins. I hope bitcoin will stay as an alternative. Otherwise it will become as worth(less) as other solutions.

[Sapphire]

Deflational economics have a problem that people stop actually creating useful products and services. Because anyone can just get some start money and wait for it to raise its value, use it for living. It is a form of crysis too...
On the other hand, Bitcoins are very very far from being a major money in a global system. So I think it will actually get funded by those rich players who bring a lot of dollars into the BTC market, for a long time more. The traditional markets have so much money that it's not a problem for global economics. And BTC still has its unique advantages as a payment method, so it won't avoid being highly valued.

[ZephramC]

Deflational economics have a problem that people stop actually creating useful products and services. Because anyone can just get some start money and wait for it to raise its value, use it for living. It is a form of crysis too...
On the other hand, Bitcoins are very very far from being a major money in a global system. So I think it will actually get funded by those rich players who bring a lot of dollars into the BTC market, for a long time more. The traditional markets have so much money that it's not a problem for global economics. And BTC still has its unique advantages as a payment method, so it won't avoid being highly valued.

OK. So imagine you are the merchant and you arrive at conclusion that it is better for you to close your company, fire your employees and stop producing anything useful. You just keep your bitcoins earning profit for you.
1.) You are convinced that this is rational and profitable decision.
2.) Therefore you will also conclude that other merchants will arrive at the same conclusion (surely they want profit too).
3.) Therefore you expect that the car seller will stop selling cars soon, travel agency will cease functioning, food will be scare and pleasure place will close.

Now we can ignore steps 1. and 2. What will the step 3 force you to do? Spend some bitcoins when there is still time! (Or would you really keep them even as shops in your neighborhood are closing one after another?)

So there is negative self-correcting feedback loop. The more you expect BTC will gain value the more you realize that others will decrease production and consumables will be scare and the more you will be spending now. The one with the best foresight will make the most profit.

[DannyHamilton]

Does anyone see a problem with deflation and massive hoarding after all of them have been printed out?

Anyone?  Sure, lots of people come to bitcointalk to say "You all don't understand, this can't work!", meanwhile, bitcoin users continue to prove that "theory" wrong every day as they continue to use bitcoin.

[DannyHamilton]

That was quite a long time I hadn't heard of asymptotically to zero  . I think I got it: actually it never gets to zero but infinite close to zero.

This is incorrect.  The block subsidy (new coin creation) drops to zero after block 6,929,999. The subsidy amount is cut in half and truncated to the nearest 0.00000001 BTC every 210,000 blocks.  After 210,000 blocks with a subsidy of 0.00000001 BTC, that amount is cut in have and truncated to 0.00000000.

Miners will just stop mining because the cost of finding will surpass the value of the reward. However, the latter  can be countered as the cost of mining (in USD) will not increase as much as the reward for finding (in Bitcoins), because of the limit restriction Bitcoins can only go up.

So long as bitcoin exists and is used, mining will not stop.  The block reward consists of the sum of the block subsidy AND the total of all the transaction fees of all the unconfirmed transactions the miner includes (confirms) in the block.  As bitcoin gains popularity, the value of the transaction fees is expected to increase.  Meanwhile the block subsidy will be cut in half aproximately every 4 years.  At the moment the block subsidy is the majority of the reward, and the fees are only a small percentage.  Eventually, the fees will be the majority of the reward and the subsidy will be only a small percentage.  Perhaps at that time people will stop calling them "miners" and instead call them "transaction processors", but the work they do will be the same.

Let's replace 'new bitcoin' with, eg lightcoin. The altcoins are using the same infrastructure as bitcoins (some with minor changes). So, the altcoins are filling in the demand of the community for a 'new bitcoin'?

Exactly.  Each altcoin is already an attempt to provide a bitcoin-like cryptocurrency with a different set of protocol rules.  If any of them succedd long term, then that success will prove the theory behind the protocol rules.  In the meantime, bitcoin's set of rules appears to be the most successful so far.

[DannyHamilton]

Does anyone see a problem with deflation and massive hoarding after all of them have been printed out?

Yes, you are right. Why would I sell my bitcoins, knowing the price will always go up. A market can only exist with a bid-ask side.

Eventually, you have to spend money to survive.  You have to buy food, shelter, water.  You'll choose to pay for entertainment and the things you desire.

I know that a cheaper computer will come out in 5 years that will do far more than the computers available today, but I still but a computer today if I have a need for a computer.

The same will be true of anything else deflationary.  Sure, there will be an incentive to encourage individual saving, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Meanwhile people will still spend on the things they need and want.

[DannyHamilton]

If you could get a subset of miners and peers to agree to accept the increased block reward, the blockchain would split.
- snip -

Taking into account human nature isn't that almost bound to happen? There will be a huge disagreement and a splinter group.

Probably, it will be interesting to see how it plays out, won't it.  For that matter, that's what many of the "alt-coins" are.  They are an attempt to create a new crypto-currency with a different set of protocol rules.  The difference is that the "alt-coins" started over with a brand new blockchain from scratch rather than trying to split the current blockchain.  So I guess the big question is: "Will any attempt to change the rules always result in a brand new blockchain, or will someone eventually successfully convince a percentage of bitcoin users to intentionally split the bitcoin blockchain?"

Could just a few miners decide to strike out on their own and start minting new bitcoins or would it need a certain percentage?

It only takes one miner to split the blockchain.  But that blockchain will sit there split on that miners computer and nobody else will see/use it.  The trick is to convince enough miners to split the chain so that a 50%+ attack becomes financially unlikely, and convince enough users to split the chain so that others will find it worthwhile to join (users need merchants, merchants need users).

[DannyHamilton]

Why would you own bitcoins if you are never going to sell them? They have no other utility. It doesn't matter what the price of BTC is if you are never going to sell them.

Well, you might plan on spending them instead of selling them.  The exchange rate matters then, because it gives an indication of purchasing power.  Spending bitcoins makes about as much sense as spending any other currency assuming merchants exist that offer what you want and accept bitcoin as payment.  The determination of which currency to spend would likely be determined by which offers the higher purchaing power at the moment.  The reduce transaction fees, and fraud risk for merchants is likely to result in more purchaing power when spending bitcoins than other currencies.

[DannyHamilton]

Exactly. I never understand why people have a problem with people speculating and investing in bitcoin. The only point in investing is to sell some day and realise a profit.

Investment for future sale is certainly one potential use for bitcoin, but many people may be looking more into exchange from one currency to another with a long term plan to simply spend the bitcoin directly on future purchases.

Lots of people invest in land and property which are finite resources but they still change hands, people die and people sell up.

Just like bitcoin has uses beyond pure investment, land also has uses beyond pure investment.  You might buy some land to have a place to live, or to grow your own food, or to provide a place to go hunting, etc.

[DannyHamilton]

Because anyone can just get some start money and wait for it to raise its value, use it for living.

It is human nature to always want more fo whatever they desire.  Sure you might be able to "live off of" some acquired amount, but then you'd want a slightly better car, or you'd want to take a trip, or you'd want to buy a gift for a family member, or whatever. Most people will continue to find things they want to spend money on, and will therefore continue to want just a bit more money than what they already have.  As such, they'll continue producing to provide a source of revenue.

[odolvlobo]

Deflational economics have a problem that people stop actually creating useful products and services. Because anyone can just get some start money and wait for it to raise its value, use it for living. It is a form of crysis too...

That is absurd. It assumes that the deflation rate is higher than a company's operating margin. Sure, it could happen, but assuming that hyper-deflation is a normal outcome is ridiculous.

Furthermore, nobody would create useful products and services right now according to your logic, because they can just put the money in the bank and earn interest.

[rockinride]

I am concerned with the manipulation of Bitcoin by outside corporate banks, and essentially all enemies of a decentralized currency. The recent high percentage fluctuations are bad because they constantly show that the currency is not stable and of course the corporate owned media is bashing it at every turn.

[Sapphire]

Deflational economics have a problem that people stop actually creating useful products and services. Because anyone can just get some start money and wait for it to raise its value, use it for living. It is a form of crysis too...

That is absurd. It assumes that the deflation rate is higher than a company's operating margin. Sure, it could happen, but assuming that hyper-deflation is a normal outcome is ridiculous.

Furthermore, nobody would create useful products and services right now according to your logic, because they can just put the money in the bank and earn interest.

C'mon. In 2012 I sold ~230 BTC for like $2,500, because I needed money. If I just borrowed it or even got a credit from a bank, but didn't sell the BTC,  in early April I'd sell them for $50-60k. I could really just screw my job and do NOTHING for half a year, and I would get my 2-years income just like that. That's bitcoin. That's the deflation.

[dino_saur]

Once something is in the mainstream media and catches attention it's a good thing. unless it's just the 15 minutes of fame..which btc already passed.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130412-bitcoin-and-the-illusion-of-money/1

[GorkaMorka]

BTC going up this morning.  I like it.

[DannyHamilton]

C'mon. In 2012 I sold ~230 BTC for like $2,500, because I needed money. If I just borrowed it or even got a credit from a bank, but didn't sell the BTC,  in early April I'd sell them for $50-60k. I could really just screw my job and do NOTHING for half a year, and I would get my 2-years income just like that. That's bitcoin. That's the deflation.

That's bitcoin in its infancy and adoption phase.  That's price deflation due to a rate of growth in demand that is outpacing the supply inflation rate.  As far as supply goes, bitcoin is still inflationary and will be for quite a while.  The previous discussion in this thread about "deflation" was referring to after the price stabilizes and supply deflation occurs.  I'm pretty confident that you aren't going to see 90%+ of the supply of bitcoin permanently lost every year.

You could try to quit your job and live off of nothing but the price deflation of bitcoin for the next few years, but if you started in January 2012 you might have struggled a bit to pay your mortgage and keep food on the table for the next 7 months through July 2012.  For that matter, the $2,500 sunk into bitcoin in January 2012 would have been worth less than $5,000 by the end of December 2012.  Do you really think you can live off of $2,500 per year?

[jimdriftwood]

I am concerned with the manipulation of Bitcoin by outside corporate banks, and essentially all enemies of a decentralized currency. The recent high percentage fluctuations are bad because they constantly show that the currency is not stable and of course the corporate owned media is bashing it at every turn.

Just a query but would there be anyway for someone/group to mint all the bitcoins or if someone had 51% of all bitcoins? That would definitely effect the value of it....... (sorry newbie)

[DannyHamilton]

Just a query but would there be anyway for someone/group to mint all the bitcoins or if someone had 51% of all bitcoins? That would definitely effect the value of it....... (sorry newbie)

Well, over half of the bitcoins are already minted, so it's far too late for someone to mint "all the bitcoins".  However, it is technically possible for someone to mint all the remaining bitcoins if they can maintain more hashing power than the entire rest of the bitcoin network continuously for the next 127 years.