Is Bitcoin really any different? Not in the long run.

[NewLiberty]

If they print more euro's the amount of dollars isn't increasing.
So more cryptocurrencies doesn't mean more bitcoins, I can't send my Litecoins to my Bitcoin wallet. 

If they print more euros in an effort to boost the eurozone['s exports by devaluing the Euro], then that [printing] will competitively [raise the]devalue [of] the dollar. The global "value pie" can only get bigger through actual work, but various countries can and do steal each other's slices by bluffing.

The argument that Bitcoin is immune to this sort of thing rests solely on the fact that none of its competitors seem to be actually good right now. Wait until the Bitcoin M0 has 'only' 10% of the crypto market, then say you don't care about 5% swings hitting your wallet.

FTFY

[mccoyspace]

Remember that Bitcoin is an internet based protocol. We have seen time and time again a protocol emerge that consolidates, superceeds and becomes a standard.
Yes, people can still use uucp, telnet, gopher and ftp, but http/https has come along and now THAT is the Internet.
Bitcoin is THE money protocol. It may not last forever, but it is the best by far right now. It has a long climb ahead.

[NewLiberty]

And here I thought this thread might actually be something interesting such as future bankers using bitcoin as the basis for fractional reserve bank notes and thus inflating the money supply that way...  which is almost certain to happen btw.   

moral question:  is it fraud when a bank lends out using "redeemable" bank notes more than it is able to cover?

i suppose it would depend on what exactly the bank note says. For example if it says "redeemable for 10 bitcoin so long as the bank has any left but beware we keep a fractional reserve", then does not seems morally wrong as the holder of the note is clearly warned before accepting.    But if it says "redeemable for 10 bitcoin come hell or high water" then that does seem like fraud to me.

A warehouse receipt is the type that is redeemable come hell or high water.  Even these though still bear some counter-party risk. 
This is common law in many places, in others it is the law by virtue of it being a contract, and is in the Uniform Commercial Code in the US
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/7/7-202

[balanghai]

This seems just an inciting post not really much to be bothered whenever bitcoin is compared to fiat. really.

[NewLiberty]

If they print more euro's the amount of dollars isn't increasing.
So more cryptocurrencies doesn't mean more bitcoins, I can't send my Litecoins to my Bitcoin wallet. 

If they print more euros in an effort to boost the eurozone['s exports by devaluing the Euro], then that [printing] will competitively [raise the]devalue [of] the dollar. The global "value pie" can only get bigger through actual work, but various countries can and do steal each other's slices by bluffing.

The argument that Bitcoin is immune to this sort of thing rests solely on the fact that none of its competitors seem to be actually good right now. Wait until the Bitcoin M0 has 'only' 10% of the crypto market, then say you don't care about 5% swings hitting your wallet.

FTFY

You're not taking into account a series of lags that cascade through the markets. Firstly, if one side prints more of their currency, nobody notices until market sales have been affecting exchange rates for a long time (or they announce it in the next quarterly budget). Merchants look at the historical data and say "oh look, the moving average line suggests that they've been debasing. Time to adjust our prices." But by then the new currency has already paid for a sizeable chunk of imports.

The devaluation -- if any -- is probably mostly psychological and would also depend on factors like the flow of activity in the domestic economy, and the visibility of the new cash. Hence, decisions to inflate are likely to done in conjunction with specific projects (and/or sent overseas) where the money will be tied up for as long as possible before eventually trickling back to the rest of the economy.

Bitcoin has been 'printing' massively since day one, so why hasn't it devalued? Because the mining overhead gives it value? Well, no. The mining cost is a dead weight that lags behind the value of bitcoins. The value that Bitcoin has gained has been 'taken', at least in part, from other economies such as the US and Eurozone economies. Similarly, NewMoreAwesomeCoin could make its debut and start poaching value from Bitcoin, even though 'NMAC' is the one inflating.

In the real world, it happens more quickly than this.

Merchants see the costs directly and adjust prices according to their costs, they don't tend to wait on moving averages on a chart.  That is for academics who don't really participate in the market much anyway.

Nations debase in order to devalue their currency.  It is not so much to buy more before people figure that out, because that happens very quickly unless the nation is the direct buyer.  The devaluing nation gets the benefit of the reduced value of their currency in trade balances from their exports being cheaper than the exports from other countries, but it is a losing game unless they are purely exporting either finished goods using only domestically produced raw material, or the raw material itself because the parts that are imported cost more to them giving them domestic inflation on anything imported.  The reduced value of the currency also makes their debt more easily repayable.

[hayek]

There is so much wrong it needs broken down shotgun style

Consider the dollar.

Apples to oranges right off the bat

The dollar is theoretically limited within the subset of United States currency while the concept of national currency itself is only limited by the number of nations on Earth.

Not true. Fractional Reserve banking creates dollars out of thin air in the form of debt. Actually what you said doesn't really make a point.

Now to bitcoin.

Like the dollar the bitcoins are theoretically limited in supply.  But what if bytecoin comes along, then gigacoin, followed by googlecoin and so fourth? There seems to be no limit on the number of bitcoin imitators possible.

Bitcoin is limited in supply. Not theoretically. Only X number of bitcoins will ever exist. Alternative crypto currencies do not affect the supply of bitcoin.

While, like dollars, there might be a limited number of bitcoins within the subset of bitcoin, the concept of bitcoin is unlimited unlike the world’s various national currencies.

All you said is "Once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in." Yeah, once an idea is released to the world it's there. This means nothing.

Competition will utterly devalue bitcoin unless it is adopted by particular nations  to the exclusion of its competitors, however that is not to say that other nations will not adopt one or more of bitcoin’s competitors to the exclusion of bitcoin .. they most certainly would.

Competition will devalue bitcoin if the market determines other cryptos to be of greater value. That's how competition works. Whether a nation state adopts it or not has little to do with it.

And how is that materially different from our current international system of free floating national currencies?

Bernanke isn't controlling the supply of bitcoin?

You can't print more bitcoin to fund a war?

The finite supply makes the demand the driving factor behind bitcoin and it will continue to gain in value as adoption increases.

No one can ever take your bitcoin from you unless you let them.

No one will ever know how many bitcoin you own unless you tell them.

You're free to choose whether or not you participate in the system, there is no gun to your head forcing you.

That's a start. I think you should start learning up on what currency actually is before trying to make comparisons between fiat and bitcoin

[Luckybit]

Consider the dollar.

The dollar is theoretically limited within the subset of United States currency while the concept of national currency itself is only limited by the number of nations on Earth.

Now to bitcoin.

Like the dollar the bitcoins are theoretically limited in supply.  But what if bytecoin comes along, then gigacoin, followed by googlecoin and so fourth? There seems to be no limit on the number of bitcoin imitators possible.

While, like dollars, there might be a limited number of bitcoins within the subset of bitcoin, the concept of bitcoin is unlimited unlike the world’s various national currencies.

Competition will utterly devalue bitcoin unless it is adopted by particular nations  to the exclusion of its competitors, however that is not to say that other nations will not adopt one or more of bitcoin’s competitors to the exclusion of bitcoin .. they most certainly would.

And how is that materially different from our current international system of free floating national currencies?

[Source: http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-bitcoin-really-any-different-not-in.html]

Value and price are not the same thing. The price will end up where it ends up and other coins will go up and down just like with Forex. The value will be what matters most. What can you do with it?

[torry28]

Ah, now I understand why the dollars have "In god we trust" written on them. That's short for "Only god knows if you will get your value back"... (-:

The "backed by gold" had to be replaced with "In god we trust" 
After all, it works, everybody trust it is backed by something 

[imrer]

In my opinion you don't get it at all. There are plenty of areas where bitcoin is much better than fiat money. Decentralization is one example. Limited number another.

[evansearle42]

Consider the dollar.

The dollar is theoretically limited within the subset of United States currency while the concept of national currency itself is only limited by the number of nations on Earth.

Now to bitcoin.

Like the dollar the bitcoins are theoretically limited in supply.  But what if bytecoin comes along, then gigacoin, followed by googlecoin and so fourth? There seems to be no limit on the number of bitcoin imitators possible.

While, like dollars, there might be a limited number of bitcoins within the subset of bitcoin, the concept of bitcoin is unlimited unlike the world’s various national currencies.

Competition will utterly devalue bitcoin unless it is adopted by particular nations  to the exclusion of its competitors, however that is not to say that other nations will not adopt one or more of bitcoin’s competitors to the exclusion of bitcoin .. they most certainly would.

And how is that materially different from our current international system of free floating national currencies?

[Source: http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-bitcoin-really-any-different-not-in.html]

Do you know that the government can print unlimited money? They just need to press the "print" button.