Lol in what universe does doing absolutely nothing and achieving a 300% return equate to "increased productivity"?
You seem to be unaware why the purchasing power of money increases when there is no change in the supply or demand of the money. Let's say the total yearly output of an economy is a dozen apples, and $1 buys one apple. If there is a breakthrough in apple production and the economy is now 25% more efficient, 15 apples are now produced. If the supply of money remains the same, $1 will now buy 1.25 apples.
I don't have a specific problem with deflation that is any worse than inflation, but the model of bitcoin obviously and intentionally causes unwarranted gain to those who were there first. Value does not appear out of thin air. The ability to use a digital trash token does not merit you a 300% or 3 million % return--as in the case of the earliest adopters.
Now it seems you don't understand human incentives with regard to risk.
Early adopters spent time and money working on a project that produced a worthless
digital token. Had they not done so, we would not be here to discuss Bitcoin. However, one of the real reasons they did so is the knowledge that due to its properties, it could one day be worth much more than nothing. To say that it causes "unwarranted gain" is to say that you don't believe Bitcoin is worthwhile.
Also, you can call Bitcoin a "digital trash token" all you want, but the fact that individuals of their own free will exchange dollars with which they can buy anything for Bitcoins flies in the face of that claim. I can already hear you foaming at the mouth, spittle flying everywhere "BUT THEY JUST WANTS THEY PROFITSSSS!" - so fucking what?
It is a transfer of wealth.
Nope. It is a creation
of wealth. Bitcoins were worth nothing, then early adopters came along, now Bitcoin is worth something. They built this system that drew others, which increased the value of the system and their holdings in it. No central bank forced people to exchange dollars for bitcoins, they did it freely.
Isn't the main complaint about inflation is how it makes our money worth less? What am I missing here that hasn't happened in bitcoin?
Kind of. There's two complaints about inflation in a system such as ours.
1) The inflation is arbitrary - those with information profit at the expense of those without
2) The inflation is centralized - those who receive new money first profit at the expense of those who receive it later
3) Inflation disincentivizes saving - saving is consuming less than necessary in the present, in order to use that surplus to build better capital for the future
So really, I think a decentralized, crypto-currency with algorithmic inflation would be much better than the current system, but it still disincentivizes saving.
Yes, Bitcoin is currently going through an inflationary period. That's how the initial units of money are being distributed. It was never designed to have a stable exchange rate against the dollar. The rules of the network have been public for anyone to see since the beginning. There is complete transparency here, unlike at central banks.
That after enough millions in wealth are transferred that it will happen less often and will be spread across the backs of more copper-scrounging slaves in the future? Wow, what a refreshing redefinition of money. And these copper-scrounging slaves are the ones expected to keep the network running, ROFLMAO.
What? How about you use more logic and less rhetoric?