Would you support moving to a system with controled inflation?

[wb3]

I wish I owned a lot of Gold. No, I don't hold any substantial value in Gold. But if I could, I would. I tend to think, others would too. Yea, we work with in established monetary systems but "WE" like gold.

I guess the test would be this, if you have the option to receive a $1000 Dollars in Paper or Gold, which option would you take. I would be willing to state that at least >80% would take the gold as change.

[1715057273]

1715057273

[1715057273]

1715057273

[1715057273]

1715057273

[1715057273]

1715057273

[1715057273]

1715057273

[1715057273]

1715057273

[MoonShadow]

I wish I owned a lot of Gold. No, I don't hold any substantial value in Gold. But if I could, I would. I tend to think, others would too. Yea, we work with in established monetary systems but "WE" like gold.

I guess the test would be this, if you have the option to receive a $1000 Dollars in Paper or Gold, which option would you take. I would be willing to state that at least >80% would take the gold as change.

I'd prefer $1000 in silver or copper myself. 

[wb3]

I wish I owned a lot of Gold. No, I don't hold any substantial value in Gold. But if I could, I would. I tend to think, others would too. Yea, we work with in established monetary systems but "WE" like gold.

I guess the test would be this, if you have the option to receive a $1000 Dollars in Paper or Gold, which option would you take. I would be willing to state that at least >80% would take the gold as change.

This kind of thought experiment is handy for metals brokers that want to make a sale, but it only really represents a snapshot of a transaction in a micro-economy... It doesn't scale. It breaks down when you go to try and spend $1000 of gold bullion at Walmart, or when Walmart tries to use it to pay for the electric power they use. In one sense Bitcoin presently suffers a similar problem, the economy it can actually be used in is limited without the ability to exchange it for another currency. And, the exchange process itself serves to reduce the velocity of the currency going to-and-from the larger economy vs. the rate at which it can move within a purer Bitcoin economy.

Gold also suffers from the velocity dampening effect of exchanges, limiting it's global economic impact. Some 'serious' economic pundits have proposed ways to overcome this velocity limitation, as mentioned here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191.msg75669#msg75669. But this brings it's own problems including a de facto debasement of gold through fractionalization...

I see your point, but not withstanding the extra step in redeeming the Gold, it tends to be safer, although currently slower.

I like: http://www.apmex.com/  for Xchange in precious metals. Suisse Gold is serialized and tracked in sealed containers.
Divisibility is not really a problem, I.E. 24K, 22K, 18K, 10K, etc... on and on.

[wb3]

... Don't get me wrong, I like gold and silver, I even like it because it's shiny. I think there should be a healthy, robust trade between Bitcoin and gold. My criticism is focused on the view of gold (or Bitcoin for that matter) as a panacea, and the idea of a global currency in general.

While there is a longing for a flatter, fairer, and simpler economic landscape, this longing is tempered by a desire to protect and enhance wealth. Because of these competing motivations a certain level of complexity will always arise in economic systems... CHAOS is the father of life. And because of this there will always be a cost for safety. If there were such a thing as a singular store of value it would be continually under siege, and if perfectly safe, would be perfectly inaccessible, and therefore valueless, and so on...

Yep. As you said.

I stated it many times on this board that bitcoin is a new asset class see http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/assetclasses.asp and it has it's place in any decent investment portfolio. Inflatocoin on the other hand would not be a principally new asset class at all.

So far this was completely ignored.

I can see it being a viable investment in a decently managed Portfolio, but so are many Penny Stocks exchanged OTC. The possibility for growth is there, just as the possibility for loss. So sure, one can choose to invest in it.

I would state that buying a 100 BitCoin has the possibility to gain 20% or slightly more within a reasonable amount of time, weight against the possibility of a 100% loss.  Unlike stocks, there are no assets to sell to get some wealth back to the stock holders. As a purely ForEx investment, there is no guarantee against a 100% loss.

[suprabitz]

One thing you have to worry about with a FIXED monetary supply is to compare with England. Most of the wealth in the country is controlled by a very few powerful families who were able to amass sums of land early on. Land is an asset and the way bitcoin is structured is an asset.

This is similar to early bitcoin adopters. While its worthwhile for early adopters to benefit, many people would argue that the British system of 'old money' is not desirable in a robust economy. To grow the bitcoin economy you have to allow late adopters to get on-board and participate, without becoming serfs.

If you want just a store of wealth, like gold, and not a growing economy, thats fine. But remember that gold had a very poor return for decades. And very few people can participate with gold.