This banker tricks us to do away with deflationary nature of bitcoin!

[tmbp]

Any PoS coin is already inflationary in nature, why not use Peercoin instead of ruining Bitcoin?

[Lorenzo]

Any PoS coin is already inflationary in nature, why not use Peercoin instead of ruining Bitcoin?

Not necessarily. There are some PoS coins like Nxt which aren't inflationary since proof-of-stake block rewards come from network transaction fees.

[jpent]

This can be done in 5 minutes. You can create a fed coin with no cap but instead a fixed block discovery reward or perhaps one which even increases over time. Let it out into the wild and watch it fail.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Thankfully the Dogecoin tested this for us and it was a disaster

but now we have stablecoin-scam 

[Fiftysven]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

[tmbp]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

[Lorenzo]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

I thought inflation was just any increase in coin supply. Bitcoin is technically supposed to be neither inflationary nor deflationary once fully mined but will be very slightly deflationary in practice because it is inevitable that every year, some people will lose their coins.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

I thought inflation was just any increase in coin supply. Bitcoin is technically supposed to be neither inflationary nor deflationary once fully mined but will be very slightly deflationary in practice because it is inevitable that every year, some people will lose their coins.

the coin supply DOES increase.  every 10 minutes.

[Lorenzo]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

I thought inflation was just any increase in coin supply. Bitcoin is technically supposed to be neither inflationary nor deflationary once fully mined but will be very slightly deflationary in practice because it is inevitable that every year, some people will lose their coins.

the coin supply DOES increase.  every 10 minutes.

Yup, but not once it is fully mined in 2140. It is currently in it's inflationary phase.

[tmbp]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

I thought inflation was just any increase in coin supply. Bitcoin is technically supposed to be neither inflationary nor deflationary once fully mined but will be very slightly deflationary in practice because it is inevitable that every year, some people will lose their coins.

The problem with inflationary models is you effectively issue new coins to reward people who are working on the network, the number of coins is determined by the number of coins in circulations (a.k.a 5%/10%/3%) thus demand needs to expand accordingly. Ask yourself what would happen if everyone on the planet adopted such a coin and there were no new people so there is zero demand but new coins are still being issued? And most importantly why would anyone expose himself to additional risk?

Advocates of inflation claim that it discourages hoarding and speculators (e.g. why would I buy a car today if my money will be worth a lot more the next year?) as well as a more stable price. All of the cons of inflationary systems outweigh the pros by a whole lot, this is why inflationary currencies crash constantly while gold is still strong thousands of years down the road.

[Lorenzo]

Bitcoin is inflationary as well, till all coins are mined....or am i missing sth.?

It isn't inflationary since the same number of coins is set to be issued regardless of the total amount in circulation, an inflationary model would imply that 4% of the current number of coins in circulation would be issued over the next year.

I thought inflation was just any increase in coin supply. Bitcoin is technically supposed to be neither inflationary nor deflationary once fully mined but will be very slightly deflationary in practice because it is inevitable that every year, some people will lose their coins.

The problem with inflationary models is you effectively issue new coins to reward people who are working on the network, the number of coins is determined by the number of coins in circulations (a.k.a 5%/10%/3%) thus demand needs to expand accordingly. Ask yourself what would happen if everyone on the planet adopted such a coin and there were no new people so there is zero demand but new coins are still being issued? And most importantly why would anyone expose himself to additional risk?

Advocates of inflation claim that it discourages hoarding and speculators (e.g. why would I buy a car today if my money will be worth a lot more the next year?) as well as a more stable price. All of the cons of inflationary systems outweigh the pros by a whole lot, this is why inflationary currencies crash constantly while gold is still strong thousands of years down the road.

Prices would simply rise in proportion to the inflation rate assuming zero population change and identical demand (these assumptions are pretty unrealistic when it comes to cryptos though). If you had 100 coins and 100 people last year and 101 coins and the same 100 people this year (i.e. you introduced 1 coin into the system) and demand for the coin stayed the same, then each person would now have an extra 1 percent added to their balance. A coin would be worth 1 percent less so nothing would be lost and their net worth (as measured in coins) would stay the same, and something that cost 1 coin this year would then cost 1.01 coins next year.

After many years, your hamburger bought using coins could be worth twice as much coins, but it wouldn't be an issue if you earned twice as much coins due to inflation during that same time.

As you might have already guessed, the coin that I am thinking of is Peercoin. Peercoin doesn't discourage hoarding. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It promotes hoarding because only those who hoard their coins and thus support the network would benefit from the proof-of-stake minting.

I disagree with incorporating inflation into Bitcoin however and I think it would be a stupid idea to change Bitcoin's protocol just to please the existing inflationary system, but as a fan of Peercoin which uses an inflationary model, I do also think that inflationary currencies can work.

Note: Also, to keep things simple, I'm ignoring the contribution of transaction fees here.

Edit: Some minor rewording.

[tmbp]

Prices would simply rise in proportion to the inflation rate assuming zero population change and identical demand (these assumptions are pretty unrealistic when it comes to cryptos though). If you had 100 coins and 100 people last year and 101 coins and the same 100 people this year (i.e. you introduced 1 coin into the system) and demand for the coin stayed the same, then each person would now have an extra 1 percent added to their balance. A coin would be worth 1 percent less so nothing would be lost and their net worth (as measured in coins) would stay the same, and something that cost 1 coin this year would then cost 1.01 coins next year.

After many years, your hamburger bought using coins could be worth twice as much coins, but it wouldn't be an issue if you earned twice as much coins due to inflation during that same time.

As you might have already guessed, the coin that I am thinking of is Peercoin. Peercoin doesn't discourage hoarding. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It promotes hoarding because only those who hoard their coins and thus support the network would benefit from the proof-of-stake minting.

I disagree with incorporating inflation into Bitcoin however and I think it would be a stupid idea to change Bitcoin's protocol just to please the existing inflationary system, but as a fan of Peercoin which uses an inflationary model, I do also think that inflationary currencies can work.

Note: Also, to keep things simple, I'm ignoring the contribution of transaction fees here.

Edit: Some minor rewording.

So by holding Peercoins you hold a liability to contribute to the Peercoin network otherwise you are punished by having your coins devalued as opposed to Bitcoin where you hold no liabilities because you are already paying your fees to support the network.

[giveBTCpls]

I know a guy here from the dorms that bought Bitcoin, when he cashed out they frozed his bank account. I know another guy also from here that deposited money in Bitstamp and got the account frozen. It seems ING fucks you over so much. If I ever cash out some Bitcoin i'll be sure to do it in a smaller, local bank that isn't under the control of the powers that be.

[Lorenzo]

Prices would simply rise in proportion to the inflation rate assuming zero population change and identical demand (these assumptions are pretty unrealistic when it comes to cryptos though). If you had 100 coins and 100 people last year and 101 coins and the same 100 people this year (i.e. you introduced 1 coin into the system) and demand for the coin stayed the same, then each person would now have an extra 1 percent added to their balance. A coin would be worth 1 percent less so nothing would be lost and their net worth (as measured in coins) would stay the same, and something that cost 1 coin this year would then cost 1.01 coins next year.

After many years, your hamburger bought using coins could be worth twice as much coins, but it wouldn't be an issue if you earned twice as much coins due to inflation during that same time.

As you might have already guessed, the coin that I am thinking of is Peercoin. Peercoin doesn't discourage hoarding. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It promotes hoarding because only those who hoard their coins and thus support the network would benefit from the proof-of-stake minting.

I disagree with incorporating inflation into Bitcoin however and I think it would be a stupid idea to change Bitcoin's protocol just to please the existing inflationary system, but as a fan of Peercoin which uses an inflationary model, I do also think that inflationary currencies can work.

Note: Also, to keep things simple, I'm ignoring the contribution of transaction fees here.

Edit: Some minor rewording.

So by holding Peercoins you hold a liability to contribute to the Peercoin network otherwise you are punished by having your coins devalued as opposed to Bitcoin where you hold no liabilities because you are already paying your fees to support the network.

Transaction fees do negatively impact your account. Virtually every cryptocurrency rewards those who support the network and imposes penalties on those who do not. Even once Bitcoin is fully mined, transaction fees will be awarded to miners, giving them a higher percentage of the total coin supply - increasing their wealth and diminishing the wealth of those who do not choose to mine (Remember, the best way to gauge wealth is to think of it as a percentage of the total market cap).

The inflationary nature of Peercoin is just one way of managing this. Nxt is similar in that it is also proof-of-stake but it is not inflationary. It has a total cap of 1 billion coins. In practical terms, the two models (one inflationary and the other not) differ by very little.

[IIOII]

ING is either retarded or shows conflict of interest at its finest. Maybe even both...

That guy should read the message in the Genesis Block. I'm afraid he's about to loose his job.

[counter]

Agreed, that is a very weak attempt to entice the bitcoin devs to sellout.  the whole video is meant to get that single message across.  This has been the same old attempt to fud Bitcoin just with subtle manipulation.  Makes me wonder how many others have sold out so they can rub elbows with the elite crowd show off a Nobel piece prize.

[RodeoX]

The developers are not going to sell out bitcoin for a Nobel prize. 
It would obviously create a fork that no one would follow and leave the devs in poverty (devs are paid in BTC). I think we are forgetting that these ideas about taking over or destroying bitcoin have been discussed for years. So far no one has shown me an idea with any chance at all of working.

No one owns bitcoin, no one has control of the network, and there is no one to corrupt.   

[slaveforanunnak1]

This mother-fucker!
Take that noble prize and shove it up your ass next to Kissinger's

[Peter R]

The developers are not going to sell out bitcoin for a Nobel prize.  
It would obviously create a fork that no one would follow and leave the devs in poverty (devs are paid in BTC). I think we are forgetting that these ideas about taking over or destroying bitcoin have been discussed for years. So far no one has shown me an idea with any chance at all of working.

No one owns bitcoin, no one has control of the network, and there is no one to corrupt.  

It's interesting to note that if a central bank wanted to be able to adjust the bitcoin money supply in an attempt to smooth the economic cycles, they would already be able to do this.  They would first need to procure a large sum of bitcoins and hold them as reserves.  Then, when they feel the economy is depressed, they would lend out these reserves at low interest rates to expand the money supply.  When they feel the economy has recovered, they would raise the interest rates on these reserves to reduce the money supply.  The difference between this mechanism, and the current central banking system, is that the one I just described enforces discipline.  

It is also interesting to note that the central banking system would get one final kick at the "fiat can" even if we moved to a bitcoin monetary system.  Historically, a central bank holds government bonds on the "assets" side of its balance sheet, and an equal amount of fiat on the "liabilities" side.  One method the Fed uses to increase the money supply is to purchase treasury bonds with newly-created fiat.  The Fed could use this same process of money creation (with an act of Congress), but instead of purchasing treasury bonds, they could procure bitcoins.  The asset side of their balance sheet would start to fill up with real bitcoins while the liability side would fill up with dollars.  This would drive up the USD/BTC exchange rate and result in the Fed owning a huge sum of bitcoins for essentially zero cost.  But in actuality, the cost would be huge: they would be "selling out" the legitimacy of their fiat system.

We would be witnessing the final act of fiat.  

[RodeoX]

The developers are not going to sell out bitcoin for a Nobel prize.  
It would obviously create a fork that no one would follow and leave the devs in poverty (devs are paid in BTC). I think we are forgetting that these ideas about taking over or destroying bitcoin have been discussed for years. So far no one has shown me an idea with any chance at all of working.

No one owns bitcoin, no one has control of the network, and there is no one to corrupt.  

It's interesting to note that if a central bank wanted to be able to adjust the bitcoin money supply in an attempt to smooth the economic cycles, they would already be able to do this.  They would first need to procure a large sum of bitcoins and hold them as reserves.  Then, when they feel the economy is depressed, they would lend out these reserves at low interest rates to expand the money supply.  When they feel the economy has recovered, they would raise the interest rates on these reserves to reduce the money supply.  The difference between this mechanism, and the current central banking system, is that the one I just described enforces discipline.  

It is also interesting to note that the central banking system would get one final kick at the "fiat can" even if we moved to a bitcoin monetary system.  Historically, a central bank holds government bonds on the "assets" side of its balance sheet, and an equal amount of fiat on the "liabilities" side.  One method the Fed uses to increase the money supply is to purchase treasury bonds with newly-created fiat.  The Fed could use this same process of money creation (with an act of Congress), but instead of purchasing treasury bonds, they could procure bitcoins.  The asset side of their balance sheet would start to fill up with real bitcoins while the liability side would fill up with dollars.  This would drive up the USD/BTC exchange rate and result in the Fed owning a huge sum of bitcoins for essentially zero cost.  But in actuality, the cost would be huge: they would be "selling out" the legitimacy of their fiat system.

We would be witnessing the final act of fiat.  

That is interesting. I would not call that a takeover, (nor did you) in that scenario they are simply participating. Personally I don't mind if banks want to play with us. But they get no advantage other than they have money to leverage.