3 ms·

>It is also deflating, i.e. one Bitcoin today is worth more than one Bitcoin yesterday. But that's explicitly false, especially today (what with bitcoin being

>It is also deflating, i.e. one Bitcoin today is worth more than one Bitcoin yesterday. But that's explicitly false, especially today (what with bitcoin being down 14% over the last 24 hours). And there was a period of bitcoin's history of about 3 years where the value of one bitcoin was dropping day after day. Does that mean bitcoin was inflationary during that time? I just can't see that as being a useful definition.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Does that mean bitcoin was inflationary during that time? Just because something is volatile doesn't mean we can make no useful statements about its trend. If you're re-evaluating your purchasing and investing activity on a day-to-day basis then yes, the day-to-day price level change is relevant. (There are corporate treasurers who worry about 30-day price level changes.) > I just can't see that as being a useful definition. I agree. For an asset as volatile as Bitcoin, the terms "inflationary" and "deflationary" are largely meaningless. It won't be used as a currency because it's volatile, not because it's deflating. Still, between "inflationary" and "deflationary" Bitcoin has (a) spent more days deflating than inflating and (b) deflated over its long run to date. It is more correct to say Bitcoin is deflationary than anything else.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  > It won't be used as a currency because it's volatile, not because it's deflating. Again, I disagree. It's volatility wasn't a major problem in the past, and I believe it will begin to mellow out as time goes on. Bitcoin just went through an unprecedented amount of growth over 2017, as the market matures and more liquidity is introduced the price will (hopefully) stabilize. >Still, between "inflationary" and "deflationary" Bitcoin has (a) spent more days deflating than inflating and (b) deflated over its long run to date. It is more correct to say Bitcoin is deflationary than anything else. But isn't that true of any asset? Go back far enough and they all start at 0 and are worth something today.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > But isn't that true of any asset? Go back far enough and they all start at 0 and are worth something today. Asset, perhaps (there is rightful quibbling as to whether e.g. a bond was ever worth zero; it didn't exist and then came into existence with a positive value, but that's nitpicking). Currency, no. The first U.S. dollars minted were far more valuable than one U.S. dollar today.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Does that mean bitcoin was inflationary during that time? Just because something is volatile doesn't mean we can make no useful statements about its trend. If you're re-evaluating your purchasing and investing activity on a day-to-day basis then yes, the day-to-day price level change is relevant. (There are corporate treasurers who worry about 30-day price level changes.) > I just can't see that as being a useful definition. I agree. For an asset as volatile as Bitcoin, the terms "inflationary" and "deflationary" are largely meaningless. It won't be used as a currency because it's volatile, not because it's deflating. Still, between "inflationary" and "deflationary" Bitcoin has (a) spent more days deflating than inflating and (b) deflated over its long run to date. It is more correct to say Bitcoin is deflationary than anything else.

Klathmon 9y ago
> It won't be used as a currency because it's volatile, not because it's deflating. Again, I disagree. It's volatility wasn't a major problem in the past, and I believe it will begin to mellow out as time goes on. Bitcoin just went through an unprecedented amount of growth over 2017, as the market matures and more liquidity is introduced the price will (hopefully) stabilize. >Still, between "inflationary" and "deflationary" Bitcoin has (a) spent more days deflating than inflating and (b) deflated over its long run to date. It is more correct to say Bitcoin is deflationary than anything else. But isn't that true of any asset? Go back far enough and they all start at 0 and are worth something today.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > But isn't that true of any asset? Go back far enough and they all start at 0 and are worth something today. Asset, perhaps (there is rightful quibbling as to whether e.g. a bond was ever worth zero; it didn't exist and then came into existence with a positive value, but that's nitpicking). Currency, no. The first U.S. dollars minted were far more valuable than one U.S. dollar today.