3 ms·

> 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

> 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.