> With a fiat currency, you can simply print more so that said piece of bread can have its value accurately represented But, realistically, has this ever happe

> With a fiat currency, you can simply print more so that said piece of bread can have its value accurately represented But, realistically, has this ever happened in the era of fiat currency? Certainly the opposite case has happened. Adding another decimal place to a fiat currency would be a complete disaster -- every single moving piece in the financial system would need to be "fixed", including fixed-length protocols that date to the COBOL era. This solution is entirely unrealistic. On the other hand, it is at least conceivable that a hard fork to increase the precision of Bitcoin would be uncontroversial (in that the old fork would not survive). There would be ripple effects throughout the (hypothetical future Bitcoin-based) banking system, but no worse, I would think, than would happen for fiat currency. > Cryptocurrency is not a currency because it specifically aims to reintroduce problems that currency solves You say "problems" here, but you only indicate one problem. The other problem (the destructibility and replaceability of money) is not really a problem that currency solves in the context you're using it, since for most of history specie was precious metals, and if lost at sea was gone (I mean, theoretically recoverable, but it's probably cheaper to find new gold in the ground). And for a private individual, the "replacement" will simply never happen -- if I burn a big pile of bills in my back yard, that money will never be replaced, and it's a bit absurd to claim that it would be.