That's not my definition you're using! I wouldn't count a hypothetical Satoshi dump as inflation, nor do I count new coins mined as inflation. Again, think of B

That's not my definition you're using! I wouldn't count a hypothetical Satoshi dump as inflation, nor do I count new coins mined as inflation. Again, think of Bitcoin as analogous to gold (and ignore the fact that we can technically make prohibitively expense gold now, as economists of the past were not considering modern alchemy when defining inflation). We don't claim that gold has inflated when more is mined, because it is understood that the gold mined already existed. The fact that there was hard-to-get gold underground has already been accounted for in the market valuation of gold. The fixed total number of bitcoins is what makes Bitcoin deflationary, even though more bitcoins are becoming available in the short term; the market knows this, and has theoretically accounted for it. This is more true of Bitcoin than the classic example of gold, as our gold estimates are just that and our Bitcoin estimates are perfect (barring breakdown of the network). Yes, the market is irrational and hasn't _really_ accounted for it, but don't tell the economists that! This is covered in intro macroeconomics, a currency/commodity isn't considered inflationary just because more becomes _available_, it's about whether or not there is a known finite supply. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere. Ask any economist if Bitcoin is deflationary.