3 ms·

> Because it can't. Even assuming everyone is on board with blockchains, removing the ability of the central bank to increase the monetary supply during recessi

> Because it can't. Even assuming everyone is on board with blockchains, removing the ability of the central bank to increase the monetary supply during recessions makes every downturn 10x worse. That doesn't mean it can't function as a currency, just that it maybe isn't a good one. This is an important distinction, because critics have adopted this talking point of "not a currency" or "can't be a currency" as some kind of binary, but then have terrible arguments backing this up. The difference between 2% inflation and 0% inflation is just that - 2%. Mind you - Bitcoin is currently issuing at a rate of 1.5%. The reason it is volatile has absolutely nothing to do with it's "deflationary" nature.

qsort 5y ago
> That doesn't mean it can't function as a currency, just that it maybe isn't a good one. Yeah I mean, given a sufficiently retarded government anything can function as currency, when we say "X can't be Y" we usually mean "X can't function as a Y properly" > The difference between 2% inflation and 0% inflation is just that - 2%. The point is that normal fiat currencies can be regulated by their central bank, the difference between 2% inflation and 0% inflation during a recession could be the difference between a manageable downturn and riots in the streets. That's an extreme example and often not the case, but why would you deprive yourself of the lever of money supply? There's a reason we're not on the gold standard anymore. > Bitcoin is currently issuing at a rate of 1.5%. The reason it is volatile has absolutely nothing to do with it's "deflationary" nature. Which makes it deflationary by definition if the economy is growing at more than 1.5%/yr in real terms.