>> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. > The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the

>> the other has a mathematically demonstrably finite supply. > The argument I always hear against this point is that you can simply continue to subdivide the currency infinitely. We just get into smaller and smaller fractions of "satoshi's" or whatever the base unit may be. That's a different problem, that's the market-cap / # of coins issue. You don't spend an integer number of bitcoin, you spend the fraction you need, so it's not really a problem. The PP was talking about how Bitcoin was devised to not allow anyone to arbitrarily make more coins. (Some BTC forks have different minting policies, but BTC itself can't be changed.) Our central banks on the other hand, were devised precisely to allow the government to create money when needed. There's no way the USA would adopt BTC as its central currency for example because it would lose that ability.