4 ms·

> I have another curiosity about the FBI's intent to seize his bitcoins- is it fair to seize all of them? If half of these bitcoins were earned while bitcoins w

• eksith 13y ago
  "It's not like Bitcoin is the only currency that undergoes inflation..." You mean "deflation"? ;) The nice thing about BTCs (aside from anonymity) is that you can always subdivide to tiny increments.
  • csomar 13y ago
    Inflation is when the price of something increase. So, yes, Bitcoin undergoes inflation and not deflation.
    • Smirnoff 13y ago
      Bitcoin is a deflationary currency, which means it INCREASES in value. If you don't trust me (or my Finance degree), then google and read the paper of the Bitcoin creator, where he/she/they outlined the economics benefits of Bitcoin. Sorry, can't link to the paper myself.
  • icebraining 13y ago
    No, inflation is right. Bitcoin is currently inflating in both value and supply.
    • Zigurd 13y ago
      No, bitcoin is appreciating in price relative to other currencies because the supply has a hard upper bound. In periods of inflation, currencies depreciate in value compared to gold or "baskets" of goods.
      • icebraining 13y ago
        bitcoin is appreciating in price relative to other currencies That's what inflating in value means. Not all inflation is of the general level of prices of goods; you can have asset price inflation, or cost inflation, or in this case, Bitcoin value inflation. because the supply has a hard upper bound It's appreciating because demand is increasing faster than supply. The future limit may be driving that demand, but it's certainly not the whole reason, since not all currencies with such an upper bound are this successful.
        • fancyketchup 13y ago
          >That's what inflating in value means. You're using "inflation" to mean exactly the opposite of what economists usually use the term "inflation" to mean. Bitcoin is experiencing deflation because the value of each bitcoin is increasing.
          • icebraining 13y ago
            No, I'm just not talking about inflation of the same thing. When people - including economists - just say inflation, that's just an abbreviation for "inflation [of the general level of prices]", out if they're Austrian, "inflation [of the money supply]". But even if this type of inflation is more commonly discussed, that doesn't mean it's the only, and economists also talk about types (e.g. asset value inflation). Now, notice I didn't write that Bitcoin is an "inflationary currency", but that it's inflating in value. That's because the former term refers to the first kind of inflation I wrote above, when I'm talking about another. Why did I use an unconventional type of inflation? Is because while it's technically true that the general level of prices in Bitcoins is deflating, I don't think that's very relevant when almost no product sets its prices in that currency, nor will any economy thus experience any deflation due to it. At least for now, Bitcoin is more like an asset than a currency, therefore it makes sense to speak of its value inflating, just like we do for other assets.
            • Smirnoff 13y ago
              I think you are confused about the term "inflation". When there is an inflation, the value of that item/money goes down. Or in other words, you have to pay more to get the same amount of goods. This is clearly not the case with Bitcoins. What I think you really meant to say was: "increasing in both value and supply". And that would be right.
    • fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      At the normal, and expected rate, minus the bitcoins that are being lost.
  • drcode 13y ago
    Here's the correct answer: Bitcoin is BOTH inflating and deflating. The money supply of bitcoins is inflationary because bitcoins are still being made. The purchasing power of bitcoins is deflationary because its buying power has historically increased (making other goods decrease in their bitcoin price over time.) Since the deflationary element has predominated in the years since its creation however, it is more sensible to call it "deflationary" in the whole.
• rarw 13y ago
  The current valuation is irrelivant. Federal seizure laws allow the government to seize any property, money or bitcoins included, that were used in or generated from some illegal activity. If my illegal activity generates 1 bitcoin which, 2.5 years later is worth 10 bitcoins, all 10 bitcoins can be seized since they all originated from the original seizable piece of property. Were this not the case and only the orignial result of an illegal transaction could be seized those running illegal operations would be able to profit from their crimes by simply converting one type of property into another that could increase in value. For example, if you sold 20,000,000 in drugs and purchased 20,000,000 in stock, it does not make sense that, once your property is seized, you can keep the increase in value between when you broke the law and when you got caught. This would make crime much more profitable which is the opposite goal of the seizure laws.
  • Dylan16807 13y ago
    So if I have both legal and illegal income, I should use the legal income on stock and the illegal income on my mortgage? Interesting side-effect.
    • nmeofthestate 13y ago
      I doubt paying into a mortgage is a cast-iron method of money laundering.
      • rarw 13y ago
        You're right. The comment that you should buy stock with legal income and pay back a mortgage with the illegal income misses the point completely. Buying stock was just one example of how transfering illegaly acquired funds into something that increases in value does not protect your initial investment. Anything you do with illegal income would be seizable property. Paying into a mortgage as the same effect. As you pay back a mortgage you acquire equity in the property. The government would then be able to seize your equity in the house, meaning they could sell the property and after paying back the remainder of the mortgage keep the difference.