←back to thread

190 points aorloff | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.852s | source | bottom
Show context
throw0101d ◴[] No.44467342[source]
Personally I think that this can be considered on the "bug" side of Bitcoin's finite number coins: if, over time, they are lost, then there's a smaller quantity† of currency that is useable to actually do stuff with.

This can make the 'rate of deflation' that occurs worse:

* https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deflationary_spiral

* https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/06/the-perils-of-bitcoi...

* https://crypto.bi/deflationary/

† I am aware of satoshis.

replies(8): >>44467392 #>>44467410 #>>44467413 #>>44467486 #>>44467668 #>>44467917 #>>44469713 #>>44469776 #
serial_dev ◴[] No.44467392[source]
When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more.

Considering this, while it is true that all this makes deflation worse, I’d assume most bitcoin hodlers would not mind this.

replies(3): >>44467652 #>>44467687 #>>44470300 #
1. throw0101d ◴[] No.44467687[source]
> When I listen to Bitcoin discussions, one of the advantages people bring up is that there is a limited number of it and you can’t just “print” more.

Which can limit economic growth. When money was based the amount of gold available, there were long periods of economic stagnation because of liquidity issues:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bullion_Famine

The stagnation only ended when new sources of shiny rocks were found (California; New World).

I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems. Yes, credit creation can be "too easy" and become a problem, but making it "too hard" (or physically/mathematically impossible) is even more dumb.

replies(3): >>44467884 #>>44467941 #>>44469829 #
2. logicchains ◴[] No.44467884[source]
>there were long periods of economic stagnation

During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation.

replies(1): >>44468457 #
3. fpoling ◴[] No.44467941[source]
In US in 19th century stocks of banks that went bankrupt were used as a sort of paper money to solve the problem of money availability.

So the finite amount of base money would just mean that derivative products would be used as practical money.

4. throw0101d ◴[] No.44468457[source]
> During the "long depression" GDP was still growing at 3-4% so it was hardly stagnation.

I don't know of many things that are viewed positively that have been given a label with "depression" in it.

> Figures from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz show net national product increased 3 percent per year from 1869 to 1879 and real national product grew at 6.8 percent per year during that time frame.[32] However, since between 1869 and 1879 the population of the United States increased by over 17.5 percent,[33] per capita NNP growth was lower. Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901.[34]

> The dramatic shift in prices mauled nominal wages – in the United States, nominal wages declined by one-quarter during the 1870s,[14] and as much as one-half in some places, such as Pennsylvania.[35] Although real wages had enjoyed robust growth in the aftermath of the American Civil War, increasing by nearly a quarter between 1865 and 1873, they stagnated until the 1880s, posting no real growth, before resuming their robust rate of expansion in the later 1880s.[36] The collapse of cotton prices devastated the already war-ravaged economy of the southern United States.[17]

> Thousands of American businesses failed, defaulting on more than a billion dollars of debt.[35] One in four laborers in New York were out of work in the winter of 1873–1874[35] and, nationally, a million became unemployed.[35]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression#United_States

Seems like a grand-ol time.

replies(1): >>44470224 #
5. mindcandy ◴[] No.44469829[source]
> I find it a dumb idea what whether or not people can get credit to start/expand businesses would be dependent of solving math problems.

That’s quite a mischaracterization. We can at least agree that Bitcoin’s supply is set up to increase at a pre-set rate over time. The math problems are the means to enforce that rate. Not the controlling factor.

6. ghghgfdfgh ◴[] No.44470224{3}[source]
If Congress had not demonetized silver in 1873, the metal’s decreasing value would have curbed the deflation of the time. I believe that this was one of the US Government’s greatest mistakes ever, because the reaction to the economic crisis in the 1870’s had a profound effect on the failure of Reconstruction. Friedman wrote a paper on this, called “The Crime of 1873.”