Comment: those 'controlled release'

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: true true (see in situ)

those 'controlled release'

those 'controlled release' restrictions, aren't they just self imposed? couldn't they be changed if that's what was desired by whatever body makes the decision? suppose bitcoin was the dominant currency by 2140. wouldn't the same pressures of expanding bitcoin supply exist, i.e., standard macroeconomic arguments about the proper rate and role of inflation and all the political pressures that currently apply to banking, law, academia, and government?

you could respond that btc is controlled by all btc users or open source, etc., but that wouldn't actually answer the question... if btc were the dominant currency, and there was 15% unemployment, the same pressures and arguments for inflation would exist to compel the collective body of users, or the law could simply force it the same way gold holders were forced to accept paper in 1933.

isn't it true that at present bitcoin has very few 'end uses'? long term holding might be an example of an 'end use,' if we apply the term liberally. but if the holder of the btc changes his long term prognosis, his demand becomes very unreliable. ultimately a bitcoin saver is not an end user.

another possible end user would be someone looking to use bitcoin for a purchase he either could not or would not make with a financial transaction or cash (illicit end use, silk road, etc.)

finally, there are some purchases which the user simply prefers to make with btc rather than cash or financial transaction, due to some perceived convenience or the trait of irreversibility.

aside from these sources of demand, the rest of bitcoin users seem to use it only to change it into dollars, not as an actual store of value or unit of account. it has the property of being a medium of exchange, but not the other properties of a currency, unit of account or store of value.

also, bitcoin is subject to the exact same legal enforcement of taxes and regulation as gold or paper money, if it ever became widely used enough to really interest governments or threaten them.

and finally, for bitcoin to serve as a full blown currency, it would need to be subject to lending, market making, trading, and banking. that would bring it under the way of regulation. in a free market of any sort, btc promissory notes and fractional reserves could be maintained.

p.s. and since the tech behind bitcoin will likely never be understood by more than 1-4% of people, isn't it the ultimate easy sell for the state to raise 'concerns' and fears about it. the government was able to confiscate gold at a time when a large portion of the public owned gold, traded in gold and understood gold, and at a time when there were greater constitutional restraints on government and individual liberty was more prized.

you might object that since bitcoin isn't physical its harder to confiscate, but i would reply that it wasn't the confiscation per se that made trading in gold a problem post 1933, but simply the legal status and stigma. most people aren't going to do something illegal, hide their business, hide their taxes, etc. how would btc be viable if the government chose to ban, tax or confiscate it?