There is no way that a deflationary asset could become the world currency because of the economics behind it. Say you were to take out a mortgage in the future for 1 BTC at a price of $250,000 USD. You have to pay the bank back 1.1 BTC (for simplicity's sake) over 30 years. As more and more BTC is lost due to people losing their seeds, the price of BTC increases. Well, throughout your mortgage, the average price of BTC was $500,000 USD and you paid $550,000 for your house.
This is a really simple way of saying consumers may postpone purchases in the hopes of getting better deals in the future, leading to decreased demand for goods and services. This can result in lower production and job losses, further reducing demand and creating a self-reinforcing cycle and increase the real value of debt.
Yes, it can be good that you have 1 BTC now, but it won't work for a global economy and for newborns.
Ever bought a computer or cell phone?
Why? Why not wait until your money is worth more later compared to the price of that cell phone?
Because you need it.
Before mortgages people bought the amount of house they could afford. Married couples (instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding) would buy a house and build a basement that they live in until they can afford to build the rest of the house.
People are living beyond their means. Once I switched completely over to BTC as my money I ended my debt and bought my house in cash.
reply
in this scenario, there would be massive income inequality. There are those that would sit on their BTC (100s of btc) while people who have 0 would have to work night and day for 10 sats
reply
Hmm, not income inequality, that's the current system. Just sitting on bitcoin doesn't grant you any more bitcoin. Sitting on the federal reserve board (shareholders) does grant one more dollars, however.
If there are people working night and day and their offered goods and services still can't convince a single person to part with their sats, that's a separate problem and probably means those goods or services were never really needed in the first place. To be sure, I think modern society is full of businesses marketing such things, and doing away with some of it would do us all some good. There's no point in doing extra work, creating disposable crap that nobody really needs if they were to actually stop and think about it.
To be fair, there is quite a heavy distribution inequality in bitcoin, but there's every indication that it's evening out over time. That's the market just doing its thing.
reply
I totally understand what you are trying to say, but it seems that in this world, only things that are needed will survive. I understand that the invisible hand has its place, but humans are not robots, they want to be able to spend their money right then and there, and BTC discourages that.
It may take a generational shift in culture to shake this out of people, but most people can't even afford an emergency fund let alone make good financial decisions about frivolous goods. I agree in theory, but in practice it is much harder to see it happening.
reply
I think people with bad spending habits would learn wuickly. Also banks will be much more reticent to give out loans since they can just get the return from holding btc. Meaning to actually qualify for a house you need to actually have your shit together which would have let us avoid the 2008 crisis and subsequent printing
reply
It took about one year as a bitcoiner for this mentality to be shaken out of me, and I went from no emergency fund to a modest one in the process. It may take less time than you think.
reply
it also levels the playing field over time, making it much easier for those furthest from the money printer to have an easier start
reply
You raise good points, but the example you chose involves debt-the mortgage. Debt has a place of primacy in a fiat system. That wouldn't be the case in a bitcoin based economy, though I'm sure debt will play a role. It's difficult to predict the real world consequences of a completely new economic system.
reply
How would it not be the case. Would no one take on debt ever is that system? I don't think that is possible.
reply
For example by demonetizing real estate. I believe on a bitcoin standard, real estate will be much cheaper.
reply
Yes. Real estate is a bubble, because people use it to escape inflation. On a Bitcoin standard they will buy BTC instead of building real estate portfolios. More people will be able to afford a house when they're cheaper. Real estate goes up when interest rates are low, which on a fiat standard means more borrowing, and crashes when those go up (less borrowing). Also, as BTC value goes up, house prices will go down in nominal (BTC) terms.
reply
You inflate your money supply by taking out debt, I'll stay debt free and absorb your inflation in my deflationary asset called Bitcoin. Let's see who ends up better off đź‘Ť
reply
Most people that have switched over to bitcoin live simpler lives. When you know your money will 10x in a few years, driving a piece of shit car so you can become financially independent makes a lot of sense. Overspending is fiat.
reply
I don’t think debt will be as prevalent as it is in the fiat system, mainly because the supply of bitcoin is limited, so there won’t be enough to pay back the interest on all debt if the percentage of the economy that is debt financed is too high.
As for housing prices, the reason they are so high and require so much debt to purchase is two fold imo:
  1. people are using housing as a store of value, in the absence of good alternatives
  2. the debt based, fractional reserve system requires inflation to survive. Meaning the natural deflationary force of technology is not allowed to function as it should.
It’s hard to know for sure, but I imagine a world where Bitcoin allows for a house to no longer be multiples of average income, and be affordable for the average pleb
reply
Wow. This statement is quiet amazing. Do you think that throughout all of human history debt has been required? In my parents lifetime in the US debt went from being only for a home and this was modest debt to being a fact of life for buying depreciating assets like a car. The fiat system is not that old. You bring up a good thought experiment though in your OG post.
reply
Lots of things may evolve. First of all, I doubt more and more bitcoin will be lost in the future. Custody options will improve, and more care will be taken to secure bitcoin as it becomes more precious. Also, a whole new debt based system may arise, similar to the gold receipt IOUs of the past.
reply
And some of the IOUs were copied and can be again, but I suppose programmable money and sidechains can help fix that.
To play devil's advocate about precious items, those tend to have substitutes, so it will be interesting the psychological effect it has on those who lose it.
And there's almost like a reverse Cantillion effect while the rest of market assumes there's X supply while you (and whoever you tell) know it's X - whatever you lost, meaning that you can get deals on things.
reply
I don’t think it’s that difficult to predict, it’s a step backwards historically. Kingdoms only had their treasuries to build with. With an empty treasury they either ceased to exist, stopped building, defiled currency to look like they were refilling the treasury, or refilled the treasury via taxes or war. Castles and cathedrals took centuries to build so they could pay as they went. Loans as investments allowed people to escape servitude of feudal lords. Now you can have a whole house or business… today without waiting…and use it to earn and pay it back and make more. Deflationary assets have a place, but if it is the ONLY thing then you will see the current hodlers just become the elite until someone decides they have had enough and revolts. Consider the quickest way for a bitcoin country to overtake another bitcoin country: war. Kill private key holders. Destroy their bitcoin. Complete destruction of another nation so your stack becomes even more valuable. You take fighting for resources to a whole new level.
reply
Firstly, Bitcoin is technically not deflationary. It's supply issuance is disinflationary as it drops programmatically with every halving. The net result of this may be price deflation when using bitcoin as a unit of account but that doesn't make the asset deflationary.
Now, as you correctly point out, if a lot of people lose their Bitcoin and it is unrecoverable it would be deflationary if lost supply was exceeding new issuance. I don't see lost bitcoin as a huge issue in the future though, we may have another wave of it as mass adoption hits, especially if people need to rush in, but the tech and tools and knowledge we have now is far superior to the early days when maybe 10% of supply was lost. There will always be some lost coins and I suppose at some point that might exceed the new issuance (isn't block reward 1 sat 76 years from now or something). But that crossroads seems so far in the future I don't think it's worth worrying about. If bitcoin is successful and hyperbitcoinization happens and bitcoin is the world's reserve asset, all these potential problems will get sorted out along the way. It's similar to the security budget debate. Sure, it's interesting to consider but if bitcoin is important to the world, it sorts itself out (maybe not in the way we like but it does).
As for the mortgage example you bring up. It's a fair one. Fiat is great at extinguishing debt over time via inflation, thus incentivizing more debt issuance which spurs economic activity, and that can be great in the short run but it's a trade off as it is disastrous in the long run. Jeff Booth has articulated this argument much better than I ever could why the deflationary forces of tech will require a non inflationary currency to offset them. I don't know if I totally agree with all his arguments but they are worth consideration and I also think you might be overthinking it from a fiat world view. If Bitcoin is the world's reserve asset, thinking about the value of a house over 30 years in fiat terms and Bitcoin value increase in fiat terms is the wrong way to look at it. Bitcoin would be much less volatile at that point, as the unit of account the only factors that should affect it's value would be issuance, participants in the network (population growth), and productivity, Who knows but if productivity grows at 2% and population grows at 2% and issuance is very little, maybe the cost of the house in bitcoin terms doesn't differ much over 30 years. Also you will be earning in bitcoin over that time. It's all hard to fathom when we live in this fiat paradigm. I think these are fair questions and maybe ultimately we do need a more elastic money with bitcoin playing the role of gold as a forcing function to keep people from abusing the elasticity.
It's a good thought experiment but again, if bitcoin succeeds, it likely sorts itself out.
reply
After the halvings are over, 0 BTC is mined and the supply can only go down, making it deflationary.
reply
At what rate. I mean if we don't know how to not lose our bitcoin in 2140 we have bigger problems and definitely the AI singularity has all our bitcoin anyways. But sure there will always will be some lost sats. I expect much to happen between now and 2140 and don't care to speculate on the state of the world or the global economy at that time.
reply
Right, but I like to theorize.
reply
The questions you’re asking just seem responsible. In comparison, @grayruby seems like they like to take risks and gamble with money
reply
Oh yeah. I am such a gambler. I am practically a shitcoin degen trader I take so many risks. What are you going on about?
reply
It does seem that way.
But that crossroads seems so far in the future I don't think it's worth worrying about. If bitcoin is successful and hyperbitcoinization happens and bitcoin is the world's reserve asset, all these potential problems will get sorted out along the way. It's similar to the security budget debate. Sure, it's interesting to consider but if bitcoin is important to the world, it sorts itself out (maybe not in the way we like but it does).
We don’t need to consider these questions. If we believe hard enough, we’ll all be rich!
reply
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem if that's what you extract from that statement. I made no assertion to the effect of "If we believe hard enough, we'll all be rich", I didn't mention wealth generation at all. I simply stated "if" bitcoin has risen to that level of adoption and importance to the world problems will be solved as they arise. I also said "it is interesting to consider" which you interpreted as "we don't need to consider these questions".
If you want to spend an inordinate amount of time pondering the potential flaws of hyperbitcoinization 50-100 and so on years from now. Feel free. I would prefer to focus on supporting the bitcoin ecosystem and helping educate non bitcoiners.
In future, I am happy to clarify what I meant or debate something I said without the implication I am just a gambler or having intentionality of my words assigned to them by you.
Appreciated.
GR
Well put! You’ve also exemplified why I love bitcoin and this community (and stacker.news), the ability to discuss weighty issues without the toxicity of the bird app when someone wants to discuss the finer points of a new economic paradigm.
I agree we figure it out. I think there will always be multiple currencies. I can’t see a way around bitcoin NOT being the place to park wealth, it’s absolutely perfect in that aspect. I just have a stinging concern about how my neighbor can increase his net worth by ending me (making my bitcoin forever inaccessible).
reply
How do you think things used to work when the world was on a gold standard ?
reply
Very good point. Bitcoin is different but this is a good point. This post is an example of how short memories can be these days. I mean, we haven't even lived under this debt fueled system that long. Truly fascinating to me to see people struggling to see an alternative future. I mean at one point in history the most power person on the planet was the Pope... things change. Things will change.
reply
We haven't lived under the debt system because there wasn't a need for it. As the global economy has shifted from industrial to technological, naturally this has consequences such as not enough production of homes. Also, debt has fueled many people's ability to grow their wealth by leveraging it. Acting like debt is bad is craziness.
reply
Debt has existed before and during the gold standard. People did not stop taking out loans or being entrepreneurial on a gold standard.
The total amount of debt and leverage will likely decrease on a Bitcoin standard, but debt vehicles will still exist.
reply
So we need more debt because of technology? Actually as I understand it technology is deflationary itself. As technology reduces the amount of real labor required to work. An extreme example is the computer. I would argue the supply of homes is greatly affected by zoning laws and other regulations as well as the money being inflationary.
reply
I think the fault in your reasoning is that you keep revaluing stuff back to shit fiat. Forget that USD even exists. You are faced with these facts:
  • You need a house now.
  • You could direct some of your salary over the next 30 years (totaling 1.1BTC) towards repayments and still pay the bills.
Under these conditions, a mortgage would be a good choice for you. The problem with deflation is that your employer might repeatedly lower your salary over these years (to adjust for purchasing power) which would bust your idea.
There are two solutions:
  • Do not take on debt in the first place. As Jeff Booth and others point out, the whole reason the world is so indebted is that inflationary conditions favor those take on debt (they steal from savers). But under money that rises in purchasing power over time the opposite is true. You would reevaluate - Do I really need it now? Can I go by in a smaller house?
  • Hedge yourself. Even if USD does not exist, you could still construct financial instruments (options, futures) based on various commodities (like gold) or even house price index versus BTC. This way you would (over the course of the mortgage) pay a predictable amount in terms of purchasing power.
reply
The problem with the 'stop equating shit to fiat' is that BTC maxis act like people just need to make better choices. In some areas, this is true, but in others it is not possible. There are not enough houses in the world to house everyone, making the demand for them higher than the supply. This increases the price of housing over time and makes it not feasible to save your BTC up to buy a house outright.
We have to be realistic; people need to take on debt. Debt is good, it motivates people to work consistently. Buying a house outright is a pipe dream that ended when the world population is out pacing the rate of homes being built. The debt system will exist as long as there are less houses than people and debt does not go well with BTC.
reply
why do people need to buy a house? Why not rent? or share a house?
owning a house is not a "right" nor a societal obligation to provide.
Too many idiots take (or are co-erced into taking) loans to buy properties they can't afford, and they do not adjust to account for the risks of increased interest rates.
Others, who are careful, and do not take those risks (who rent a long time to buy a house outright in a fairly priced area or country) are unfairly penalised by degenerate debt guzzlers who are then financially protected due to the self-interest of the ruling banking cartel
People do NOT need to take on debt. Many (many) people avoid debt. Many who do take on debt do not understand the risks they are taking, and do not even suffer the consequences of those risks.
reply
Saying debt is good is interesting. If debt is good then is the absence of it bad? What if you don't need debt to the level it is needed now. Would that be a bad thing? You keep speaking about the current system as if it is a law of nature that cannot be changed. Not only can it change, it will change. Debt is a necessary evil under a system of money that is inflationary. The artificial (non-market driven) low cost of debt leads to higher prices. I agree with you that under a bitcoin standard there will be less pressure to spend. I mean that's what you mean. The pressure to spend it created by holding dollars that will be worth less tomorrow than today vs. something I can use or something that will increase or hold its value over time. It makes me wonder why you are even interested in bitcoin at all.
reply
Buying a house outright is a pipe dream that ended when the world population is out pacing the rate of homes being built. The debt system will exist as long as there are less houses than people and debt does not go well with BTC.
People also die every day. Supposedly a lot of them died during covid.
The inventory issues with housing are mostly a result of decades of (mis)planning and corruption. It’s not a result of any natural market
reply
Under fiat, you borrow the money to buy the house. Debt is leverage.
Under BTC, you borrow the house to save money. Equity is leverage.
reply
I invite you to re-frame your thinking. Could it be possible that current rates of consumption are actually too high, because of decades of artificially low interest rates due to central bank manipulation? If consumption is postponed because savings are more valuable, would that be such a bad thing?
I'm inclined to think we need to move away from the mainstream economic thinking of "growth in consumption/production=good" and "decline in consumption/production=bad". This may have been true 100 years ago when economic development was necessary to provide basic quality of life, like electricity and water, to citizens. But these days when the marginal product is something like Facebook/Twitter (at least in advanced western economies), I'm not so sure.
reply
I invite you to re-frame YOUR thinking.
OP presented arrogance, not inquiry. It is a better use of time to ignore these cretins and build great things with the people who are not effectively already dead. He is too far gone, do not bother. He will die and be replaced by non-defective beings.
reply
Yes.
I had just assumed OP feels threatened from bitcoin, and the following quote came to mind:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
reply
This may have been true 100 years ago when economic development was necessary to provide basic quality of life, like electricity and water, to citizens. But these days when the marginal product is something like Facebook/Twitter (at least in advanced western economies), I'm not so sure.
You bring up a very good point about scale economy. Economies of scale were the driver of the industrial era paradigm.
Probably the time of economies of scale is almost over. That means that capital doesn't need to be deployed at scale anymore, which means that the fiat system is almost over. That would explain why the fiat system now mostly creates garbage like FB/TW (data exploitation at scale). Hopefully, the data exploitation at scale might be upended by Nostr, decentralized AI, and new decentralizing inventions that may come.
reply
Yes, that would be a bad thing. Consumption brings innovation which raises the quality of life for others. It is not as simple as "growth in consumption/production=good" when you think about it from a humanitarian point of view.
reply
Consumption brings innovation which raises the quality of life for others.
No, it doesn't. It only brings "innovations" such as FB/TW.
Less consumption means that innovators and entrepreneurs will have to scratch their heads to come up with actually useful things, rather than the current situation where their "innovation" is mostly garbage and VC money rains over them.
The main "innovation" we have now in the fiat world is marketing, behavioral economics and behavior control, to make people believe that they "need" the garbage that the "innovators" need to sell.
reply
This consumption does not only apply to social media. It applies to the medical field as well as reusable energy. It is better that we find a way to mass produce energy efficiently than to cut back on it by 50%, that would only stagnate progress of humanity.
reply
You make a point alot of people have made. I hope you came here with an open mind
reply
If you told people on a sound money standard to live all their lives in debt they would think you lost your mind. And they would be right.
reply
Leveraging debt is very powerful if used for assets that retain their value.
reply
It is leveraged to enslave people. Every time you get a mortgage, the bank gets payed twice, and you don't even know it.
reply
Have fun staying poor and economically illiterate you worthless, ARROGANT moron 🤡🤡🤡
All ye replying in earnest to this fool are yourselves fools for engaging with this cocky douche who knows no humility and has likely never done anything of substance in his life. I refuse to waste time with arrogant assholes like this who have no curiosity about the world, just like I do not attempt to converse with hyenas!
reply
Found DarthCoin's alt account.
reply
I'm coming to enjoy that people keep saying this :)
reply
you lost time refusing losing time.
reply
All of your concerns are easily addressed through normal price mechanisms. Making up a scenario and then saying it can't work isn't any sort of argument. If your scenario really doesn't make sense that just means it won't happen that way.
People will make lending and borrowing decisions based one their expectations of what revenue flows and purchasing power will be like in the future. Some will make bad choices and take losses, while others will good choices and make profits. That won't be different on different monetary standards.
The biggest flaw I see in your scenario is the rate of deflation once Bitcoin is the reserve. Once it's in wide circulation, the only reasons for a major increase in purchasing power are massive loss of Bitcoin quantity or a technological breakthrough that makes us radically more productive. The first scenario is extremely unlikely (why would people be more likely to lose Bitcoin after it's established?) and the second involves a huge gain in prosperity, which would make repaying loans easier.
reply
Saifedean explains it well in The Fiat Standard.
In the 1980s a hard drive cost orders of magnitude more per MB of storage than it does now. People knew prices would only drop, yet they bought hard drives, because they needed them.
The GDP would drop, but GDP is a poor metric, because it measures money spent, not value added to the economy. Read up on the broken window fallacy, e.g. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/150529/concepts/the-broken-window-fallacy/
reply
Yes, but deflationary currencies are affected most by large commodities. Inelastic goods will not be affected, but houses, cars and other large assets' demand will plummet.
reply
In a Bitcoin world, the role of debt in the economy would be vastly reduced because loaners would have a much lower incentive to loan out a currency that is deflationary. People would buy houses upfront because mortgages would be very expensive and risky to take.
This would mean that instead of getting a mortgage and paying it off for 30 years, people would likely rent for an extended period of time till they save enough to outright buy a house.
reply
Yeah, that sounds like a nightmare.
reply
To me it does not.
In a Bitcoin world, housing would become cheaper over time compared to your savings.
Also, the price of housing (in terms of hours of labor) would likely be much lower in general because housing and real estate currently hold a massive store of value role in our economy that would be greatly reduced in a hard money world.
reply
that was how all the empires worked before Keynesians.
reply
Housing prices today is basically based on how much people are able to take on in debt. Lowering interest rates pumps the price on housing. This is why a $100k house 20 years ago now cost $10M and it's all about passing around debt to the greater fool that is now stuck as a fiat slave to the banks.
Ever heard of people being able to afford their houses full in cash on one salary back in the days? Yep, that was on the gold standard.
reply
Housing will get cheaper (utility asset iso financialized asset). People will save until they can buy a house, like they used to.
reply
The price of housing would drop drastically, coming back to its utility value based on supply and demand only. No more government interference in housing prices.
People could actually save up to buy a house again.
In today's world, it is not possible to "save up" to buy a house. Inflation in housing is moving faster than our paychecks.
In a Bitcoin world, housing prices would be more stable, even slightly deflationary over time against the currency (Bitcoin). Gone will be the concept of borrowing today in order to beat inflation in the future.
Sure, lending will still exist, somewhat. And people will still borrow in order to buy a house. But not nearly as much as they do today. It will be common to save up, because borrowing would make very little sense for the average person. And an average house would be only a few years' salary for the average person. Like it used to be before fiat.
reply
Separate from the reserve currency aspect...
I would love a world where devaluing currency is no longer a driver of consumption. Buy what you need. Stop buying shit because your money will be worth less in the future.
Maybe we won't burn the planet to dust.
reply
Eh, consumption drives innovation and innovation goes hand in hand with science. Science is what helps us figure out ways to not burn the planet.
reply
The entire point of Bitcoin is to do more with less. So even if people are encouraged to save more than they spend this does not mean economic throughput drops. It means people are able to afford to do more with less. The rest is just an abundant safety net. In this way Bitcoin generates abundance.
If my lifestyle cost me $50,000 a year but my net worth in Bitcoin increases so many times the amount the cost of my lifestyle does not decrease and neither does my economic throughput. The only thing that decreases is the amount of the tool that I need to transfer value.
reply
Bitcoin exists, and the genie doesn't go back into the bottle.
Hope some day you can come to terms with that.
reply
If you told people 100 years ago we would have a system backed by debt and violence they would've laughed but here we are. I think there will be much less lending on a Bitcoin standard, but I still think it will be a thing. I also don't think fiat goes completely away it just becomes much less entrenched. I think Bitcoin will eat away at nation-state bonds because as you point out Bitcoin's ngu will convince people they should just hodl
reply
Have fun staying poor regard. We aren’t going to have mortgages (death contract) in the future
reply
Yg jelas jika aku punya 1 btc akan ku donasikan sebagian
reply
There's no need to assume there will be a positive interest rate on credit. Competition and automation (decentralized finance) may very well drive nominal interest rates to zero or negative by factoring in expected Bitcoin appreciation.
If BTC is the unit of account for the world, then it would generally increase in value at about the level of productivity growth of the world. Say, for example, 4% per year. So, 96 sats 1 year from now will be equivalent to 100 sats today in purchasing power. As a creditor, you might take the expected appreciation of the asset into account. If you want receive 5% real return on your value (for example), you charge a 1% nominal interest rate (5% return - 4% expected appreciation of the Bitcoin).
You can see how this may even result in a debtor paying a negative interest rate on credit, while still resulting in positive return on real value for the creditor.
reply
I find your comments fascinating and it makes me wonder. What is your bitcoin theses? What is its utility? Based on your comments in these threads it makes me wonder why coming from your perspective we even need bitcoin at all.
reply
You're thinking in fiat still.
reply
deleted by author
reply
The opposite seems to be the case. There is no way an inflatable asset will become the world currency. For example the dollar can be inflated at will and the movement away from it seems to be growing.
reply
Btc already became our reserve asset. Everything is getting repriced in btc terms, you can't see it. Bitcoin wasn't made to grow production, to grow GDP, to get rich quick. Bitcoin was made to standardize a ethical accounting system, that everyone can agree and verify it. Bitcoin economically impacts "bad interaction, behavior and beliefs" by forcing people play the rules. Whats wrong with it?
reply
Why would you need to borrow money or large somes of money over long periods in a deflationary world? Your income will continue to close the gap coupled by deflation removing cost on expenses to give you savings to acquire what you want
reply
That obviously wouldnt make sense. I suspect under Bitcoin standard price of house would drop to its consumable price, not pseudo-store or value it is now. It used to be kinda normal for houses to cost the cost of materials and labor. You would not borrow money for shoes or sofa or other non-productive assets like a house.
Today , an idea to saving up for house is out of the question. This would change under Bitcoin standard.
You would only borrow money for productive enterprises. If you had a business proposition with good chance of outperforming Bitcoin price.
reply
100 years of this Keynesian way of thinking has definitely not resulted in low income inequality. However it has brought society to the brink of collapse by destroying our ability to save in money that cannot be debased for the benefit of those who control the money printers, while plummetting every one else to skyrocketing, backbreaking debt, and driving the runaway consumerism that is actually destroying the planet. It's time to try something else.
reply
The way how you understand economy will change, the way how you buy will change. In the actual economy the money is debt, on the bitcoin economy the money is savings. You will buy with savings, no with debt, forget about mortgages and being slave for live to jobs you don't like just to be able to have a place where to sleep. Bitcoin doesn't need to be the worlds reserve currency to help you get out of slavery. Bitcoin can be YOUR reserve currency.
reply
When economists say something won't work because of [... whatever] they are saying they would advise against it, and those in control of the monetary systems heed that advice.
But today, I am my own bank. I do maintain some control over the "monetary system" (at least, the parts I interface with).
If I have bitcoin as MY reserve currency, then there is no THE reserve currency, there are instead reserve currencies. As in multiple.
Efficient or not, .... Harmful to economic growth or not, etc etc ... that can (and likely will) be our future.
reply
It would work just fine
reply