Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Bitcoin proponents tend to tell only half of the story, and pick and choose economic theory that fits the "buy more bitcoin" narrative. In economic terms, Bitcoin is inflating as an asset. Specifically, it's demand-pull inflation. Bitcoin isn't even uniquely positioned to protect against inflation, other than the mistaken public belief on that topic. Inflation is an increase in the price of assets, so invest…
> Bitcoin is inflating as an asset. I don't think this is precise. Inflation of an asset means that the asset itself drops in value, relative to the value of other goods. For example: when prices rise, the USD itself would be inflating because would then take more USD to buy goods. Bitcoin is rising in price compared to the USD. So it's not "inflating." If we treat Bitcoin as a currency, it's deflating because right…
That assumes an asset can be used as a medium of exchange. In its current form, BTC is not a medium of exchange, it's a store of value.
In other words - the word inflation has to do with purchasing power. If the asset isn't used as a way to purchase then comparing the characteristic of inflation is basically pointless. It' be like saying "trees are inflating as an asset". No one makes purchases using trees so the concept is irrelevant.