Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

profitbaron.tumblr.com

41–50 of 209 posts

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#41

"However, they are wrong because converting $100 into 10 x $10 bills or even 100 x $1 bills does not make you feel richer." This was also quoted in a Forbes article but I don't get it. Can someone explain what this means? What does lack liquidity or limited supply have to do with feeling richer by funging your bills? I'm not joking I seriously have no idea what this has to do with anything...

When the whitepaper and subsequent code for the Bitcoin system was drafted, they created a set limit of 21 million bitcoins. After this limit is reached (designed to happen in 2140) there will be no new coins introduced into the network.

The concern then, is that when there is a fixed amount of coins available, people will begin to hoard them because they will appreciate in value. The system avoids this by allowing coins to be subdivided to 8 decimal places (the smallest unit is called a Satoshi). This results in 21 * 10^48 possible Satoshis available to the economy. It is expected that this will be a sufficient amount of currency for the network to avoid hoarding. If hoarding is still an issue, the code can be changed to further subdivide a coin.

The mistake Nicholas makes in this article is confusing the comparison between the dollar and the bitcoin. If you divide a $100 bill into 100 $1 bills, you will not feel any richer because the value of a single dollar bill does not change. If you divide a bitcoin into 100,000,000 Satoshis, the demand for more currency will cause an inflation in the value of an individual Satoshi.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#42

While I don't disagree with the author I would say that the finite supply shines a light on an even more direct problem. What happens to 'lost' coins? The BTC supply is not only finite but in fact dwindling over time, as inevitably the amount of currency is going to diminish due to digital loss. I have personally lost a few BTC due to computer crashes, wallet file lost etc. (In the early days) and considering this th…

The potential for destruction of bitcoins is actually reassuring to me. It painfully demonstrates that there is a limited supply of the digital "material" that makes bitcoin possible. It also encourages us to not hoard too much bitcoin, and to actually spend some of it from time to time.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#43

"However, they are wrong because converting $100 into 10 x $10 bills or even 100 x $1 bills does not make you feel richer." This was also quoted in a Forbes article but I don't get it. Can someone explain what this means? What does lack liquidity or limited supply have to do with feeling richer by funging your bills? I'm not joking I seriously have no idea what this has to do with anything...

I think the idea is that it's a classic supply/demand equation: With a fixed supply of Bitcoin available to transact with, each individual Bitcoin will become more expensive as demand goes up.

If you sub-divide Bitcoins further to purchase the same items then it's still a deflation: What you used to be able to sell for 1 BTC now you can only get 0.1 BTC for. If all prices drop proportionally at the same time that's not really so bad, but it is bad for any kind of delayed payment agreements (e.g. credit, loans, etc.) as your ability to repay, say, a 40 BTC loan continually gets less and less.

If you don't sub-divide then you make it more and more difficult for currency exchange to happen at all; i.e. the BTC becomes more valuable, which is also deflationary.

In a deflationary economy it's better to hoard your money (which is growing in value without action on your part), which reduces the pool of BTC available to spend, which leads to more deflation, etc. etc.

Of course this is a disaster only if BTC becomes the only currency, but it would seem to put a hamper on the idea that BTC could completely supplant our current currencies. I'd certainly never take out a loan in BTC at this point; even if the lender agreed to "deflate" the principal at a certain APR, the volatility of the BTC value is too high to be sure I wouldn't get taken to the cleaners on the loan.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#44
Two issues:

Firstly, the mining allocation rate isn't meaningfully part of the bitcoin protocol; it's just a setting. Any portion of the network large enough to survive as a detached economy can choose to change the (batty) monetary policy whenever it likes.

Secondly, this probably won't be necessary, as nothing really prevents bitcoin holders from forming banks and issuing inflationary/debased/pegged notes to beat the price down to sanity, using the existing transaction ledger for accounting.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#45
I hear so many disparate opinions about Bitcoin economy that I don't consider them anymore. The classic counter argument to this one is that hardware is constantly improving and still people buy hardware even though everyone knows that in 6 months with the same money you can buy something better. And another one is that Bitcoin is so divisible that deflation is not a problem.

In the end, Economics involves the behavior of people acting on free will. How anyone can attempt how people are going to behave with respect to something? If anyone could predict what society is going to value in the future, or how people will react to some new technology would he be writing blog posts about what is going to fail? Has there been anything remotely similar to the Bitcoin now in history?

I don't know whether deflation is good or bad but I consider the potential advantages of a deflationary currency, if it works, worth trying it. Why not, nobody is being forced to get into Bitcoins. If you don't like it, ignore it and move along.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#46
This fundamental flaw is absolutely glaring to anyone who has any understanding of economic history -- and it's amazing to me how many technologists willfully disregard several centuries of accumulated experience. Because of their built-in deflationary spiral, Bitcoins can never meaningfully be used as a medium of exchange: it will always be tempting to keep your Bitcoins in your pocket and let them appreciate instead of using them for needed goods and services. (And certainly, no one will take on debt denominated in Bitcoins. Can you imagine if you had taken out a Bitcoin-denominated mortgage a year ago?) All of this looks a lot like the 19th century in terms of economics, which suffered from manic booms and absolutely devastating depressions on a regular basis.[1] It took the mother of all depressions -- a decade-long monster that casted a generations-long shadow -- to permanently shift thinking. While economists still debate the precise causes of the Great Depression (and why so many attempts to right the economy in the 1930s failed), there is broad consensus on one key element: deflation is an economic carcinogen, and must be avoided at all costs. As such, Bitcoin is macroeconomic cancer -- no matter how breathless its techno-utopian proponents may be.

[1] Kindleberger, Charles P. and Aliber, Robert (2005 [1978]), Manias, Panics and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises, New York, ISBN 0-465-04380-1

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#47
This deflation argument seems to me it's an argument for the status quo, so if you are say Warren Buffet it is a vary valid concern. If on the other hand you just graduated undergrad and had a huge debt and your wage was actually set in bitcoins this would be great for you because the cost of paying off your dept would be from your bitcoin point of view spiraling to zero, as would the cost of everything else. That sounds like a pretty awesome situation to be in.

Be wary of financial explanations, because in most cases when a business person or economist says its good, they either mean its good for keeping things stable, its good for the elite, or its good for the average person, all of which might not be you. For example, you might see someone on CNBC saying they need to make sure they don't have a disorderly default, but really if you are in a position to take advantage of that temporary disorderly market you could gain from that.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#48
post #22

"However, they are wrong because converting $100 into 10 x $10 bills or even 100 x $1 bills does not make you feel richer." This was also quoted in a Forbes article but I don't get it. Can someone explain what this means? What does lack liquidity or limited supply have to do with feeling richer by funging your bills? I'm not joking I seriously have no idea what this has to do with anything...

It's stupid. If a physical currency like physical gold or paper experienced the kind of deflation bitcoin currently is, it would be problematic because those things are difficult to subdivide into (effectively) arbitrarily small pieces. Bitcoins can be divided up, but then uninformed people forget why this is important and then make nonsensical arguments about splitting a $100 bill into 10 $10 bills.

> If a physical currency like physical gold or paper experienced the kind of deflation bitcoin currently is, it would be problematic because those things are difficult to subdivide into (effectively) arbitrarily small pieces.

Its actually pretty trivial to issue new paper currency in smaller denominations and exchange existing currency for it; the problem with deflation is that it creates a disincentive to spend or invest, not that there is a logistical difficulty in subdividing currency.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#49

Wow. Currencies are supposed to be used as a medium of exchange where, they facilitate transactions thus the multiplier effect kicks in and increases the economies wealth. An example of this, is fiscal stimulus used by the Obama Administration with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009[15] however, this is not happening with Bitcoin. So Bitcoin doesn't have fiscal stimuli like regular currencies, and the…

You're confusing two points just like the author. First you're saying that controlling your currency doesn't help (hurts?). Look at how many recessions the US had when it was pegged to gold vs now, then get back to me on that one.

But, that doesn't really matter because Bitcoin is _not_ a national currency. It really is more like gold in that it's not really a currency in itself, but a way to store/transfer other currencies. No one buys something with gold without first doing the conversion to their local currency and I don't see that ever changing with Bitcoin either. And, it doesn't have to.

Re: Bitcoin Is Fundamentally Flawed

#50

Wow. Currencies are supposed to be used as a medium of exchange where, they facilitate transactions thus the multiplier effect kicks in and increases the economies wealth. An example of this, is fiscal stimulus used by the Obama Administration with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009[15] however, this is not happening with Bitcoin. So Bitcoin doesn't have fiscal stimuli like regular currencies, and the…

Comments like this show a complete lack of understanding about economics and the positive impact government spending and lending can have on the economy. Just because recent monetary policy hasn't improved the economy as much as we would like is no excuse to give up all control over the monetary policy.
Post reply on HN