Gold standard was bad, but Bitcoin standard is even worse

Bitcoin doesn't control you.

Bitcoin isn't absolute. Everything can coexist. Blabbering on about bitcoin's "deflationary" model is as purposeless as writing incessantly about gold, coffee, national currencies, tiddlywinks, real estate, oil, and crown jewels.

There will be no "bitcoin standard" written into law. Bitcoin isn't intending to be everything to everyone. Nothing is everything to everyone. No one thing is absolute. Until a day comes when we're all serving the same cyborg empire, one need not worry about being forced to have all chips in one basket. Until then, deflation and inflation of particular assets will continue to have little overall bearing. As for bitcoin, only the artificial appearance of deflation exists. It's artificial because choice is still possible. You place value into things. You decide. If you don't like or trust bitcoin (or gold) to maintain value, don't use them. If you don't like or trust national force-backed currencies to maintain value, then try not to use them. Diversify. Talking about deflation in bitcoin becomes as meaningless as talking about the deflationary aspects of dogecoin, computer parts at a point in time, or the current yield of corn.

In other words...

More options and competition do not contract or stifle an economy. It expands choice within a form of economic homeostasis. [Wait, but, doesn't bitcoin hurt bailed-out bankers and a debt-based society!?] Right. That's the point. That's one of its many strong competitive attributes. Every asset is predicated on faith. It's faith that it will exist tomorrow, or in ten years, and have your name on it. It's just that some people would rather not place their faith into 'US economics.' Many people like that status quo. Other people do not. Other people may, on principle, find the status quo violent and abysmal; person-to-person trade itself acts as a path to peace. It's a personal decision. Choice is important like that.

* There are gold standardS, there is not 1 gold standard

* Gold standards are to balance imbalances in trades between nations with each their own currency (Pound, Fran, Mark). They have little purpose on the national level.

* If deflation encourages to postpone spending, so must do interest; For the individual, the net effect (of currency becoming worth more or earning interest) is the same.

* When there is deflation, there is less need for credit. You save without the 'help' of banks. That means less friction, less wealth shaved off by banks.

* If you propagate credit whose value must be inflated away, you choose for the younger generation at the costs of pensioners who will see their life savings evaporate. The middle ground, pensions and mortgages keep their real value, seems the most fair. Ergo, Hard Money.

* Fractional lending is still possible under Bitcoin regime. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but don't we all agree there has been too much fractional lending? Also, there will be less need for credit, because of deflation.

* The author seems not to question the modern idea that everybody is entitled to large mortgages and live in (too big) houses for their economic performances. (True for UK, USA and Netherlands). In most other countries, people build their own houses over the stretch of multiple years, postponing vacations, and putting every earned penny in the new house. Result? at 35 yrs of age the house is fully owned, no banks involved. Much healthier, imho.

* In my view money and monetary policy must be designed to (only) optimally facilitate trade, production and commerce. Social justice and fair wealth re-distribution should be accomplished by taxes, and by taxes only. Using monetary policy to (also) accomplish social causes diminishes its usefulness in trade and commerce, and people will search for protection/workarounds.

Well, if you don't agree with the premise, you can save yourself the trouble of reading the rest of the article. If more people stated their possibly controversial premises right from the start, we could all save ourselves a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted on arguments.

So, at least there's that.

> Loaning someone an asset at 0% is always worse than holding the asset.

Nit: if the carry cost of the asset is zero. This is _not_ true for dollars (at least at large corporate/pension fund/hedge fund scale) and various government securities have occasionally sold at negative nominal interest rates.

(It is, essentially, true for BTC, which is why your analysis is largely correct here, but there certainly are cases where one would reasonably lend USD or the like at 0%.)