[dcosson]

IMO the original use case of just Bitcoin is still by far the most compelling. A non-inflationary store of value not unlike gold, but it can be transferred for a very low cost anywhere in the world in minutes.

I think the same arguments that come up about privacy can also apply to currency - I'm not doing anything illegal, why I do I care if I'm being monitored? or I'm not buying anything illegal, why do I care if banks and payment processors can block transactions? It's nice to have an alternative and be able to do things outside of that system just in case.

I don't, however, really understand the fanatics that want every cup of coffee they buy to use crypto. I definitely don't see any practical benefit to that.

[peteretep]

Why don’t you think companies can inflate the crypto money supply in the same way that they inflate the fiat money supply?

[beaner]

Companies don't own the blockchain.

Not sure if you're familiar with crypto by this comment, but inflation control was the key feature that enabled Bitcoin (and the rest) to exist.

The whitepaper is worth a read: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[kurtisc]

A single entity at one point had over 50% of the mining power for Bitcoin, effectively owning its blockchain.

[beaner]

This isn't really true. The only thing you can do with 50% of the hashpower is determine the most recent block. And it still has to be a legitimate block. You can't undo history very far. And to the extent that you can, transactions either go through as intended or get reversed, and the owners keep their money. Money doesn't get redirected.

Any blockchain going through repeated attack would be pointless to use anyway, so anyone with such hashpower has an incentive to cooperate in the long-term. It's also not possible to stop others from contributing hashpower, so you don't really own it in a meaningful sense.

[kurtisc]

It would be possible to fork to create a higher limit with that hashpower. It would also be possible to have 51% without making it publicly known. But nobody needs to bother with that when they can just double spend.

[beaner]

A fork can be made with any amount of hash power, it doesn't need to be the majority. A fork happening doesn't mean it will be followed, or even contentious.

51% attacks do not allow double spending on the blockchain. If a block is overwritten the attacker may choose to change the destination of their own transactions for that block, but the previous spends are undone. This is why merchants wait for multiple confirmations. Typically 6, which would require a 98% attack to undo.

At this point it'd take a nation-state to produce that much of bitcoin's hashpower, if it's even still possible.

[baddox]

Having just over 50% of mining power does not effectively mean you own the blockchain.

[kurtisc]

s/effectively owning/effectively determining the concept of 'truth' on/

[icelancer]

I don't understand this question. Why do you think Bitcoin is inflatable as such?

[peteretep]

Because I don't see any reason why Bitcoin can't be a fractional-reserve asset.

[zby]

You can have fractional-reserve only because the public cannot see any difference between money from M0 and M1. In crypto the public uses M0 directly. For now at least. There are some M1 constructs - at MtGox there were 'codes' redeemable for bitcoins, but they are not transferable between exchanges.

[peteretep]

> In crypto the public uses M0 directly

Hey, the public also use bank notes with unique serial numbers. That has no bearing at all on institutions who hold your assets for you, as they don’t generally let you audit them.