[notahacker]

It's a cute quote, but there's a reason modern economists don't conflate labour inputs and value or monetary expansion and price inflation. It's actually much more useful not to use the same words for phenomena when you're studying the degree to which they're related. And more useful to play semantic games when the data unambiguously refutes the argument that fixing one value necessarily holds the other constant, of course... (Getting the term 'inflation' associated primarily with price rises was the one battle Quantity Theorists won.)

You are welcome to prefer to use 'inflation' as it was used 100 years ago instead of as it is used now, but 'awful' and 'silly' were compliments once....

> Your 60% drop claim is rather vapid considering I could pull any other arbitrary time horizon and give you a massive increase in purchasing power.

No, what is vapid is the pretence that an asset has the advantage of 'zero unexpected inflation' when it's lost purchasing power at a rate which would be termed hyperinflation were it a national currency. It's a bit like defending the validity of immortality elixirs by arguing that over other time frames, the patient survived.

[Sschellbach]

Calling early price discovery leg down for Bitcoin hyperinflation is dishonest at best. Even ironic as hyperinflation occurs when there is a continuing rapid increase in money supply.

If that was hyperinflation, what would you call Bitcoin's 150% leg up between December 2018 and today?

[notahacker]

What is dishonest is to argue you have solved the problem of people being impoverished by the unpredictable [actually usually very predictable] downward price movement of the dollar by dismissing all Bitcoin's much larger and much less predictable downward price swings as 'early price discovery'.

[Sschellbach]

I don't think I ever claimed to have solved any problem, just provided context for Bitcoin as a solution to the Cantillon Effect which is objectively a driving force for wealth inequality.