[ballofrubber]

I would say that it shouldn't be the role of a government to govern over money.

The economy is very complicated. There are no models that can predict the output of changing its parameters. It wasn't possible before to have the properties in money that we have with bitcoin (a gold standard was easily removable by a powerful government). The current central banking system is an experiment as much as anything before it and anything that will follow.

I see it like this. I want my economic output to be measured in something that is:

- salabale over time (1 btc is always 1/21 million of the monetary base)

- salabale over space (i want to work remote)

- understandable and auditable (the bitcoin concept can be understood by everyone, the code is auditable by mid-level developers)

[Nursie]

> (1 btc is always 1/21 million of the monetary base)

Why is that good? Why should I, if I have 1 bitcoin, always have ownership of a fixed proportion of the entire societal monetary base?

This seems like a great deal for someone who has a bitcoin, and a terrible situation for new workers and the economy as a whole. If the economy expands, your fixed proportion of the monetary base sees you profit off the backs of others for nothing more than sitting on currency. Not investing, not even speculating, just sitting on it.

[ballofrubber]

As an employee I would rather have the lever in renegotiations. I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.

If you don't invest your bitcoin in productive assets you will be behind peers who do that, however they carry a risk.

Today you carry risk if you don't invest your savings. However with low-income you can't, as you need emergency funds.

[Nursie]

What lever?

As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.

> I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.

That's not the same thing, a fixed proportion of the money supply does not guarantee that, nor is it a necessary precondition.

Further, this is not in the interest of wider society - work today should be valued more than work yesterday. If you want to grow your money, you make it work.

This is just a rehash of the problems with the gold standard now. But worse.

[ballofrubber]

> As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.

Assuming the world productivity is denominated in 21 million bitcoin, if world productivity grows by 3% per year, my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power. This is where you get a lever with your employer, he needs you to earn less, you don't have to negotiate to earn more (same applies to minimum wage, it needs to be adjusted upwards in a inflationary monetary system)

Every money is inherently more valuable yesterday than today, as you can divest it. I would argue that it is very much in the interest of the wider society to have their savings not inflated.

The best way to make your money work will always be to invest it in productivity, be it in educating yourself or investing it in companies. This investments need to be a lot more smarter and more sustainable than those of today, as the base money is not worth less every year.

I think wasteful spending is a property of an inflationary money, where smart spending would be a required property in a non-inflationary money.

[Nursie]

There's no lever there. In a bitcoin economy there's no chance your contract gives you a fixed salary in the first place, it would be tied to some measure of inflation.

Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.

[ballofrubber]

> Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.

Exactly, however bitcoin is infinitely better money than gold and makes the "gold standard" viable. Fortunately the gold standard has a lot of proponents globally, some of whom started embracing bitcoin.

I just hope that the experiment bitcoin keeps on going and I'm guessing we will see some form of resolution, maybe even in this decade. There is a lot to learn still.

[africanboy]

> if world productivity grows by 3% per year, my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power.

but you are going to pay more for the same goods and services

if your bitcoin is 3% more valuable, when you use it to buy milk it's going to cost you 3% more

the game is working only because today if bitcoins increase their value you can exchange them for more fiat money

in a bitcoin economy one bitcoin is worth exactly one bitcoin, forever, whatever that buys

[ballofrubber]

In a non-inflationary monetary system cost of goods decreases every year, thats how productivity growth works.

You seem to have it backwards, this is where the Econo101 book from the parent comment might help ;) /s

Inflation drives down the purchasing power, hence why milk gets more expensive every year, even though we get much more efficient at producing it. Remove inflation and 1 bitcoin buys you a liter today and 1.03 litres next year.

[UncleMeat]

> my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power

You assume your salary remains fixed. Why would it? As a portion of global productivity, your contribution shrinks.

[ballofrubber]

Unfortunately my salary is fixed today as well and not only does it shrink as a portion of global productivity, but also as a portion of the monetary supply.