[drdeca]

the idea being that the schedule is known, and therefore, in comparison to something that can change and have large issuance, you can be confident that the particular cause of "because a whole bunch got printed unexpectedly" won't cause it to become devalued, as opposed to other options.

Doesn't mean that other things couldn't cause it to be devalued.

(and, of course, if the network consensus shifts in a way that changes the issuance rate... though perhaps it wouldn't really "be bitcoin" if that happened.)

[georgeplusplus]

It makes no difference if its a known schedule. A schedule still only matters if it has value to begin with.

What exactly does btc solve or bring to the table? People buy it “cause it goes up”. That won’t end well.

Feels like a bunch of people buying digits rocks.

[drdeca]

It seems that you think I'm arguing in favor of BTC being successful in the long term. That's not what I'm doing. I'm explaining the idea of it being a hedge against the printing. I'm not advocating for buying it on that basis, or on any basis.

All I'm doing, is explaining as best I can, why someone might see it as a "hedge" against large amounts of money printing.

If it is valued by people at some time (it has a price that people are buying and selling it at, whether in exchange for some currency like USD or for pizzas), and the value for the USD (in the sense of "how many pizzas / market-basket-of-goods does it buy?") is going down as a result of the quantity of money being printed-and-introduced-into-the-economy being unexpectedly very large, if that sort of event isn't positively correlated (as in, in the probabilities that people assign to future outcomes) with the value (in the same sense of number of pizzas) of btc going down, that could be something people see as merit-worthy in it.

People conceivably could want to hold something which is both easily exchangable, and highly subdivisible, and which has such a property, .... provided that they didn't expect the number of pizzas it buys to rapidly decrease.

I do wonder though, why there isn't simply a common financial instrument which pays out with the price of some market basket of goods at a designated time? It seems like such an instrument would serve much the same appeal.

Perhaps the issue is that, in order for people to be willing to issue such an asset, one would have to pay them a large amount to account for the risk that they are taking on?

There's also the issue that one would presumably have to keep actively buying more of such an instrument if one wanted to hold large portions of it over time.

[zacharytelschow]

> Feels like a bunch of people buying digits rocks.

I think it's more like digital beanie babies but to each their own :)