[_dps]

> Currencies have to be less valuable over time, otherwise no one would ever spend the currency.

I don't have an opinion on BTC (or gold for that matter) but this widely-distributed meme is simply untrue.

1) If I have a bar of gold, and it will buy me 1% more bread loaves in a year's time, but I can invest it in something that will trade for 2% more bread loaves next year, then I will spend it because despite appreciation it is not my best source of appreciation.

2) I have living/operating expenses that I consider to supersede my need for financial return. If I don't pay for shelter and food, I won't be around in a year to enjoy the 1% more bread loaves I would get from appreciation.

3) Empirically/historically, over long time frames, gold appreciates in real terms (slowly). And yet people spent gold coins and gold-backed notes regularly.

Now, if a currency is appreciating much faster than anything else in the economy I agree you can have a deflationary spiral and a liquidity problem. But this is because the economy is collapsing — ordinary sources of growth have disappeared or reversed. This is a very special situation, and is not a general argument that currencies must depreciate.

[bob33212]

Sure, people do have to buy food to live, but that isn't the point. Just replace "less valuable over time" with "not much more valuable over time" in my comment. The point isn't that gold went up or down by 1% between 1750-1850. The point is that people are buying bitcoin for opposite reasons. Is it a currency? If so like you said it shouldn't be going up quickly. Is it an investment? If so, where is the cashflow?