[MereInterest]

> Not that much on an ongoing basis. It's also O(n) with respect to the amount of extra money you need in circulation.

I think this isn't quite correct, but is even more in favor of fiat currency. Minting money costs in proportion to the number of bills/coins. If more value is needed, the denomination being printed can be changed to represent more value with the same cost.

On the other hand, cryptocurrencies require wasting resources proportional to the total value represented by them. Any less and they are vulnerable to attacks. Therefore, (as I'm sure will come as a shock to nobody) this is another way that cryptocurrencies scale worse than fiat.

[nine_k]

Supplies of most crypto currencies are finite, and the currencies appreciate in general, see bitcoin and etherium.

Supplies of most fiat currencies are effectively infinite, and the currencies depreciate in general, see virtually anything from USD to the currency of Zimbabwe.

[MereInterest]

While true, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The value represented by a currency isn't measured in units of that currency, but in terms of what can be bought with that currency. If that purchasing power goes up, then so does the incentive for launching an attack. Therefore, to maintain bitcoin's security, there must be a corresponding increase in mining costs to prevent such an attack from occurring.

Bitcoin requires energy expenditure proportional to the value represented by bitcoin. Anything less, and it is vulnerable to attack. Bitcoin fundamentally does not scale.