[BoorishBears]

Does that answer anything I brought up?

You know, the whole "relatively stable store of value paying for productive output rather than speculation and fraud?"

We moved off the gold standard for a reason (and it's not all geopolitics...)

[miracle2k]

Bitcoin's volatility is not because of the fixed supply. If nothing else, new Bitcoins are still being issued. It is of course true that inflation encourages spending etc., but the difference between -2% and 2% does not cause 50% daily price movements.

Bitcoin cannot be stable relative to other currencies as long as 90% of its forex volume is speculation. If there are businesses having long-term obligations and trade denominated in Bitcoin, providing for a large base of regular demand and supply that outweighs the speculation, it will stabilise.

This is obviously really really though to achieve, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the "tech" (which is essentially a spreadsheet). This makes the debate around the volatility and whether its qualifies as a "currency" rather boring. It will happen, or it won't, and we can try to predict the future, but it is not really about Bitcoin at all, just marketplace behavior.

[BoorishBears]

Where did I say Bitcoin's volatility is because of fixed supply.

Or even remotely imply it.

-

Once again the reply doesn't actually answer the basic question, because the answer is inconvenient.

I'd love one honest reply to the point grounded in any crypto, not even Bitcoin, being a "relatively stable store of value paying for productive output rather than speculation and fraud?"

Relatively stable being defined extremely generously in this context might I add! I won't hit you with a "gotcha!" because your coin of choice is widely used to pay for goods rather than fraud and speculation but it happened to fluctuate 10% or something, USD does that too...