[osigurdson]

What I don't like about this article is it is almost entirely focused on price. If bitcoin would have went up, it would have been a wise move according to the premise of the article. I think a longer timescale is needed.

I'd like to see an analysis of the situation, assuming that the value goes neither up or down, but simply holds a constant value in an inflation indexed manner. Would it still be a bad idea in that situation?

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> I'd like to see an analysis of the situation, assuming that the value goes neither up or down, but simply holds a constant value in an inflation indexed manner. Would it still be a bad idea in that situation?

Why? BTC has zero history of doing this.

[osigurdson]

Without this type of analysis, the entire discussion is based on the current price and nothing else. Therefore if the price was up significantly we would have to conclude he was a genius. For now, we can conclude that he is not. However, if we are being intellectually honest, our opinion needs to be a function of the current price.

[prottog]

> simply holds a constant value in an inflation indexed manner

Gold and currencies backed by gold come very close to this, with historical evidence to back it up. The purchasing power of gold -- that is, its convertibility to goods and services you might wish to consume -- have remained remarkably stable over time.

Countries stopped issuing currencies backed by gold for a few different reasons, but its ability to hold constant value over time wasn't one of them.

[osigurdson]

Yes, true. Some economists suggest that the adherence to the gold standard prolonged the great depression. I suppose in some sense the entire economy is a kind of game where the goal (should be at least) to maximize the benefit to all participants. Having a stably valued token (fiat currency, crypto, gold backed, etc.) is a decision variable, not the objective function.