[jafaku]

4. Last time I checked, gold was still very valuable. And it has been used for what... Thousands of years? The economies of the world did just fine without forced inflation and consumerism.

5. Printing paper money wastes way more resources. And how is using energy to create something of value a bad idea anyway? Bitcoin doesn't even require that you use a contaminating type of energy, for all I know you could be hashing with solar energy.

[bpodgursky]

Most transactions now do not involve cash, and credit card transactions are in fact far more energy-efficient than bitcoin transactions. And it is not just using energy to "create something of value"--it is an artificial waste of energy barrier.

Furthermore, there will be an energy cost to transactions even after no substantial number of bitcoins are mined, since just verifying transactions requires wasteful hashing.

The solar energy part is totally irrelevant--if you happen to have a solar panel sitting around, you could just as easily use it for actual work (and offset coal burning) rather than computing hashes.

[jafaku]

> credit card transactions are in fact far more energy-efficient than bitcoin transactions

Huh? You seriously think Visa/Mastercard are using less energy than Bitcoin?

> Furthermore, there will be an energy cost to transactions even after no substantial number of bitcoins are mined, since just verifying transactions requires wasteful hashing.

You can call it wasteful all you want, but if you don't see the value in creating/maintaining a global framework for storing and exchanging value, then I don't know what to tell you. Besides, you are comparing apples to oranges. Bitcoin is a currency. You can build things like Visa around Bitcoin.

[dangero]

Gold being valuable isn't the point. In fact, I think calling bitcoin deflationary indicates the belief it will actually be more valuable in the future.

Question for you regarding your reference to forced inflation and consumerism: Do you believe there would be even a temporary economic collapse if the world were to suddenly move to a deflationary currency? If so, how many months/years would the collapse have to last before you would say that the transition to a deflationary currency isn't worth it?

The reason I ask is because while fundamentally I have a lot of problems with our financial system, I've come to the conclusion that historically there were periods of recession that lasted hundreds of years. I just don't feel that my lifetime in a bad transition economy is worth the sacrifice of moving to a "better" financial system. I'd rather just keep the status quo as it slowly degrades to something worse and worse since I think that's the best outcome for me. It's a selfish outlook, but I have to believe it's the outlook of most people and that's why we are where we are right now.