[allochthon]

The issue is subtle. It has to do with the need for a currency supply to expand to match overall increases in production in absolute terms. I don't understand the matter in any detail, but I trust economists in their general aversion to deflation.

[jacoblyles]

The more you learn about economics, the less you will trust economists. They have trouble predicting economic growth one quarter ahead[1] and there are tons of competing schools and models on the macro level that endlessly bicker without coming to agreement (not one of which is very good at predicting the future). They have like, degrees and shit, so the world considers them experts. But take them with a grain of salt.

[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-10/not-world-youre-hop...

[ekianjo]

There have been tons of economies which worked before on the Gold standard, which has been the model for the bitcoin "mining" model. I know nowadays you have lots of Keynesian economists who tell you that going in debt to the death and inflating the money supply is a good thing, but you have to look at how things worked before and why it made sense to have a limited supply currency.

[21echoes]

the difference being that they kept discovering gold. bitcoin will effectively eventually run out.

[ekianjo]

Nope, the new discoveries of gold were usually marginal vs the actual worldwide gold reserves. Bitcoin is following the exact same model. Mining will become marginal over time.

[bicknergseng]

>>the new discoveries of gold were usually marginal vs the actual worldwide gold reserves

I think 17th century Portugal and others would have something to say about how "stable" commodity monetary systems are over long periods of time.

[ekianjo]

Because you think fiat currencies based systems are way better? How stable is your system going to be when you expand your credit line to the infinite just because you can print/create money which has no intrinsic physical value ? Fiat currencies hurt the future generations and not just the present ones.

[21echoes]

you think gold has "intrinsic, physical value"? you think bitcoin has "intrinsic, physical value"?!

why have almost all currencies used throughout history had a significant fiduciary element? why has the world constantly cycled between bullion and fiat currencies? why do you think bullion currencies are more common during times of warfare?

when are countries incentivized to "expand their credit line to the infinite"?

would you rather have a currency that can modify its inflation/deflation rate based on any number of relevant factors, or a currency whose inflation/deflation rate is tied to the rate of mining of some rocks in the ground?

[unclebucknasty]

You nailed it actually. Yeah, you can delve deeper, but the bottom line is one of basic supply and demand.

As the world continues to output more (i.e. increased production), the same Bitcoin will be competing for more goods (or, it can be said that more goods are competing for the same Bitcoin).

So Bitcoin's value can be said to increase accordingly. In other words, deflation.

Now, whether this is a bad thing is subject to debate. Here's an article that discusses this, specifically WRT deflation not being a bad thing with Bitcoin:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/12/23/fear-not-d...