This is getting so silly. Of course they are two different measurements.
@tecate called his inflation which it patently is not, see Investopedia definition. Neither of you are going to admit the error so I will leave it at that and spare your blushes.
Dukey, you know perfectly well that what you started with was disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the point you picked this up at was a discussion of pre-programmed-in inflation in the case of bitcoin's monetary policy and intended inflation as part of fiat monetary policy.
Not only did you not explain the difference with what you bolted on to that - but you are then cherry picking market tops and bottoms and timeframes to suit. That's not on. On average, bitcoin's buying power has increased at a rate of 200%+ per year - over the course of its existence.
@tecate shrugs this off as a “voyage of price discovery” which he says has still a long way to play out.
Others might not understand it but I know well that you do - as you've spent four years on the topic. So lets go through it. Step into Satoshi's shoes. You have a decentralised currency - you're not going to peg it to the USD - as that's going to completely defeat the purpose. You're not going to back it or peg it to a commodity - as again, that's going to leave it prone to centralisation, manipulation and control. You release it to the world as a decentralised fixed supply currency. The finite supply is unrivaled by any other financial asset but at that embryonic point, it's just code - nobody has any appreciation for it. Furthermore, you want to ensure that distribution is fair upon initial issuance. So - it's effectively given away in return for mining.
Now, explain to us how there can be any other route to its maturity other than a multi-year process of price discovery that is directly related to adoption - and thus, demand? Tell us how this could have been done differently please?
I'm quite happy to acknowledge that its volatility is a major bug bear. However, you're trying to suggest that there's no logic to it. If that's the case, then step up and explain what he/she/they should have done differently please.
It is not implausible that the majority of today's bitcoin holdings are standing at a loss. This looks like the ultimate Ponzi scheme. When the music stops very few of those caught in the headlights will have made money on bitcoin.
There's a couple of things here. You've fallen foul of this before. Over the course of three years, you constantly referred to the market top of $20,000 and the poor hapless craturs (someone please think of the children!) that bought at the top. Well, was all of that commentary for nothing? If so, who's to say that what you're going on with right now is also for nothing?
Secondly, between where we are right now and $60,000, it seems like a lot of that can be accounted for by leveraged traders. I don't have a grain of sympathy for them. All they do is distort the market for the rest of us. Next up, you and others here have moaned about Elon moving the market. Well, you can't have it both ways. These are the people that both aped in and aped out of the market based on Elon's tweets!
If someone bought high but wasn't greedy and sized their position correctly, they're not going to be wiped out. Furthermore, if they've weighed this up and have a level of conviction in it, they have the option of maintaining their position.
Lastly, nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head. People have the choice to do what they want. However, they have to take personal responsibility for their choices.
Your advice to poor El Salvadorians that "what have you got to lose and who knows it could be you", is very lotto-esque.
Maybe
@tecate is enjoying the roller coaster thrills and spills but I ask you do you think it is right to cheerlead the poor people of El Salvador, and they are poor, on to this voyage In the middle of its roller coaster phase?
Turning to the battle for San Salvador...
It's kind of on the same lines. They're still going to be using dollars. The difference is that should they find a need or a use case to use bitcoin, they can. What could possibly be wrong with that? Should they not be free to make up their own minds? 70% of them don't have bank accounts because the banking system has failed them. They all have family in the US sending money back home. They're being screwed royally on remittances. So maybe they use a bitcoin-based solution? Surely, you can't be opposed to that?
There's a whole host of reasons why this could possibly be a savvy move for El Salvador and far from the 'stunt' that
@letitroll claimed. The following is a long form medium post on the subject - it's the best piece of analysis I've seen on this so far and I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in this decision by El Salvador.
El Salvador, Dollarisation, and Bitcoin — What to Expect From Here
And yes, the guy comes from a pro-btc viewpoint. However, much of what he raises is insightful - so there's value in it regardless of what views you approach it with.
