You seem to be confused. The USD is entirely driven by debt. Every time the fed gives the big banks another 0% interest loan, it's effectively the same as printing money and putting it into circulation. Now, you are correct about one thing- the increase in debt has a direct reduction in value of the currency.
But it doesn't set it, which is where you're confused.
Well, the bitcoin "bubble" is a measure of the value of bitcoin in what currency exactly? USD. If debt is increasing at hyperbolic rates, value of USD will go down hyperbolic, and in relation the bitcoin value will seem to increase the same sort of rate. If it's impossible for the USD debt bubble to "collapse", then it is also impossible for the BTC bubble to collapse.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He thinks the dollar is defined by how many bitcoins it will buy you!
Not the same at all. New gold can be mined at variable rates, asteroid mining may destroy precious metal value for example. Stocks could fail due to problems with the company unrelated to the activity of stock traders. This CAN NOT happen to bitcoins.
The destruction of the network would be more catastrophic than inflation, and EMP can arrange that.
And your understanding of stocks is hilariously broken. Of course they're not only tied to speculation. That's the point -- they represent ownership of a business. The failure of the business doesn't make the stock certificates go away, it makes them worthless. And do you know what bitcoins are? Stock certificates in a company that owns nothing and makes nothing. Yup, that's it -- they're nothing. You
could use otherwise useless stock certificates as a fiat currency, but why would you do that when we have a government-backed system of just that already in the USD? It's like tulip bulbs -- sure you could use them, but why would you leave yourself open to that speculation?
And remember, the bitcoin network can hold you hostage for a fee for every single transaction, so it isn't even as good as dollars are at the job of currency.
Okay, the distribution is meaningless once the inflation ends? I don't really get what you are saying.
You said a "fair" means of distribution set bitcoins apart from precious metals. But Bitcoins are already hugely unrepresentatively distributed within the active bitcoin community itself, and those with the capital to run huge ASIC mining operations will monopolize the rest. So the only way an average person is going to get an appreciable amount of bitcoins is to buy them,
just as with precious metals. If have a transaction that I wish to use gold as the currency, and I need $1000 to transfer, am I going to open a mine to get that gold? No, I can't afford that. If I want gold I need to buy it
from someone who already has it.
It's a huge advantage. Who the hell cares who else has coins? That is irrelevant.
No, it isn't. If you define the value of a bitcoin through speculative trade by apparent scarcity, and they aren't trading thus generating artificial scarcity, you are increasing the perceived value of their holdings above the real trade value. You are effectively giving your wealth away.
If you and Bob trade a tulip bulb back and forth at ever-increasing values until it's inflated to the point you're willing to trade your house for it, then I come in out of the blue with a second tulip bulb and you trade your house for it, and then I won't take the tulip bulb back in trade for anything because it's just a stupid tulip bulb... what do you have? With now two tulip bulbs in circulation, even if Bob were still calculating from the previous purchase price, it's only worth half as much. With that sort of crash, Bob will likely hold onto what he has rather than risk trading for a crashing currency, so your tulip bulb crashes further because with no intrinsic value its value is only in what someone will trade for it, and me and Bob ain't trading. So you have given me real wealth -- a house -- simply because I came in with something you had construed as being worth something through your trades back and forth at an artificial scarcity level.
It rather matters that I had that tulip bulb.
I never said it can't be a bubble, I just said that it doesn't follow the same rules as corporate or metal stock because it's unlike both.
Yes, said understanding neither.
You really are ill-informed. The hash rate determines the security of the network. One of the few threats to bitcoin is the possibility of a 51% attack, which has a directly calculable cost based on the total hash of the network. Double the hash and the security of the currency is doubled.
Right, so ASICs in the hands of a few is "decreasing" the chance of that.
Who's ill-informed?