> 99.99999% is five nines too many?

Some of the crypto scammers use github

> Eventually, possibly within my lifetime, a Big Mac meal is going to cost $50.

Is the problem the number or the concept?

Your salary should also go up so the only thing affected is the cash you hold. Would it be better if the currency would be version-bumped every 10 years and rescaled to remove the inflation?

> The existence of harder forms of money (gold, bitcoin, etc) is an expected consequence of how the system is designed, and not in any way a subversion of it. Somehow, both sides seem to miss this point.

Can you expand here? Governments don't want to incentivize storing value in order to encourage spending, but people want to be able to store value because that's what we've been doing since farming.

Is it because money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value?

Yeah, I want the assets I hold to increase in value, too, or at least not decrease.

Suppose you have some control over currency. You run a country. I'm that case, so you still want the currency to gain value compared to the alternatives?

Your choice is basically: holding currency is more profitable than building a house or running a business (or lending to those who do), or else less profitable. If you run a country, do you want houses and jobs and all that kind of thing, or do you want people to do better if they choose to hoard currency?

>> You don’t want your actual currency to gain value just by waiting

> You might not, I do.

Then you don't want a currency. For something to be money it needs to (among other things) be a medium of exchange, and nobody really wants to trade away a thing today if they know it will be more valuable tomorrow.

I mean as someone managing a state. If there’s a guaranteed way to make money by holding your currency, you’re not really incentivized to invest your money in semi-risky endeavors. Why would I fund a company to make me some single digit returns if I can just hold the money? If the central bank would actively enforce a deflationary currency, nobody would invest anymore.

Why do cryptobros always refuse to admit investing exists? Forex and crypto trading are always zero sum, but you don't have to choose between dollars under your mattress or bitcoin on a thumb drive, you can actually invest in productive assets.

SPY has outperformed BTC over the last 5 years, and with far less volatility.

> Since the invention of say Bitcoin

Convenient date to pick there.

> which of those assets would you have preferred to own and why?

NVDA.

It's a productive use of resources, not a last-fool-standing pyramid scheme.

hindsight is the best hedge fund

You know that you can’t just judge an investment by past return, right? Would it be rational for a lotto player to tell you how great lotto is as an investment? Or people winning at the casino? Success doesn’t mean it was the rationally optimal decision.

It’s a bit cherry-picking, but right now BTC’s 5-year growth is 28% while the S&P is 67%.

To be fair bitcoin’s initial years were extraordinary. By any metric you use though the rate of increase has clearly slowed.