Quote from: ZephramC on April 28, 2013, 04:58:12 PM

We have far too many inflationary currencies. So it feels right to have something different for people who believe that reasonable deflation is in fact a good thing. Spending and investment is not always good. It can lead to malvestment or spending "just for the spending". People will think twice, maybe three times before spending and they will buy only goods they really need. Loans would be possible but naturally discouraged.
If bitcoin gains wider adoption then there surely will be projects how to inflate it. There will be fractional reserve, loans and therefore "false bitcoins" in the form of "promises of real bitcoins". There will be far more promises than bitcoins used in backing. I have no problem with that as long as th following works:
If the BTCbank issuing false BTC goes bankrupt (unable to provide real BTC for the promises) then no one will be able to reimburse people by creating some new real BTC for them. Those people will have to decrease their standard of living (some of them might even lose their houses). And they will have to face the consequences of their mistargeted trust into BTCbank. So will all the merchants accepting false BTC from them. If this works and more reasonable "hoarders" are not forced to help them by a single bitcent then I am OK with all that. It might be that the BTCbank will never go bankrupt. Then the people and merchants will of course benefit from increased money supply. I am also OK with that as long as no one is forced (nor forbidden) to accept false bitcoins.

This fight between Keynesian/classical view on economics and Austrian school seems like neverending story. Such as fight between supporters of "giving people more freedom" and "doing right things for the people and perpetrate good even if it means forcing them".

I agree with this way of approaching the thread. Well stated and agree, moral hazard must be avoided in the solution