Besides even if you are 100% correct, your point is irrelevant. If those merchants were increasing their savings of BTC instead, then there would be more upwards pressure on the fiat price of BTC.

Also remember M x V = P x Q. Thus increasing V increases P or Q (in our case we want Q which is quantity of merchants who hold BTC). You make the mistake of thinking value come from a equilibrium of stock. Rather value comes from flows. If the flows are actually occurring in the fiat, then the value from those flows is lost from BTC because there isn't an apparency of more money stock (M x V). Risto apparently can't do this level of math. In short, we increase the # of merchants who accept fiat, not who accept BTC. The switcheroo will later be trivial.


And there was also the issue that miners have razor thin margins now and must convert more to fiat.


The bigger issue is that we are building a merchant base that converts everything to fiat. This is what you are incentivizing. And it is compounding faster than adoption. Once you have a single service provider controlling all merchants, then no altcoin can be accepted (once they do the blacklisting on coins that don't carry full identity). And that provider will be controlled by the government. You say you want to get away from Paypal, then you hand control right back to Peter Thiel again.

Just go ahead 'tards to your centralized hell.

Any one serious about liberty is welcome to come help on something serious. Not this BS.

What fool would lose 3-5% spread (at least) on two times exchanges instead of paying 0% to spend the fiat with a credit card?

And cause a premature capital gains event.