Quote from: ulhaq on January 23, 2018, 06:17:11 PM

Quote from: OddGhost17 on January 23, 2018, 12:03:11 PM

Quote from: ulhaq on December 12, 2017, 01:02:45 AM

I hear more and more by people that they consider bitcoin more of a store of value (eg, gold replacement) than as a currency, especially as the transaction fees go up. I have also heard many people say that even if bitcoin is only used as a store of value, and not as a currency, it has utility.

But this is not sustainable. Imagine bitcoin prices continue to increase and eventually all the coins are mined. There are not many transfers because people are mainly hoarding. Thus not much transaction fees, which is the only source of income for miners. Hash power reduces dramatically, and so network security deteriorates.

It seems to me that the only solution would be for bitcoins to be perpetually made available (no limit at 21 million).

If your saying increasing the supply is the solution(correct me if I am wrong, that won't be happening. First, the Bitcoin was set to only be 21M and Second, increasing the supply will mean decreasing the value of it in the market which I think all of the investors will not agree with.

You have it backwards. If it is ONLY used as a store of value, and the supply is limited to 21 million, then the value on the market will decrease, possibly going to zero. The only way that bitcoin can survive is to increase their supply. Read the above posts in this thread. What people think is going to happen if they increase the supply is irrelevant. The market wins in the end.

Of course it is always important to consider what people would think if the "VALUE" would decrease because of the increase in supply. This had been proposed long before but the public have not accepted because it will surely undermine the market value of BTC.

OddGhost17

Posts

Merits