> I found the idea of a non governmental controlled currency with an upper bounded amount interesting, as inflation can't be a thing.
As I'm sure you would realise if you give the textbooks a chance, deflation is much worse than inflation. Nor is bitcoin truly inflation-less; the prices swing like a yo-yo, it's simply deflationary on average thus far.
How about as a means to provide financial security to the world's 1.7 billion unbanked, a means for those who live under oppressive rule to preserve wealth in the face of rampant currency debasement, in a form that cannot be confiscated or stolen. Money-printing drives inflation which is is a regressive tax that disproportionally hurts the poor, who don't own real estate or stocks. It accelerates the wealth gap, which further strains our society. Bitcoin is a means to expand financial inclusion, and help level the playing field just a bit. It's not just about greed.
Regarding energy use, Bitcoin mining inherently seeks out the lowest cost electricity which turns out to be either stranded energy (not usable for anything else) or renewable (solar, wind, hydro). This is yet another reason to push governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Also, since Bitcoin mining can be done at any time and in any place, it is able to act as the buyer of last resort for renewable projects whose energy production does not line up with grid demand. Having this extra buyer can greatly reduce the payback period for a proposed solar/wind project that otherwise would not have been able to attract the investment to build it.
If Bitcoin can be spent, its owners can be coerced to spend it, so it can be stolen. Regarding excess energy, I'd rather have energy storage firms be that buyer.
Cryptocurrencies may have a part to play in the future of humanity, but Bitcoin will not be it. It's a proof of concept that's overstayed its welcome.
A person's Bitcoin holdings can be distributed across any number of wallets. How does the thief know (1) their mark owns Bitcoin, (2) how much Bitcoin they are stealing, and (3) whether they have coerced the owner to hand over the keys to all of their wallets?
Energy storage is inefficient and expensive, so a new renewable project based around this is less likely to be funded and built than one that can directly monetize the excess. Profit and greed is the incentive structure for much of human society.
Bitcoin has all of the properties we need in a store of value for the base layer of a digital monetary system of the future. The energy expenditure is required to provide the highest level of security and decentralization which is needed for a global reserve asset. Any other system is vulnerable to attack or centralization, which will inevitably succumb to human greed like every fiat system in history.
> A person's Bitcoin holdings can be distributed across any number of wallets. How does the thief know (1) their mark owns Bitcoin, (2) how much Bitcoin they are stealing, and (3) whether they have coerced the owner to hand over the keys to all of their wallets?
Are the unbanked really going to operate a number of different wallets, including decoy wallets, to prepare for this scenario?
> Bitcoin has all of the properties we need in a store of value for the base layer of a digital monetary system of the future.
Its parameters were picked on a whim by somebody nobody can ever find. "Completely unchangeable parameters handed down from the equivalent of God" is not a property that I look for in a monetary system.
The safest and most effective method for storing wealth that the unbanked currently have is to bury gold jewelry somewhere. Gold holds its value better than fiat, but is not easily divisible and there is a large cost to converting it to/from fiat. Bitcoin keys can also be buried, but if necessary they can also be memorized and transported across borders without risk of seizure. Also, having multiple wallets is not complicated; you may be underestimating the cleverness of the unbanked.
The parameters of the Bitcoin code are changeable (and have changed multiple times since inception) via hard-fork based on the 'voting' of the nodes which verify all new blocks and number in the tens of thousands distributed across the globe. The parameters of the protocol are set such that anyone can run a verification node on only a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware, thereby encouraging decentralization.
> The parameters of the Bitcoin code are changeable
In principle, yes. But look at the clusterfuck that was the BCH fork. Something as basic as blocksize led to an outrageous amount of venom and two communities hating each other. Now imagine if the core devs wanted to change things that more directly affected the relative wealth of early adopters. Could you believe the anger if they proposed that we double the number of eventually mined bitcoins?
You could think of where you store your wealth as a vote for the system which best represents your values, and for the system you would like to see proliferated. Your inclusion adds value to the network, which strengthens its security and helps push it up the adoption s-curve. The more users there are, the more services appear, and the more accessible and useful it becomes.
I was never that interested in monetary policy or the history of money until I found out about Bitcoin and started doing my own research.
My house on the countryside and self sustaining lifestyle (obviously not totally hermitic, but way more than the average person) votes for the system very loudly I'd say.
I am very interested in the history of money, but it made me a Marxist, or rather a Trotskyist ;)
Inflation is not just caused by printing money. You can still experience inflation (rising prices of a basket of goods) without any change in the amount of available currency.
I found the idea of a non governmental controlled currency with an upper bounded amount interesting, as inflation can't be a thing.
But as a means to satisfy greed... Nope, I am happy with what I have.
So there are other spaces in science and computer science I am more invested and interested in.