Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

With the limited total quantity of bitcoins, and people losing their wallets constantly decreasing that number, won't rampant deflation destroy Bitcoin?

share|improve this question
add comment

13 Answers 13

up vote 33 down vote accepted

There are two potential ways in which monetary deflation can impact a currency:

1. Usability

Most modern currencies have a minimum unit, such as the penny in the United States, or the yen in Japan. If these currencies existed in only finite quantities, then as the economy grew and/or physical money was lost, there might eventually be too few of these units in circulation to allow normal commerce. Imagine if, for example, the U.S. dollar became so rare that you could buy a car with a single U.S. penny. How would you buy a loaf of bread?

Bitcoin, however, does not have this problem because unlike the physical currencies of most countries, bitcoins are infinitely divisible. Even if only one bitcoin remained, it would be sufficient to run a substantial economy on, based on the ability to use tiny fractions of it like the Satoshi. If even the Satoshi were to become too highly valued/unavailable for commerce, the Bitcoin protocol could be updated to allow even smaller denominations. So the usability of bitcoins is safe from the effects of deflation.

2. Broader economic consequences from deflation

Many economists believe that deflation is bad for an economy because people will be less likely to invest their money if they can "earn" increased value simply by holding on to it. Why buy something today, the argument goes, if you could buy it for half as much in a few months time? Also, taking out loans becomes very difficult, because to be practical they have to have negative interest rates and then why would anyone loan out money in the first place?

However, there is good reason to believe that deflation might not have such a negative effect on Bitcoin. For one, Bitcoin is unlikely to become the only currency in the world economy, so investments, loans, etc. can simply be denominated in another currency. But even more importantly there are several concrete examples from history of strictly deflationary currencies.

For example, the Iraqi "Swiss" dinar was a currency that ceased being printed after the first Gulf War, and was left in use only by the Kurdish regions of the country. With a finite number of "Swiss" dinars in existence, and some being lost or damaged over time, this left the currency in precisely the same state as Bitcoin. Since it was no longer backed by a government, many economists expected the currency and its economy to collapse. Instead, the Kurdish economy continued largely as normal for 13 years, and the "Swiss" dinar even appreciated against the "Saddam" dinar that was meant to replace it.

Rick Falkvinge also raises another excellent point regarding deflationary economies. If, as economists expect, people would decline to buy something today as opposed to next year for half price, then it should be the case that no one ever buys computers, right? But in fact, the computer industry thrives despite this continued trend of "whatever something costs today, it will cost a fraction of that within a few years".

Ultimately, this is a question for economists to duke out, and you can find more information about how different economic schools approach the problem here. Suffice it to say, this cannot be considered a crippling fault in Bitcoin as a technology.

share|improve this answer
6  
just a note to say that I think this model is the best for answering questions that have an inherent degree of speculation/opinion. Lay out the possible reasons, admit there are multiple views, and give counter-examples. Well done! –  lemonginger Sep 7 '11 at 18:01
2  
What does "continued as normal" mean for the Kurdish economy and is that our target for the bitcoin economy? That economy also received $8.5b in food-for-oil aid. –  jamie Sep 9 '11 at 9:37
2  
@Jamie Since this is not a strategy site for the promotion of Bitcoin, but rather a site to compile quality Q&A about Bitcoin, there's no such thing as "our target." This is merely a peripheral example that attempts to invite a comparison to a similar situation in history in order to point out that moneys in and of themselves can be deflationary and still survive. I'm sure different economists have their own opinions on the degree of success Bitcoin will experience, but that's getting fairly off-topic for this site. –  eMansipater Sep 9 '11 at 14:10
1  
@eMansipater I was just pointing out that a currency which survived a deflationary period, in a war zone, and with $8.5bn foreign input, is hardly a useful example, since there were some extreme factors that likely played a more significant role in the currency's viability and the country's economy. I do not believe that this evidence provides "good reason" for whether or not deflation will have a "negative effect" on bitcoin in a first-world country, with the US dollar as its primary currency, and not surrounded by enemies. YMMV. –  jamie Sep 12 '11 at 8:53
4  
fwiw, i enjoyed the discussion. if comments are not for discussion, then what are they for? :P –  nanotube Oct 5 '11 at 22:38
show 3 more comments

No. There are many things that could destroy bitcoin, but deflation is not one of them. While deflation is problematic for a currency backed by debt (as most, if not all, national currencies are), it is not an issue for commodity currencies (and bitcoin is most similar to commodity currencies).

The deflation argument goes something like this: everyone, believing that the value of the currency is going to rise will simply hold the currency and never spend it. But this argument completely ignores the need for diversification (would you put all of your wealth into bitcoin?). It also ignores the fact that if people decided to put all their wealth into bitcoin and save everything, they would still need to eat and buy things at some point. They would have no choice but to spend it. And, if everyone actually did invest everything into bitcoin, it would create a bubble in the value that would eventually deflate and teach everyone why diversification is good. The argument also ignores the fact that hoarding itself is not bad...when people hoard bitcoin, they cause the value to rise and that creates wealth that others can use for their needs. In a way, hoarding is an investment in the broad bitcoin economy.

share|improve this answer
add comment

No, for two reasons:

First, Bitcoins are very divisible. So it wouldn't create the kinds of problems having a penny be enough to buy a car would create. (How would you buy a candy bar?)

Second, while deflation would provide an incentive for people to hoard a currency rather than spend it, it provides an equal incentive for people to try to pry that currency out of other people's hands by any means. If I'd rather hold my Bitcoins than spend them (so that you'd have to offer me more for them), you'd rather have my Bitcoins than something else (so you'd be willing to offer me more for them). It simply cancels out.

In order for a currency to be used to pay wages, and therefore widely used in general, the prices for goods that people buy would be fairly stable. Otherwise, people will reject the currency. Perhaps more importantly, employers will not agree to pay workers in a currency that is appreciating in value, as this would require them to lower wages constantly, something workers will not accept.

If we lived in a world with stable currencies rather than inflating currencies, you could make this very same argument to show that people would never agree to be paid in dollars, because that requires them to get constant wage hikes, something employers will not accept. But they do. So this is pure speculation that is against the evidence. Employees accept inflating currencies, there's no reason to think employers won't accept deflating ones.

Falling prices will cause people to delay purchases, and is symptomatic of lower demand in general. This causes a depression. The example of computers given by many respondents is wrong. This is a case where new, higher quality models are replacing older models at the same price-point. It would be correct if the overall amount of money spent on computers (new and old) declined, but this is not the case.

Again, if we had a stable currency, this same argument would be used to show people will never accept the dollar. Why would anyone sell me anything today if they can sell it for more tomorrow? Don't rising prices cause people to delay sales?

share|improve this answer
add comment

This is essentially the very same argument recently put forth by paul krugman. And it is wrong. Deflation is only a problem with debt-based money. Therefore not a problem with bitcoin. For details see the following article:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/530678-minorman/214527-paul-krugman-s-take-on-bitcoin

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the Krugman link –  Gary Rowe Sep 9 '11 at 11:15
add comment

I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who have answered this question. Everyone here clearly wants bitcoin to succeed, and so everyone is enthusiastic. I am enthusiastic, too.

I am afraid, however, that this enthusiasm is coloring respondents' logic. Literally every response on this page (especially the highest ranked one) is wrong.

In order for a currency to be used to pay wages, and therefore widely used in general, the prices for goods that people buy would be fairly stable. Otherwise, people will reject the currency. Perhaps more importantly, employers will not agree to pay workers in a currency that is appreciating in value, as this would require them to lower wages constantly, something workers will not accept.

The upshot is that inflation must ideally be between 0 and 4%.

In order for that to happen, the supply of money must grow at the same rate as the overall economy. If the supply of money is constant, then the prices of goods will fall in a growing economy. And the economy generally does grow.

Falling prices will cause people to delay purchases, and is symptomatic of lower demand in general. This causes a depression. The example of computers given by many respondents is wrong. This is a case where new, higher quality models are replacing older models at the same price-point. It would be correct if the overall amount of money spent on computers (new and old) declined, but this is not the case.

In the 1930s in Europe, abandonment of the gold standard was the key that allowed the European economies to grow again. Those who held onto the gold standard longest suffered the most greatly.

It is just a fact that a fixed money supply in a growing economy is deflationary. This will limit bitcoin to the same role that gold holds now. It is a useful hedge against inflation, but not capable of replacing the more flexible fiat currency, because it cannot maintain price stability.

share|improve this answer
1  
Interesting answer, however, your answer assumes that wages and prices would be denominated in bitcoin. Some of the negative consequences of bitcoin's deflation would already be countered if contracts and prices would be denominated in local currencies, but payable in Bitcoin. –  Murch Oct 7 '13 at 11:49
1  
Also, imho our excessive consumerism is one of the prime reason our planet's natural resources are quickly declining. Delaying purchases is a good thing in my opinion: People will still buy things that they need, however, people would be more reluctant to buy less shit they don't have immediate use for. That might hurt some product category and ultimately might change culture, but could be a great thing in many other ways. –  Murch Oct 7 '13 at 12:01
    
My point is merely that wages and probably prices for staples, cannot be denominated in bitcoin. This will limit the scope of bitcoin's use and relegate it to a niche. –  Harold Naparst Oct 7 '13 at 12:22
1  
You can still be paid in bitcoin, even when the value is denominated in another currency. Just set up your contract such that "Salary is $X payable to bank account Y or as equivalent number of Bitcoins calculated with the pay-day's current spot-price from source Z to Bitcoin address Q". –  Murch Oct 7 '13 at 12:31
    
@HaroldNaparst I updated my answer with responses to yours. If we had a stable currency, all of your arguments would equally well work against the dollar. Yet people accept it just fine. –  David Schwartz Oct 7 '13 at 18:13
show 1 more comment

One has to distinguish between three different sources of deflation. Based on the famous quantity equation there are three possible scenarios how a deflation can happen.

M * V = Y * P

M= Money Supply; V= Money Velocity; Y= Output/Production/Real GDP; P= Price Level

Deflation is commonly defined as a decrease in overall price level (e.g. P goes down). So there are 3 ways this can happen:

M decreases: So called Debt Deflation. This is a huge problem for banks and that is what most economists fear. Obviously this cannot happen to Bitcoin because M is fixed. (Except for lost wallets).

Y increases: This would be economiv growth due to an increase in productivity. Since that is a good thing there is no problem here.

V decreases: This means that people hoard their money and dont spend it. Usually this happens in times of high economic uncertainty. When you are unsure wether you will get income next month you will save a little bit more. This could become a problem in a bitcoin economy if that money is just asleep in peoples wallets.

share|improve this answer
    
Doesn't this assume that bitcoin is ONLY currency in use? Bitcoin's V decreasing is not a problem in an economy with multiple currencies. –  kenny Dec 4 '13 at 16:17
add comment

The value of bitcoin is roughly proportional to the size of the bitcoin economy, since bitcoin has a fixed supply. This means that for the value of bitcoin to go up (deflation), the bitcoin economy must be experiencing growth. How can growth kill an economy?

The deflation spiral theory is self contradicting, at least in the case of bitcoin. In the case of the fractionally reserved fiat paper banking system that our governments impose on us, it's a little different.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Bitcoin was modeled after a non-renewable resource extraction curve similar to gold, silver, and oil. Gold and silver have be used throughout history as an effective currency. To say that it would fail due to deflation, would be to say that gold/silver would have met the same fate.

Until the modern era, gold and silver was the main form of money used throughout the world. People did carry it around with them and spend it freely to acquire goods and services.

If someone says to you that deflation will kill bitcoin, tell them to show how gold/silver didn't work for spans of time up to a millennia.

share|improve this answer
    
Wait a minute... what do you mean with "non-renewable"? Isn't bitcoin an endless resource (unlike gold or silver)? –  Camilo Martin Feb 19 '12 at 3:47
    
Well, it is a diminishing in output (less bitcoins produced over time). They are not an endless resource, there will only be at most 21M of them, and there will be less over time as they are lost. –  RobKohr Dec 11 '12 at 23:00
    
But the value of the coins change accordingly, right? So at most, we will have less granularity, but just as much capacity to represent money, correct? –  Camilo Martin Dec 11 '12 at 23:09
add comment

Understanding bitcoin price behavior with the Quantity theory of money

M · V = P · Q

Money supply times the Velocity of money equals the Price level times the Quantity of goods.

Several arguments against the success of Bitcoin are doing the round:

  1. Bitcoin is a bubble, the present $1000+ price level bears no relation to the small bitcoin economy.
  2. People are hoarding bitcoin and not using it. How can that possibly be a successful currency?
  3. Bitcoin has a deflation problem. The general price level would have to keep falling to accommodate the growing bitcoin economy, given the fixed supply of bitcoin. (And somehow predictable deflation is assumed to be a bad thing.)

People could use this theory to 'prove' that when the money supply M is fixed and the economy Q grows, the price level P must drop to accommodate it, which would mean deflation.

But then you are falsely assuming V, the velocity of money, to be constant.

What happens when people expect a drop in price level P? They will postpone spending. You know your bitcoins will be worth more tomorrow, so there is a free profit to be had. This drop in spending now would mean there is less bitcoin chasing after goods today. People are hoarding bitcoin. Price levels in bitcoin will adjust, going down today. Saying that the price level in bitcoin goes down, is the same as saying the value of a bitcoin goes up. This hoarding will continue until the expected change in price level does not provide a free lunch anymore. In a bitcoin economy with a fixed money supply it can't be the Price level adjusting to the growing economy. It is the amount of bitcoin used in spending, or the Velocity of money.

People will hold on to their bitcoin at first. The bitcoin value should be expected to climb rapidly and stabilize.

So what the Quantity theory of money shows us is:

  1. The price of a bitcoin should be expected to move now, to a level fitting the size of the future bitcoin economy. Assuming bitcoin adoption, the $1000+ price is rational given the low market capitalization compared to that needed in a reasonably sized future bitcoin economy.
  2. Bitcoin hoarding is normal. The velocity of bitcoin will be higher tomorrow than it is today. Bitcoin hoarding is a logical consequence of the expected growth in the bitcoin economy in combination with the limited supply of bitcoin. It is rational and here to stay for the foreseeable future.
  3. There will be no constant deflation. The price level, or the value of a bitcoin, will jump to a level that fits the expected size of the future bitcoin economy. It is the velocity of money, or the number of bitcoin actually used in spending, that will adjust to the growing economy, not the price level.

Deflation: Because the monetary base of bitcoins cannot be expanded, the currency would be subject to severe deflation if it becomes widely used. Keynesian economists argue that deflation is bad for an economy because it incentivises individuals and businesses to save money rather than invest in businesses and create jobs. The Austrian school of thought counters this criticism, claiming that as deflation occurs in all stages of production, entrepreneurs who invest benefit from it. As a result, profit ratios tend to stay the same and only their magnitudes change. In other words, in a deflationary environment, goods and services decrease in price, but at the same time the cost for the production of these goods and services tend to decrease proportionally, effectively not affecting profits. Price deflation encourages an increase in hoarding — hence savings — which in turn tends to lower interest rates and increase the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer term.

Source

share|improve this answer
    
@ Gracchus Agreed. The only way to fix this global monetary problem is to replace our debt-based money system with a debt-free money system. Under a debt-free money system, all new money would be spent into circulation interest-free instead of loaned into circulation at interest. This is just common sense. If the government can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. Both have the same backing. The only difference is that one bears interest, the other does not; one serves the banking elite, the other serves the general public. –  Jonathan Rogiest Feb 15 at 16:14
add comment

It's been a long time since my Econ101 class but let's see if I can get this right...

Deflation of the currency is only an issue in two circumstances, neither of which currently apply to bitcoin.

  1. Deflation harms individuals who have large debts in the deflating currency, especially those with fixed payments. If the value of one dollar doubles tomorrow then a $1,000 mortgage payment suddenly seems quite a lot to pay for a property that was entirely worth that sum not long ago.
  2. Deflation harms individuals when the lag time between the deflation and price changes is substantial or when companies hold large amounts of stocks purchased at pre-inflation prices and are unwilling to sell at a "loss" even though the money is now worth more.

To my knowledge, no one is making or taking out substantial loans denominated in BTC with fixed payment plans, though that may soon change. There are also many discussions on the forums and elsewhere regarding how loans denominated in BTC might be made more feasible in a deflationary system.

As for #2, there are few (if any) companies who hold stock purchased with BTC and sell at fixed BTC prices. Almost all companies have stock purchased with fiat currency and their pricing is automatically updated at the time of sale to reflect a fiat value, so they do not face the "selling at a 'loss'" scenario.

share|improve this answer
    
Not at all, it simply means that we have to come up with different debt models than are traditionally used, like reverse interest. These both also become smaller and smaller issues as volatility continues to decrease. –  David Perry Feb 16 at 20:16
add comment

"Every man has his price."

Sooner or later, you're going to find something priced in BTC that you want or need. And you'll want or need it "now." Consider the situation when buying a computer: they are always going down in price. By the deflationista's argument, nobody would be buying electronics. Ever. If a faster computer is going to be cheaper next week, then I won't buy one this week. Same thing for next month. And next year. Forever...

Except it misses one important point: computers are useful, and sooner or later a buyer's price (the tradeoff between the computer's usefulness and future computer purchasing power of money) will be met.

The "deflation" argument falls down with this one simple example.

share|improve this answer
2  
Welcome to the Bitcoin Stack Exchange! Answers that mostly repeat the content of other answers are discouraged here. Unlike in a forum, you shouldn't answer unless you have something significant to add that has been missed. Just don't want you to be discouraged if this answer is downvoted! –  eMansipater Sep 9 '11 at 14:00
    
"If a faster computer is going to be cheaper next week, then I won't buy one this week. Same thing for next month. And next year. Forever..." This fact is already true with dollars -> nobody buys any computer -> I cannot be writting this answer! –  user709 Nov 25 '11 at 13:58
add comment

If people don't spend bitcoin, then miners will not collect fees. And without fees, there's no incentive to mine. So miners will drop off. As miners drop off, the network becomes vulnerable to a 51% attack. So, yes, severe deflation is a major problem, but not solely for the economic reasons people are concerned about. Far before deflation is a concern, lack of transaction volume and a decreasing money supply will kill bitcoin unless the monetary supply is loosened. I'm guessing miners will feel the pinch and many will start dropping off by year-end 2014.

Fortunately there are many solutions. The Bitcoin money supply can be easily changed by a majority of miners agreeing to a change.

share|improve this answer
    
This answer seems to disregard that transaction fees are only about 1/100 of the mining rewards, most (more than 98%) is provided by the block reward, instead. The block reward is currently 25BTC, and will be 12.5BTC for approx. 4 years thereafter. That should provide ample reason for people to mine well beyond 2014. –  Murch Dec 29 '13 at 13:03
add comment

Unsure, can't tell at this stage if deflation will be negative, positive, or neutral. Nothing quit like bitcoin has existed before to compare it against.

For traditional currencies, deflation is a bad thing as deflation was present during most economic depressions in US history. Historically, deflationary currency equates, more often than not, to massive poverty.

The argument against this is that bitcoin is a commodity currency: (such as gold)

A commodity currency is a name given to currencies of countries which depend heavily on the export of certain raw materials for income. These countries are typically developing countries.

Bitcoin sounds a lot more like fiat money than commodity currency though. Especially in light that bitcoins don't "exist" in the physical world in the same way commodity currency does. Bitcoins do exist in on-line spaces and exchanges in much the same was fiat money does.

But even if we say bitcoin is a commodity currency there is still the problem of it being unstable and, as a result, untrust-worthy. Developing countries whose economy is heavily dependance on commodity currency don't have the best track record of stability. A developed country example is the Iraqi "Swiss" dinar which went through deflationary trends - but didn't have long term use.

The counter argument seems pretty bad: diversify your investments. While being obviously good advice, it comes across as giving up on the system as a whole. "Who cares if Bitcoin fails, you should have other investments and will be fine."

Despite the uncertainty of long-term deflation, one of the best things about this currency is its reliance on mathematical models. If/when deflation is causing horrendous problems, I am confidant the mathematical model will be adjusted for the benefit of all.

Only time will tell, after all, Bitcoin is still experimental.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.