Bitcoin adoption

daniel_the_smith · **#81**

Bill Spight wrote:

... If you follow Milton Friedman's formula, you would increase the award by a certain percentage, such as 1/512 every 2016 blocks. That should be mildly inflationary, at a similar rate to most developed economies.

Edit: You are really "debasing" bitcoin by increasing the award, but debasement tends to have inflationary effects. Also, increasing the award rewards current miners instead of rewarding early miners, which is what halving the award does. That's what you want for a virtual gold standard.

I guess my point was that a system like that will at times be extremely deflationary (I.e. if bitcoin caught on and 300 million people bought at the same time) and other times it would be overly inflationary.

I can think of another way, which is that the system automatically adds virtual interest to every account with every block (like multiply by 2097153/2097152 for each block, that should come out to a few percent per year). That might actually be fairer than the current method of increasing the money supply (it distributes new money evenly instead of to borrowers/governments).

The argument for rewarding early miners is of course that they are making a risky investment. Mining hardware is not free... It's unclear to me if this extra incentive was necessary to get things off the ground or not.

Bill Spight · **#82**

daniel_the_smith wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

... If you follow Milton Friedman's formula, you would increase the award by a certain percentage, such as 1/512 every 2016 blocks. That should be mildly inflationary, at a similar rate to most developed economies.

Edit: You are really "debasing" bitcoin by increasing the award, but debasement tends to have inflationary effects. Also, increasing the award rewards current miners instead of rewarding early miners, which is what halving the award does. That's what you want for a virtual gold standard.

I guess my point was that a system like that will at times be extremely deflationary (I.e. if bitcoin caught on and 300 million people bought at the same time) and other times it would be overly inflationary.

Well, if you want to fine tune things, then you probably need a monetary authority.

Quote:

I can think of another way, which is that the system automatically adds virtual interest to every account with every block (like multiply by 2097153/2097152 for each block, that should come out to a few percent per year). That might actually be fairer than the current method of increasing the money supply (it distributes new money evenly instead of to borrowers/governments).

That should have no effect, except upon nominal prices, as long as bitcoin is indefinitely divisible. The problem comes with the diminishing effect of mining.

Quote:

The argument for rewarding early miners is of course that they are making a risky investment. Mining hardware is not free... It's unclear to me if this extra incentive was necessary to get things off the ground or not.

Early miners automatically got a bonus, as the first bitcoins were relatively cheap to produce. The question is, what makes for a vibrant, ongoing enterprise? For that you need to reward current miners. In theory, keeping the block rewards constant (instead of halving them every four years) makes sense. However, experience over the past few centuries has shown that mild inflation is preferable. You are going to get swings, and deflation is not good. Even low inflation can produce stagnation. You also have the Gresham's Law problem that relatively low inflation leads people to save bitcoins instead of mining them. With no guarantee that anyone will accept bitcoins, that could be disastrous.

daniel_the_smith · **#83**

Bill Spight wrote:

Quote:

I can think of another way, which is that the system automatically adds virtual interest to every account with every block (like multiply by 2097153/2097152 for each block, that should come out to a few percent per year). That might actually be fairer than the current method of increasing the money supply (it distributes new money evenly instead of to borrowers/governments).

That should have no effect, except upon nominal prices, as long as bitcoin is indefinitely divisible. The problem comes with the diminishing effect of mining.

Huh. So inflation won't "work" unless the money is distributed unevenly?

Bill Spight · **#84**

daniel_the_smith wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Quote:

I can think of another way, which is that the system automatically adds virtual interest to every account with every block (like multiply by 2097153/2097152 for each block, that should come out to a few percent per year). That might actually be fairer than the current method of increasing the money supply (it distributes new money evenly instead of to borrowers/governments).

That should have no effect, except upon nominal prices, as long as bitcoin is indefinitely divisible. The problem comes with the diminishing effect of mining.

Huh. So inflation won't "work" unless the money is distributed unevenly?

If all it does is change savings equally, it is neutral. Then inflation and deflation do not matter. A major point of mild inflation is to keep money circulating. One metaphor for money is blood. You want it to circulate. If you simply increase the amount of money that is doing nothing, what is the point?

jts · **#85**

Bill Spight wrote:

If all it does is change savings equally, it is neutral. Then inflation and deflation do not matter.

I'm not sure I follow this. What Daniel is proposing is to plop little bits of bitcoin in everyone's digital wallet, if I understand correctly. The reason we would not necessarily expect this to create inflation is that we would not necessarily expect it to cause the money supply to change - that is, while we're creating more pieces of the monetary base, we're also giving people a reason to keep money in their wallet rather than spending it or lending it. But if the extra bitcoin does not cause extra spending, there would be no reason for it to affect the price level.

(This is in fact the major flaw in monetary policy, i.e. printing money and using it to buy back government bonds. When economic conditions are dire enough, and prices are mildly deflationary, the underside of your mattress looks like a much better investment project than anything else. So no matter how much money the central bank prints, people just save it away, and since they aren't spending it deflation continues, and money under the mattresss to look like a good investment. --- The Bernanke Fed actually tried something similar to what Daniel describes: they started paying interest on the cash accounts which major banks hold with the Federal Reserve. Naturally, this led the banks to hold larger cash reserves with the Fed, which is exactly the reverse of what a central bank wants commercial banks to do during a recession.)

Bill Spight · **#86**

jts wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

If all it does is change savings equally, it is neutral. Then inflation and deflation do not matter.

I'm not sure I follow this. What Daniel is proposing is to plop little bits of bitcoin in everyone's digital wallet, if I understand correctly. The reason we would not necessarily expect this to create inflation is that we would not necessarily expect it to cause the money supply to change - that is, while we're creating more pieces of the monetary base, we're also giving people a reason to keep money in their wallet rather than spending it or lending it. But if the extra bitcoin does not cause extra spending, there would be no reason for it to affect the price level.

(This is in fact the major flaw in monetary policy, i.e. printing money and using it to buy back government bonds. When economic conditions are dire enough, and prices are mildly deflationary, the underside of your mattress looks like a much better investment project than anything else. So no matter how much money the central bank prints, people just save it away, and since they aren't spending it deflation continues, and money under the mattresss to look like a good investment. --- The Bernanke Fed actually tried something similar to what Daniel describes: they started paying interest on the cash accounts which major banks hold with the Federal Reserve. Naturally, this led the banks to hold larger cash reserves with the Fed, which is exactly the reverse of what a central bank wants commercial banks to do during a recession.)

MV = PQ.

Assuming that increasing everybody's bitcoin (M) proportionally does not affect the velocity of bitcoin (V), nor the production of real goods and services (Q), then prices denominated in bitcoins (P) will increase at the same proportion. Since everybody knows what is happening and when. All that we have done, in effect, is to change nominal values. The effects of inflation and deflation in the real world come about because not everything changes at the same time.

You and I are pretty much in agreement about Fed policy, but I don't want to get too far afield.

jts · **#87**

Hmm, maybe we're wandering too far into the swampy subtleties of money. But there are two points I would make: first, accounting identities aren't causal laws. You shouldn't fall into the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" - that is, the idea that you can simply stipulate, hypothetically, the value of X-1 of X variables, and this stipulation will transfer something real from one part of the equation to the other. Second, the monetary base (bitcoin, in the techno-utopian's dreams) isn't the same as the money supply (M, the thing that keeps us out of a barter economy).

The standard picture of "pushing on a string" in a depression is that the central bank prints a lot of money, people hoard all of it without changing any of their economic behavior because they're freaked out by the poor economic climate, and as a result nothing happens in the real economy. I.e., M goes up, P and Q are the same. What happened to V then? Didn't V stay the same, too? No; V is just defined as PQ/M. MV=PQ is an identity. If we print lots of money and nothing happens in the economy, by definition V has fallen.

Mike Novack · **#88**

The governemnts don't (usually) increase the "money supply" by printing more bills but the fact that you recognize that if people consider times very bad they will simply hide it under the matress is to the point (except it's not just "the people").

In an economy like ours the amount of "money" in circulation is not the amount of bills (physical money). Assuming the economy is running smoothly, the amount of money is determined by the percentage lenders must hold in reserve. For example, it the required (and/or effective) reserve percentage is 50% then the amount of money in circualtion would be twice the amount of physical money.

By lowering that percentage the government can increase the amount of "money" or by raising it decrease the amount of "money". Except the former might not work if the lenders (the banks) are disinclined to lend up to the limit they are allowed. The latter would always work.

Printing more is the last resort (lenders won't lend; people aren't depositing money for them to lend out, hiding it under the matress). Usually only results in runaway inflation because the economy was sick to begin with -- or the normal loosening would have worked.

Bill Spight · **#89**

jts wrote:

Hmm, maybe we're wandering too far into the swampy subtleties of money. But there are two points I would make: first, accounting identities aren't causal laws. You shouldn't fall into the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" - that is, the idea that you can simply stipulate, hypothetically, the value of X-1 of X variables, and this stipulation will transfer something real from one part of the equation to the other. Second, the monetary base (bitcoin, in the techno-utopian's dreams) isn't the same as the money supply (M, the thing that keeps us out of a barter economy).

The standard picture of "pushing on a string" in a depression is that the central bank prints a lot of money, people hoard all of it without changing any of their economic behavior because they're freaked out by the poor economic climate, and as a result nothing happens in the real economy. I.e., M goes up, P and Q are the same. What happened to V then? Didn't V stay the same, too? No; V is just defined as PQ/M. MV=PQ is an identity. If we print lots of money and nothing happens in the economy, by definition V has fallen.

Look. You are a merchant who accepts bitcoins and you know that, come Tuesday, everybody's bitcoin holdings will increase by 1%. You know this, perhaps, because you hold a few bitcoins yourself. In any event, it is your business to know it. Do you keep your prices in bitcoins the same, or do you raise them by 1%?

Also, the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" argument does not cut it with me. In a collision of billiard balls, both momentum (mv) and energy (mv^2) are conserved. (A conservation law is an identity.) Without going into details, typically the kinetic energy in the motion of the balls after the collision is less than before the collision. What happens to it? On earth typically most of it is dissipated in sound waves, which is why we hear the click of the balls. On the moon, with no atmosphere to carry sound waves, my guess is that the balls would heat up. Even on earth, when billiard balls were made of celluloid, sometimes they would explode.

Now, it is true that the conservation of energy identity does not tell us exactly what will happen with the extra energy. But what would you think of a physicist who claimed that it did not express a causal relationship?

jts · **#90**

Mike Novack wrote:

Printing more is the last resort (lenders won't lend; people aren't depositing money for them to lend out, hiding it under the matress).

Actually, it's the first resort. ("Monetary policy.") Generally the central bank, in the countries I'm familiar with at least, conducts "open market operations" in which they buy the debt of their own government. Now, they don't print the money and bring it in big duffel bags onto the trading floor, but whenever anyone wants to draw on the money they have "deposited" with the Federal Reserve, the Fed is ready to greet them with warm, crisp sheets of money.

The second resort, when the Fed keeps printing money and no one is spending or investing it, is to have the national government spend more. ("Fiscal policy." This also works as a good backup to monetary policy.) The last resort, when people are rolling back and forth mumbling to themselves about the apocalypse, is to use a blunt instrument like altering the regulatory structure of the banking industry in the middle of the crisis.

jts · **#91**

Bill Spight wrote:

Look. You are a merchant who accepts bitcoins and you know that, come Tuesday, everybody's bitcoin holdings will increase by 1%. You know this, perhaps, because you hold a few bitcoins yourself. In any event, it is your business to know it. Do you keep your prices in bitcoins the same, or do you raise them by 1%?

I might do either! You can't just speculate about these things. It depends on whether people are going to try to buy more goods as a result, or not. If consumer confidence is high, then if everyone gets an extra 1% of their holdings, then I will expect them to spend most of it, so if I can increase my stock easily I'll raise prices a little, and if not I'll absorb the whole extra demand by hiking my prices. On the other hand, if I think everyone is worried about losing their jobs and is going to save the money for a rainy day - and as a result I'm already dealing with an inventory overhang, then all that's going to happen if I raise my prices is my rivals will get all of the business.

Bill Spight wrote:

Also, the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" argument does not cut it with me. In a collision of billiard balls, both momentum (mv) and energy (mv^2) are conserved. (A conservation law is an identity.) Without going into details, typically the kinetic energy in the motion of the balls after the collision is less than before the collision. What happens to it? On earth typically most of it is dissipated in sound waves, which is why we hear the click of the balls. On the moon, with no atmosphere to carry sound waves, my guess is that the balls would heat up. Even on earth, when billiard balls were made of celluloid, sometimes they would explode.

Now, it is true that the conservation of energy identity does not tell us exactly what will happen with the extra energy. But what would you think of a physicist who claimed that it did not express a causal relationship?

This is a great example. I could, by assuming that two billiard balls have the same mass and velocity before and after their collision (albeit in opposite directions), prove to you that in my thought-experiment the collision is silent. However, that would be a very poor guide to what actually happens when the balls collide. If we want to use the accounting identity to make a causal prediction, we actually need a causal theory about how we get the energy from one side of the equation to the other side of the equation (at minimum, a theory of whether billiard ball collisions are elastic or inelastic).

jts · **#92**

Bill Spight wrote:

Look. You are a merchant who accepts bitcoins and you know that, come Tuesday, everybody's bitcoin holdings will increase by 1%. You know this, perhaps, because you hold a few bitcoins yourself. In any event, it is your business to know it. Do you keep your prices in bitcoins the same, or do you raise them by 1%?

I might do either! You can't just speculate about these things. It depends on whether people are going to try to buy more goods as a result, or not. If consumer confidence is high, then if everyone gets an extra 1% of their holdings, then I will expect them to spend most of it, so if I can increase my stock easily I'll raise prices a little, and if not I'll absorb the whole extra demand by hiking my prices. On the other hand, if I think everyone is worried about losing their jobs and is going to save the money for a rainy day - and as a result I'm already dealing with an inventory overhang, then all that's going to happen if I raise my prices is my rivals will get all of the business.

In a real economy, it's the process of actually selling things (money changing hands), and realizing that they can't easily expand their stock fast enough to keep up with rising demand, that induces firms to raise prices.

Bill Spight wrote:

Also, the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" argument does not cut it with me. In a collision of billiard balls, both momentum (mv) and energy (mv^2) are conserved. (A conservation law is an identity.) Without going into details, typically the kinetic energy in the motion of the balls after the collision is less than before the collision. What happens to it? On earth typically most of it is dissipated in sound waves, which is why we hear the click of the balls. On the moon, with no atmosphere to carry sound waves, my guess is that the balls would heat up. Even on earth, when billiard balls were made of celluloid, sometimes they would explode.

Now, it is true that the conservation of energy identity does not tell us exactly what will happen with the extra energy. But what would you think of a physicist who claimed that it did not express a causal relationship?

This is a great example. I could, by assuming that two billiard balls have the same mass and velocity before and after their collision (albeit in opposite directions), prove to you that in my thought-experiment the collision is silent. However, that would be a very poor guide to what actually happens when the balls collide. If we want to use the accounting identity to make a causal prediction, we actually need a causal theory about how we get the energy from one side of the equation to the other side of the equation (at minimum, a theory of whether billiard ball collisions are elastic or inelastic).

Bill Spight · **#93**

jts wrote:

In a real economy, it's the process of actually selling things (money changing hands), and realizing that they can't easily expand their stock fast enough to keep up with rising demand, that induces firms to raise prices.

Contracts matter, as well. But if everybody knows the rate and schedule for increasing bitcoins for everybody, those changes should be reflected in the contracts.

Bill Spight wrote:

Also, the "doctrine of immaculate transfer" argument does not cut it with me. In a collision of billiard balls, both momentum (mv) and energy (mv^2) are conserved. (A conservation law is an identity.) Without going into details, typically the kinetic energy in the motion of the balls after the collision is less than before the collision. What happens to it? On earth typically most of it is dissipated in sound waves, which is why we hear the click of the balls. On the moon, with no atmosphere to carry sound waves, my guess is that the balls would heat up. Even on earth, when billiard balls were made of celluloid, sometimes they would explode.

Now, it is true that the conservation of energy identity does not tell us exactly what will happen with the extra energy. But what would you think of a physicist who claimed that it did not express a causal relationship?

Quote:

This is a great example. I could, by assuming that two billiard balls have the same mass and velocity before and after their collision (albeit in opposite directions), prove to you that in my thought-experiment the collision is silent. However, that would be a very poor guide to what actually happens when the balls collide. If we want to use the accounting identity to make a causal prediction, we actually need a causal theory about how we get the energy from one side of the equation to the other side of the equation (at minimum, a theory of whether billiard ball collisions are elastic or inelastic).

Predictability is not the same as causality. Consider the butterfly effect.

jts · **#94**

Bill Spight wrote:

Contracts matter, as well. But if everybody knows the rate and schedule for increasing bitcoins for everybody, those changes should be reflected in the contracts.

This would be true as true can be, so long as you crossed out "increasing bitcoins" and substituted "increasing prices". Once inflation has been high and predictable for a number of years, people begin to expect a certain rate and build it into their contracts (the main cause of accelerating inflation). But inflation doesn't proceed either directly with the size of the monetary base, or even with the size of the money supply (there's V and Q to consider, remember), so merely knowing the size of the supply of bitcoins (or of dollars, or of gold discs) doesn't necessarily tell people what inflation expectations to build into their contracts.

(Now, if you had a central bank that said "7% inflation for the next five years!" and backed itself up with appropriate actions, people might take that seriously.)

Quote:

Predictability is not the same as causality. Consider the butterfly effect.

When you can refine the definition of the velocity of money to account for butterflies, I will let you profess the doctrine of immaculate transfer.

Bill Spight · **#95**

jts wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Predictability is not the same as causality. Consider the butterfly effect.

When you can refine the definition of the velocity of money to account for butterflies, I will let you profess the doctrine of immaculate transfer.

I do not profess the doctrine of immaculate transfer. That is obviously a pejorative term.

F = ma

may be taken as a definition of force.

So what? (For those unfamiliar with physics, that says that force equal mass times acceleration.)

jts · **#96**

Bill Spight wrote:

I do not profess the doctrine of immaculate transfer. That is obviously a pejorative term.

F = ma

may be taken as a definition of force.

So what? (For those unfamiliar with physics, that says that force equal mass times acceleration.)

First of all, it's a bit unfair to physicists to imply that force laws and conservation laws are similar to economic accounting identities. I think understanding that F is simply the name we give to m*a is important, and too little understood; but physicists have developed a number of formulas, like Gm_1m_2/r^2, -kx, mF_n, kq_1q_2/r^2, etc., that flesh out what m*a we predict in a given situation.

But anyway, even if we were all still Cartesians in physics, you can't rescue your style of economic argument this way.

Bill Spight wrote:

MV = PQ.

Assuming that increasing everybody's bitcoin (M) proportionally does not affect the velocity of bitcoin (V),

That's the big assumption. Huge assumption. If people are inclined to hoard their money rather than to spend it, by definition the velocity of money immediately drops. If the Fed decided to double the money supply but keep half of it locked up in their vaults, they would have, by definition, cut the velocity of money in two. Purely as an artifact of the accounting identity. If they decide to double the money supply but skittish bankers, or CEOs, or households, decide to keep the cash locked up in their vaults, ditto.

By the way, the Fed was printing a huge amount of money in a pretty severe recession a few years ago. Here's what happened to V in the real world (in green):

Quote:

nor the production of real goods and services (Q),

Also a big assumption. The reason we want constant, low-level inflation, after all, is the connection between unused workers/capital goods and a shortage of money. So if people don't just hoard their newly printed money, we expect Q to rise until the economy is at full employment.

Quote:

then prices denominated in bitcoins (P) will increase at the same proportion.

Voila. You have transferred something from one end of an accounting identity to another, while protecting the chastity of all the other variables. ;-)

Mike Novack · **#97**

jts wrote:

[....... Now, they don't print the money and bring it in big duffel bags onto the trading floor, but whenever anyone wants to draw on the money they have "deposited" with the Federal Reserve, the Fed is ready to greet them with warm, crisp sheets of money.

The second resort, when the Fed keeps printing money and no one is spending or investing it, is to have the national government spend more. ("Fiscal policy." ........

You are fixated on those physical pieces of paper. I hate to break it to you but the total amount of these in existence is far less than the amount of "money" in circulation.

Are you paid in greenbacks? Do you pay your bills using greenbacks? Yes, this does still exist to a small extent but for most of use transactions involving physical pieces of paper make up only a small fraction.

They don't simply "print money". First of all, no physical pieces of paper involved but secondly, they are issuing as much debt (bonds) as money. Under normal circumstances. Trust me, runaway inflation will indicate when they are simply "printing money".

badukJr · **#98**

Mike Novack wrote:

jts wrote:

[....... Now, they don't print the money and bring it in big duffel bags onto the trading floor, but whenever anyone wants to draw on the money they have "deposited" with the Federal Reserve, the Fed is ready to greet them with warm, crisp sheets of money.

The second resort, when the Fed keeps printing money and no one is spending or investing it, is to have the national government spend more. ("Fiscal policy." ........

You are fixated on those physical pieces of paper. I hate to break it to you but the total amount of these in existence is far less than the amount of "money" in circulation.

Are you paid in greenbacks? Do you pay your bills using greenbacks? Yes, this does still exist to a small extent but for most of use transactions involving physical pieces of paper make up only a small fraction.

They don't simply "print money". First of all, no physical pieces of paper involved but secondly, they are issuing as much debt (bonds) as money. Under normal circumstances. Trust me, runaway inflation will indicate when they are simply "printing money".

I think you're being overly literal in the interpretation of the comment, but printing the actual money does really matter. If I go to withdraw it, but there is no paper money to back it up because enough hasn't been printed, it is a terrible situation.

jts · **#99**

Mike Novack wrote:

jts wrote:

[....... Now, they don't print the money and bring it in big duffel bags onto the trading floor, but whenever anyone wants to draw on the money they have "deposited" with the Federal Reserve, the Fed is ready to greet them with warm, crisp sheets of money.
The second resort, when the Fed keeps printing money and no one is spending or investing it, is to have the national government spend more. ("Fiscal policy." ........

You are fixated on those physical pieces of paper. I hate to break it to you but the total amount of these in existence is far less than the amount of "money" in circulation.

You've tried to bring up the distinction between physical paper and money several times. If you re-read what I've written, you'll see that I think this is a very important distinction too. You may not realize that "monetary base" and "the money supply" refer to this distinction. However, when the Fed buys bonds, they do not pay for them by fiddling with the fractional reserve banking system; they pay for them by printing money.

Quote:

They don't simply "print money". First of all, no physical pieces of paper involved but

I assure you, they do. Even when they're not trying to alter the money supply, the Fed is always printing a huge amount of monetary base. When banks want to increase the size of their deposits with the Federal Reserve, actual trucks filled with money drive to the Fed; much of that money is shredded because it's getting old, and when the banks need to draw down their deposits, trucks roll out with freshly printed bills. When the banks have suddenly acquired vast amounts of new money from selling bonds to the Fed, their deposits with the Fed are correspondingly large and (unless monetary policy is wholly ineffective and the banks hoard the money, never taking it out of the Fed) the volume of trucks rolling out stuffed with freshly printed currency increases accordingly.

The normal way of thinking about it is that the monetary base serves as a base on which various people can make promises to others about payment, such that a broader measure of the money supply like M2 is a multiple of the monetary base. You seem to believe that the Fed affects the money supply primarily by fiddling with the multiplier, but I assure you they are adding to the base.

Quote:

secondly, they are issuing as much debt (bonds) as money. Under normal circumstances.

Under normal circumstances, indeed! First, so far as I know, the modern Fed does not issue its own debt. I believe the NY Fed handles the sale of new bonds when the US Treasury issues debt; is this what you're referring to? Regardless, there are periods when the Fed is buying bonds, periods when it's selling, and periods when it has a neutral position. All of this is determined by how much monetary base they think they need to add to reach their inflation/unemployment targets.

Quote:

Trust me, runaway inflation will indicate when they are simply "printing money".

People who share your understanding of the monetary system, but are keeping closer track of what the Fed is doing, have been predicting runaway inflation since 2008. A chart:

daniel_the_smith · **#100**

This has certainly been an educational thread!

I really wish economics was a harder science (I.e., more like physics). It's just too difficult to do real experiments. IMO, if you can't do what Bill wants to with an identity, then it's not a very good identity...

I'm sure there are good reasons it is the way it is, but it seems weird from the outside.

Anyway, from my perspective, it seems likely that those who want to return to the gold standard (or solely use bitcoin) probably are not correctly predicting the outcome of their desired course of action. But it also seems like there is room in the economy for a limited asset like bitcoin, and there'd be room for something like bitcoin that wasn't limited, too.

Bitcoin adoption

Who is online