El Salvador hopes to becomes the world’s first country to adopt bitcoin as legal tender

[Sig]

No, that would be 63%

In a month. Actually its (.55-.35)/.35=57.14% per month, to be more exact. There are 12 months in a year. When someone uses the term "annualized inflation" they're converting a one month number to an annual number, hence the term "annualized" which involves multiplying it by 12. Most economic reporting numbers are annualized in such a manner.

Regardless, how is even 63% (or 57%) protecting "from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation"?

 

[Trader Curt]

In a month. Actually its (.55-.35)/.35=57.14% per month, to be more exact. There are 12 months in a year. When someone uses the term "annualized inflation" they're converting a one month number to an annual number, hence the term "annualized" which involves multiplying it by 12. Most economic reporting numbers are annualized in such a manner.

So now you think Bitcoin follows your annualized inflation rate of 685%???

*Shakes head*

It's a volatile asset, it does whatever it wants. Put the calculator down...

 

[johnarb]

So a month ago you could buy a car for .35 bitcoin. Today it will cost you .55 bitcoin to buy the same car. That's an annualized inflation rate of 685%! How is that "protecting developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation" again, especially the economy in question which uses the dollar which suffered from literally orders of magnitude less inflation in the last month?

Are the bitcoin fanboys just morons or do they cynically realize that they're spouting gibberish but think they can flim flam a public who doesn't fully understand it?

Use the price of bitcoin from beginning of the year or from a 1 year ago

 

[Sig]

Use the price of bitcoin from beginning of the year or from a 1 year ago

Talk about a bunch of fanboys missing the point so completely and utterly it would be funny if it wasn't sad!

Bitcoin if used as a currency would cause the price of real goods denominated in that currency to vary violently. That is the opposite of the article's assertion that "bitcoin provides a way to protect developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation"

But thanks to you and @Trader Curt for answering my question about the fanboys, idiots it is.

 

[Sig]

So now you think Bitcoin follows your annualized inflation rate of 685%???

*Shakes head*

It's a volatile asset, it does whatever it wants. Put the calculator down...

No, I just understand the concept of annualizing economic data as is pretty much universally done. You, to be blunt, were clearly too ignorant to understand that the concept existed given your post. Your welcome, I taught you a new concept that will be useful in life if you can get over yourself long enough pay attention when people use the term "annualized" going forward. If for no other reason than to keep you from looking like a complete fool.

 

[johnarb]

Talk about a bunch of fanboys missing the point so completely and utterly it would be funny if it wasn't sad!

Bitcoin if used as a currency would cause the price of real goods denominated in that currency to vary violently. That is the opposite of the article's assertion that "bitcoin provides a way to protect developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation"

But thanks to you and @Trader Curt for answering my question about the fanboys, idiots it is.

Did your calculator break?

Run the numbers using btc price on 1/1/2021 or a year ago 6/7/2020

 

[virtusa]

I am not entirely sure how Bitcoin can protect an economy from shocks when its price crashes after a few tweets by one very rich guy.

This is why Venezuela wants BTC:

Venezuela's own currency is worth ZERO. They are so desperate that they hope BTC will change everything.
There is not a single country with a strong or normal currency that wants BTC as their currency.
Only countries with hyperinflation and crashing currencies are interested.
But will it make the economy suddenly run better? Keep on dreaming.

 

[virtusa]

Talk about a bunch of fanboys missing the point so completely and utterly it would be funny if it wasn't sad!

Bitcoin if used as a currency would cause the price of real goods denominated in that currency to vary violently. That is the opposite of the article's assertion that "bitcoin provides a way to protect developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation"

But thanks to you and @Trader Curt for answering my question about the fanboys, idiots it is.

 

[Trader Curt]

No, I just understand the concept of annualizing economic data as is pretty much universally done. You, to be blunt, were clearly too stupid to understand that the concept existed given your post.

No, I just know that annualized data has nothing to do with Bitcoin. And you just brought that up to make yourself seem smart in front of everyone. Which is pretty foolish all on it's own.

That might be helpful when calculating earnings on a company. But this isn't a company man, this is a currency that has no limits. You need to be looking at the overall trend, not the 3 month dip that you think is "The end of Bitcoin"

 

[Sig]

No, I just know that annualized data has nothing to do with Bitcoin. And you just brought that up to make yourself seem smart in front of everyone. Which is pretty foolish all on it's own.

That might be helpful when calculating earnings on a company. But this isn't a company man, this is a currency that has no limits. You need to be looking at the overall trend, not the 3 month dip that you think is "The end of Bitcoin"

Let's be clear here, you didn't initially argue that annualized bitcoin changes were inappropriate, you corrected me when I clearly stated the annualized numbers. Charitably you just didn't see that I wrote "annualized", but your doubling down on ignorant shows you actually didn't understand the concept up to then. What exactly do you hope to accomplish with this line of attack?

Regardless, you seem intellectually incapable of addressing my actual point, which is that any currency that wildly fluctuates doesn't in any way serve in the role of "protecting developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation". Do you disagree with that statement, or is this whole argument about how many angels fit on the head of a pin your tacit acknowledgement that you don't have anything to disagree with but it hurts the fanboy in you so you have to be disagreeable?