Because lending will always allocate capital more productively
Discussion
People do what is in their best interest.
lending your money to a bank that will be fractionally reserved and risk losing it isn't a very good allocation strategy.
We tried easy money allocation. It wasn't very productive at all.
The problem with easy money allocation is the lender of last resort, not the lending itself.
The chicken does not exist without the egg. The egg does not exist without the chicken.
The supply of bitcoin is audited and will not be able to be inflated because in such instance it becomes something different than bitcoin entirely.
Bitcoin is an idea. Its the idea of scarcity. Maybe you just don't agree with that ideas greatness?
People holding claims on bitcoin through banks is already something different from bitcoin entirely.
Your view of scarcity is challenged in this chapter:
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Scarcity-Fallacy
,
OK, what do you envision for the future of adoption ? Lightning? Fedimint? Fractional reserve banks?
I don't expect mass adoption. Holding bitcoin will become less attractive as the halvings become increasingly insignificant, block subsidy falls, and fees rise. Lightning could be a viable substitute for settled bitcoin, as well as other coins with similar properties, and metal coins. The other alternatives you mention entail lending, which is no substitute for holding one's own money.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Substitution-Principle
Thanks for the discussion. I still have a hard time seeing bitcoin do anything but accelerate over time.
What you say about halvings decreasing doesn't really make a lot of sense to me because the dollar denominated quantity that is made unavailable to purchase ath has increased historically.
I am biased though, so I am not surprised if I'm missing something
The man who works for the money that he invests spends it more productively and shrewdly than the man who receives easy money via loan.