That's not core to their arguments for these systems however. They wanted predictability and taking it out of the hands of arbitrary issuers, precisely because of the perverse incentives of the central bank, the lack of predictability or reliability, and the bias and misunderstanding of a board of governors unequipped with the information to dictate policy for the genuine benefit of the broad public.

The assumption of the necessity of inflation is merely a side concern subject to independent reevaluation in the positivist's view. This is information that would feed into the specific parameters of the algorithm of Milton's monetary policy machine or into the basket of commodities used for David's commodity-pegged network. It does not change the essential nature of those machines, of which Bitcoin is the full implementation.

When a Friedmanite identifies the broad effects of deflationary money, with its provision of retirement accounts for the average worker, its tendency to reduce overconsumption, the proclivity for the market to start to address externalities on its own, its freeing up resources for longer term thinking, cultural flourishing, more efficient investment, etc., the Friedmanite acquiesces, embracing hard money. I did. It is the only rational way, even for an economic positivist, in the face of both the logic and the evidence.