An objection commonly done to Bitcoin is that if overall value is expected to increase -due to its inelastic issue and restringida- "people never spend your bitcoins; will keep them waiting for the price to rise, and therefore can not succeed Bitcoin as a currency " .
This fallacy incurs several errors of economic reasoning. For example, take a suspected factor-the desire to save bitcoins under the expectation that its price will be even higher in the future, and treats it as the only factor, although many other factors are also at play. It also assumes that all people are the same all the time and their scales of values never change. Finally, consider that all bitcoins that a person has accumulated form an indivisible block, ignoring the possibility of marginal decisions on the use of smaller relative to a total balance amounts and specific contexts.
In contrast to the supposedly implacable indefinitely hogging motivation is the change in price of goods relative to the value of a certain number of bitcoins saved. As the value of change per unit increases, the total value of the savings rises with it . To illustrate how this factor directly contradicts the argument of lack of use by deflation, here is a story of bitcoins and suits US $ 500.
If Hayek has 100 bitcoins when the price of bitcoin is US $ 5, buy a suit US $ 500 would leave a suit without bitcoins . However, the same purchase with a bitcoin in US $ 50 would leave him in a suit over a remaining balance of US $ 4,500 in bitcoins. US $ 500 per bitcoin, he could get the suit and still maintain a balance in bitcoins worth US $ 49,500. Finally, to US $ 5,000 per bitcoin, you could buy the same suit and withhold US $ 499,500 in bitcoins .
Hayek faces the balance between the suit and the proportion of your saved Bitcoins to be exchanged for that suit varies with exchange value. When the change value bitcoin rises (supposedly its fatal defect as currency), the cost of the suit as a percentage of total saved bitcoins decreases, in the above example, 100% to 10% to 1% to 0, 1%. The choice between buying a suit with 100% of the balance of bitcoins themselves or 0.1% of that balance is very different and it should be clear which of these two conditions is more likely to "stimulate" a purchase.
As the value of bitcoin increases, the position of a suit with respect to a given amount of bitcoins in scale value of a given tend to change so that person will be increasingly likely, not less, than the same holder 100 bitcoins buy a suit . This does not mean that other compensatory factors such as the desire to delay spending in anticipation of higher future value change, are not also present. This means that the factor most often cited is not the only and also other important factors pointing in the exact opposite direction of the thesis of disuse by deflation.