[staktrace]

You argue it is stable by arguing you never need to convert it to fiat. If your economy is running 100% on Bitcoin it doesn't matter what the exchange rate to USD our any other currency is. (Note I'm not actually arguing this is the case in El Salvador, just pointing out that there is a theoretical argument that could be made.)

[nemothekid]

That is only true if the entire global economy is running 100% on bitcoin. The second you need to trade with another economy (like any nation needs to in order to import/export goods), you are bitten by the same issue.

The US is El Salvador's largest trading partner - so Bitcoin's price relative to the USD does matter.

[imtringued]

>That is only true if the entire global economy is running 100% on bitcoin.

100% on bitcoin means no services, no goods, an economy where nothing but bitcoin exists. As soon as I need to drink water the price of water and the income of the operator of the well will go down over time because of the fixed supply and the hoarding of currency.

[staktrace]

I think there's probably some middle ground here. Like say the national economy is 100% on Bitcoin and then as long as they have a balanced trade with other countries (i.e. no long term trade deficit/surplus) they can deal with those obligations in fiat currency. But I'm just guessing here.

[insert_coin]

No currency ever has been 100% stable. The exchange rate is how we perceive it in the modern economy, but fluctuation in commodity prices was the indicator of an stable, or not, currency when the gold standard was in place. That will be the indicator if bitcoin, or any other currency, achieve 100% use, which in itself is impossible. But there is no guarantee to stability, bitcoin doesn’t provide it any more than the usd backed by millions of soldiers does. Stability begins on the production side, not the monetary one; after a huge drought you’ll see prices skyrocket irrespective of the currency.