比特币经济的通货紧缩本身不是一个问题

当讨论分布式cryptocurrency Bitcoin，我经常从记者和经济学家的问题，如果通货紧缩的货币真正能够生存。
这是一个有趣的的想法。我们生活在通货膨胀的经济，钱逐渐失去它的价值，我们也很难想象会是怎样的一个经济体，其中一个一定数额的金钱，慢慢变得更有价值，因为价格下跌，像这样用。
由于我们只有在通胀和恶性通货膨胀的经济生活，也有通货紧缩的经济为什么行不通的假设bucketfuls。我听到的强烈反对，没有人会买任何东西的今天，因为同样的事情会更便宜的明天。，他们不会买它，然后，因为它会更便宜，第二天再次。等，所以没有人会买任何东西，以往我们都将无限期地等待一切价跌。
没有，真的。这是一个参数的提出，绝对是严重的和口语是一个不可否认的事实 。
相反，我们今天买东西的唯一原因，因此必须将花费更多的明天，甚至更后的第二天，所以我们必须赶紧花我们的钱：这是唯一的理由，我们会永远买东西。（这是当的说法是相反的，它有点... ...狭窄... ...的观点是暴露无遗 。）
但假设下降早于：他们已经爱上了，我们从来没有在通货紧缩的经济生活的前提下。虽然可能没有被作为一个整体的经济通缩，它的某些部分已有几十年了。
因此，让我们假设，只是一秒钟，如果你需要一个具体的东西会在3个月的代价，你会迫不及待地购买它。三个月后，你会重复练习，并等待三个月以上。如果有一个特定类型的项目，只是成本越来越少，没有人会从来不买他们所有。如果你同意这种观点 -
您使用的是什么阅读这篇文章吗？
20世纪70年代以来，电子已通货紧缩 。具有一定性能的小工具，可以随时买要便宜得多，几个月后，大约两年后，几乎零成本。这是通货紧缩。价格下跌，你的钱变得更有价值。也许这不只是通货紧缩，这甚至接近hyperdeflation。
在这种情况下，使用上述的说法，没有人会购买任何电子产品，因为它们可以便宜一点后，大家将就他们的钱。那么，你买任何小工具？同样，您使用的是读这篇文章？
在现实中，苹果电脑公司，是世界上最第二最有价值的公司，与石油巨头的头把交椅竞争。和苹果操作系统在通货紧缩的经济部门。
Bitcoin可能有它的缺陷，但其通货紧缩的特点是不是其中之一。
对通货紧缩的说法可能有一点不正，虽。在通货紧缩的经济 - 我们看到这个即将实现与电子，太 - 的人不买比他们更需要的时刻，因为它会为明年的需求明年来买的时候便宜。
但是，人们只买他们需要什么- 的，真的是一件坏事吗 ？

以上GOOGLE翻译英文原文如下:

When discussing the distributed cryptocurrency Bitcoin, I frequently get the question from reporters and economists if a deflationary currency really can survive.
It’s an interesting thought. We’re so used to living in an inflationary economy, where money gradually loses its value, that we have a hard time imagining what it would be like in an economy where a certain amount of money slowly became more valuable as prices fell.
Since we have only lived in inflationary (and hyperinflationary) economies, there are bucketfuls of assumptions of why a deflationary economy wouldn’t work. The strongest objection I hear is that nobody would buy anything today, since the same thing would be cheaper tomorrow. And they wouldn’t buy it then either, because it would be cheaper the next day again. And so on, so nobody would buy anything, ever: we would all be waiting indefinitely for everything to drop in price.
No, really. This is an argument that’s being presented as absolutely serious and spoken like an undeniable truth.
Conversely, the only reason we buy something today must therefore be that it will cost more tomorrow, and even more the day after, so we must hurry to spend our money: that is the only reason we would ever buy something. (It is when the argument is reversed, that its somewhat… narrow… point of view is exposed.)
But the assumptions fall earlier than that: they fall already with the premise that we’ve never lived in a deflationary economy. While the economy as a whole may not have been deflationary, parts of it have been for decades.
So let’s assume just for a second, that if a specific thing you needed would cost less in three months, you would wait to buy it. In three months, you would repeat the exercise and wait for three months more. If there was a particular type of item that would just cost less and less, nobody would never buy them at all. If you subscribe to this view –
What are you using to read this article?
Electronics have been deflationary since the 1970s. A gadget with a certain performance can always be bought much cheaper a few months later, and for practically zero cost some two years later. This is deflation. Prices fall and your money becomes more valuable. Maybe this is not just deflation, this is even approaching hyperdeflation.
In this scenario, using the argument above, nobody would buy any electronic gadgets since they can be had cheaper a bit later; everybody would hold on to their money. So are you buying any gadgets? Again, what are you using to read this article?
In reality, Apple Computer Co. is the world’s most or second-most valuable company, competing with an oil giant for the top spot. And Apple is operating in a deflationary sector of the economy.
Bitcoin may have its flaws, but its deflationary characteristic is not one of them.
The argument against deflation may have one point correct, though. In a deflationary economy — and we see this coming true with electronics, too — people are not buying more than they need at the moment, since it will be cheaper to buy for next year’s needs when next year comes around.
But people only buying what they need — is that really a bad thing?