Yes, I think it is inevitable that we'll see competition from big banks, Visa, Mastercard, and their brethren. Eventually, governments.

"Inflation steals wealth". Totally agree, and I think it's even worse than that. I think inflation, at least in part, reallocates wealth directly to those who earn profits (stockholders for the most part). Thus, inflation steals from those who can't invest (the poor) and gives to those who can (the rich). For that reason I agree that inflation is immoral.

You make a good point about how things play out in practice. I don't know yet how much I agree with it, but it is a good point. Quibble, your example is bad. Food is a necessity. Other things can wait. Under deflation, purchases will be deferred and economic activity will slow. With "small enough" deflation, the tendency might be smaller or, as you say, hard to even notice. Still, at some rate of deflation, it will have negative effects. The main point I take away from your post, though, is a behavioral one. If inflation or deflation is small enough to not be noticeable day-to-day, people will likely act more like it isn't happening.

I totally agree with your post. I will add, though, that the proposal to let the number of coins increase to keep inflation near 0 is not easy. That is the job of the Federal Reserve, and we have a whole governmental entity devoted to it. If you could solve that algorithmically, you'd have a Nobel Prize. It is the right thing to do; it's just not easy. That being said, does the math behind bitcoin depend on their being a hard limit to the number of coins? Could I start my own foocoin (i.e. a new bitcoin root) with a larger limit? At what point does the cryptography break, or does it? Can I have no limit? If it is the case that you can start your own bitcoin root with no limit on the number of coins, then eventually the government will do so, declaring by fiat that that electronic currency is now the official electronic currency (and probably also by fiat equivalent to a physical unit (dollar, dime, penny, whatever)). Thus, I predict that if and when electronic currency starts to become generally accepted, the government will start its own.

Savings shouldn't lose or gain value. Investments should. Currency should not be an investment. Assets (stocks, real-estate, interest-bearing instruments) should gain value. Bitcoin is an asset, not a currency.

If Bitcoin is to function as a currency, rather than an investment asset, its value needs to be stable with respect to the real-world goods people buy. People expect things to cost about the same today as they did yesterday. We accept inflation because we don't know how to eliminate it, but we try to keep it low. When you have deflation it has negative effects on the economy. People have an incentive to put off today's purchases until tomorrow because the things will be cheaper tomorrow. This acts as an overall drag on the economy. You want your currency to have a neutral effect with respect to economic decisions.

Bitcoin is an asset, not a token. Please comment. Specifically, as an economy grows, governments (e.g. the US Fed.) produce more currency to keep pace, attempting to keep inflation in check. This is the right thing to do, although that view is not universally held, especially by proponents of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is intentionally designed so that it's value will not be stable. It is designed as an asset not a currency. This factor is, IMO, the main reason people have concerns about the deflationary/ponzi nature of bitcoin. Isn't the inability of bitcoin to maintain stable value (e.g. vis-a-vis a loaf of bread) in a growing economy a deadly flaw?

Point taken, no one's indispensible. But if he's just the same old guy doing the same old job, he wouldn't have posted his question. I think we can just take as a given that he's somehow, someway worth more than he's currently being paid. Again, if that's not true, there's nothing to even think about. Let's give the guy some credit to not be that clueless. So, what he should do is tell his bosses/clients: 1) I'm making significant contributions now, beyond the scope of what I was hired to do. (And be able to back the claim up. 2) Others in the industry with this kind of responsibility get compensation package A, but I only get package B. 3) I think I should get something on par with B. If the company has the revenue/cash reserves to simply pay B, they won't give any kind of equity. If the company doesn't, then getting paid in some form of equity might happen.

I agree that he's probably not indispensable. But we can't know that. If he is not indispensable, then there's really no issue. He's lucky to have a job. If he is indispensable, he should be paid accordingly. The rate he got hired at as a contractor is no longer appropriate. He's no longer just a contractor, in fact if not in title. He's perfectly entitled to request more. It would, as you say, be bad for everyone if he did it by holding the company's operations hostage. That doesn't change the fact that he is now under-compensated. It's unprofessional of the company's owners not to have already recognized his value and offered to pay him commensurately. So, yes he needs to approach this tactfully, but I think it still remains that he is certainly entitled to ask, and probably entitled to receive more compensation.

Yes, there are any number of ways to structure a sale so that those in power get a lot and those not in power get little if anything. A sale rarely is so simple as "we'll pay you $X and you have N shares and options outstanding".

All true. However, the premise of the scenario is the guy thinks he has become indispensable. So, he is in a position of forcing the owners' hands. They should not have gotten into such a position. Now that they are, the contractor is in a good position to make this request. Of course it has to be done delicately, because, as you said, the owners will likely be defensive when put in an awkward position. But the point about the owners taking the risk is spot on. The contractor needs to frame this as him wanting to become even more committed to the company. He can't frame it as "wow, you guys might hit it big, and golly, I'd like me some of that moolah".

It's the other way around. Folks who have equity stand to lose money if the company goes under. That's why they have a vested interest in its success. The equity is the cause of the risk.

Yes ask! But not this way. Don't ask them to make the first offer. Don't sound like you're asking them to do you a favor. And don't say you "feel" a "certain sense" of "ownership". You get paid for what you do, not what you feel. "Certain sense" is just being wishy-washy. You don't own anything. They started the company, not you. Don't be a cocky dick about anything, but be direct and confident about what you want and why it makes sense for them and you.

Nothing of what parent said is wrong, per se, but it also does not follow that any of that precludes you from asking. There is no independent answer for "what do you deserve". You only deserve what you can negotiate. Often your negotiations are constrained by what others do (e.g. salaries are constrained by what others are willing to work for), but ultimately you won't get more if you don't ask/negotiate for it.

I can't second that strongly enough, though it may not be achievable. You should hire a lawyer to advise you on the various kinds of stock and which you really want, and what the tax consequences are. And don't take the company's word on the company's valuation (which will affect how much stock/options you get and at what price), unless there has been a recent large investment which carries its own implicit or explicit valuation. Do your own due diligence. Again, if you don't know how to value the company, find someone who can.