I mean... that's not what that means [1]. Monetarists use the "Equation of Exchange" [2] to determine/define inflation.
> I'm not talking about an asset that always increases in value. I'm talking about a fixed supply of money, which would on average always represent more value (since the economy is growing on average) year after year.
Bitcoin is an asset -- "always represent more value" is another way of saying "increase in value". What's the thesis here -- Bitcoin will decrease in value because it will increase in value? I think you'd do well to take a moment to digest what your argument is.
You're far from alone here; many people are under the impression that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. This is a very common trope, made more annoying by the fact that Bitcoin proponents have a lean towards the Austrian school of economics, which defines "deflation" and "inflation" to mean a decrease (and increase) in the money supply, independent of prices. But that's not the mainstream definition of inflation; mainstream economics uses "debasement" to refer to the direct increase in the money supply, but it is used rarely since most economic schools feel that the money supply is only very weakly coupled to price inflation.