Hoarding Bitcoin is a Good Thing

[rogerver]

In reference to my previous thread on Greg Maxwell's economic ignorance, yesterday I came across the following tweet from someone who's profile says he writes for CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, and more:
https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/739043164795834368

development
dɪˈvɛləpm(ə)nt
noun
1. the process of developing or being developed.
synonyms: evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress, success, blossoming, blooming, burgeoning,

Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding by Aaron due to English not being his first language, but I will try to clarify for everyone's benefit.
Holding one's savings in a an asset like Bitcoin is what gives it value in the market, and directly furthers its development and use.
People like myself that choose to save a portion of our wealth in Bitcoin is what has resulted in the $9B USD market cap that Bitcoin has today.
This $9B market cap has lead to countless news articles around the world, resulting in millions of new people taking interest in Bitcoin.
I'd also like to point out his use of the term "hoarding". Note that "hoarding" is just a dysphemism for "saving", and saving money is a good thing, as anyone who was paying attention in their high school economics class would know.
If no one had been willing to "hoard" bitcoin, we currently wouldn't have more than just a few dozen people tinkering with Bitcoin as an interesting computer science experiment. Because of these bitcoin "hoarders" we now have the vibrant ecosystem we have today, with millions of active people around the world.
To anyone who has spent any time thinking about these economic issues in relation to bitcoin, it is clear that "hoarding" bitcoin is a good thing, and has directly lead to the development of the ecosystem we have today.

For Aaron, Greg Maxwell, and all of those who haven't spent time studying economics or business, this is a friendly reminder:
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/739064550016704512

Perhaps in the near future I'll write a short piece on comparative advantage and the division of labor. We'd all be better off understanding how those concepts relate to us in the bitcoin ecosystem.

[cypherdoc]

i agree

[chopstick]

Yes, agreed. And I think it's rather pompous that Greg expects you to donate a huge percentage of your holdings to their "development" process which is in itself deeply flawed. Hilarious.

[inBitweTrust]

You are clearly misunderstanding Greg and Aaron who are simply referring to "development" and maintenance of the codebase and not the more generic definition of development which includes saving to increase the market cap , promoting, and educating.

No one individual, neither you nor Greg, has the ability to make or impose economic decisions upon the community. Economic decisions must be made by the community as a whole. Cores code is simply one implementation among many that users, merchants, exchanges, and miners can choose from.

Just because you horde or save bitcoin gives you no right to make mandate or demand other developers what to work on. They can voluntarily choose to work on what they want and you can voluntarily choose what code you use and implementation you support. If you want to convince them to follow certain economic models a much more productive method would be to perform or pay for someone else for testing and show actual data which supports your hypothesis. Thus far the data presented by Gavin , Classic and BU team has been severely lacking. The data you present is full of assumptions and generalizations without understanding the technical nuances. Even Peter Rs newest blogs concerning Xtreme thin blocks isn't very competitive to the relay network or Matt's work on compact blocks.

[inBitweTrust]

It is entirely your choice whether you wish to or not donate directly to development(as in the codebase) but classic clearly doesn't represent any development as can be seen in Greg's insightful post here -

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... ly/d3u3on3

As far as the non-productive, I don't say it lightly-- I think it's an objective fact which is beyond reasonable dispute. Lets look at the evidence.

Here is the development team listed in the release notes for Classic 0.12.1: Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Pedro Pinheiro, Tom Zander, Jon Rumion.

Gavin Andresen :Zero commits to Classic 0.12.1.

Jeff Garzik: Only commit to classic ever is changing a URL from Bitcoin Core to classic, no commits in 0.12.1

Pedro Pinheiro: No commits to 0.12.1 (only code contribution I see in Classic was a hardfork status RPC command that was broken; later fixed by ftrader)

Jon Rumion: Appears to have no commits to classic ever (it may be that they're using a pseudonym in the commit history, or only doing testing or binary builds and no development in 0.12.1).

Tom Zander: In 0.12.1 tweaked some documentation, removed a correct warning that classic nodes were operating under rules inconsistent with what a majority hashpower was signaling.

Copied from core: several bug fixes by Wladimir J. van der Laan, Pieter Wuille.

These kinds of comparisons are inherently pretty approximate, but the results are clear.

Quite literally, even though Classic 0.12.1 takes almost nothing from Core 0.12.1, the developers of Bitcoin Core managed to develop more of classic 0.12.1 than most of the "classic" team combined. And Classic's major novel contribution in Classic 0.12.1 is a clear anti-feature that hides useful information from the user.

In the last month, across all branches, Classic has merged 1 pull request, and had zero new unmerged proposals. By comparison, Core has merged 87 in the same period and 33 propose. Classic has fallen behind protocol development: failing to merge BIP 68 and CSV friends so far, though Core kindly wrote it for them.

To each their own-- they're not bad people for not getting anything done there. But this idea in /r/btc that classic is a functional competing system, just isn't supported by the data. A lot of allegations are made in /r/btc that Core has bad qualities or is unenjoyable to work with, but the reality is that core is very effective and vigorous, and classic is .. not.

This is precisely the outcome you get when you don't have a large, experienced, vibrant team that cares deeply about Bitcoin and the technology supporting the system. And it is the perfectly predictable outcome when someone tries to stage a political coup to over-ride the technical and fundamental-value based reality; and kick out a large and successful community effort.

[Aaron van Wirdum]

No one is arguing that [hodling/investing/saving/hoarding/whatever you want to call it] doesn't help Bitcoin in any way at all, Roger.

What you implied in your previous forum post (and what you said in your Twitter DM you would explain in this post) is that your hoarding furthers Bitcoin development: development of the free and open source software that underlies this industry.

You have failed to provide any evidence backing that claim.

(Even in a more general sense, if you think an increase in monetary value is the primary driver for the typical FOSS developer, I can only assume you haven't met many of them.)

A lot of people in this industry under-appreciate Bitcoin's most active developers; the guys poring their time, talent, and dedication into building this technology, for which they ask nothing in return.

But you consistently go the extra mile. You continue to use your influence to discredit them. You keep repeating the lie that they are not interested in scaling, and suggest they don't understand basic micro-economics - not to mention that you host the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet, and the most dishonest news site.

And now you are taking it to another level. You are effectively taking credit for the work these developers are doing. We should all be thanking you for showing them the light. Please.

Roger, despite all this, I want to like you. You seem like a guy with his heart in the right place, who really cares about Bitcoin, and has done much to promote this project in the past. However, you're also the most severe case of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in my entire life. Someone who doesn't know how to properly construct a transaction (that's assuming you weren't intentionally lying), shouldn't have anywhere near as loud an opinion on one of the toughest security engineering challenges on planet earth.

And since you seem to believe economics is an exact science, I suspect your expertise in that department is sub-par, too. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong: present me an actual argument based on your economic theory, and I'll listen.

So far your contribution to this debate has consisted of wishful thinking, cherry-picking six year old Satoshi Nakamoto quotes, and taking screenshots of stuff you don't like - that's not counting the toxicity. Speaking of division of labour, I'd prefer you'd just stick to promoting Bitcoin.

[helloworld]

No one is arguing that [hodling/investing/saving/hoarding/whatever you want to call it] doesn't help Bitcoin in any way at all, Roger.

What you implied in your previous forum post (and what you said in your Twitter DM you would explain in this post) is that your hoarding furthers Bitcoin development: development of the free and open source software that underlies this industry.

You have failed to provide any evidence backing that claim.

(Even in a more general sense, if you think an increase in monetary value is the primary driver for the typical FOSS developer, I can only assume you haven't met many of them.)

A lot of people in this industry under-appreciate Bitcoin's most active developers; the guys poring their time, talent, and dedication into building this technology, for which they ask nothing in return.

But you consistently go the extra mile. You continue to use your influence to discredit them. You keep repeating the lie that they are not interested in scaling, and suggest they don't understand basic micro-economics - not to mention that you host the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet, and the most dishonest news site.

And now you are taking it to another level. You are effectively taking credit for the work these developers are doing. We should all be thanking you for showing them the light. Please.

Roger, despite all this, I want to like you. You seem like a guy with his heart in the right place, who really cares about Bitcoin, and has done much to promote this project in the past. However, you're also the most severe case of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in my entire life. Someone who doesn't know how to properly construct a transaction (that's assuming you weren't intentionally lying), shouldn't have anywhere near as loud an opinion on one of the toughest security engineering challenges on planet earth.

And since you seem to believe economics is an exact science, I suspect you're expertise in that department is sub-par, too. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong: present me an actual argument based on your economic theory, and I'll listen.

So far your contribution to this debate has consisted of wishful thinking, cherry-picking six year old Satoshi Nakamoto quotes, and taking screenshots of stuff you don't like - that's not counting the toxicity. Speaking of division of labour, I'd prefer you'd just stick to promoting Bitcoin.

[chopstick]

But you consistently go the extra mile. You continue to use your influence to discredit them. You keep repeating the lie that they are not interested in scaling, and suggest they don't understand basic micro-economics - not to mention that you host the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet, and the most dishonest news site.

This is, of-course, a bold faced lie motivated by whatever emotion you happened to be feeling at the time you made this post.

I can't help but laugh at you.

This forum has nothing on bitcointalk. Trolls like iCEBREAKER, Carlton Banks, and many others have turned that place into a fucking moronic cesspool. It is nigh impossible to have any kind of discussion there at all without being attacked by an army of trolls almost instantly.

Also, bitcoin.com's news is not dishonest in the least.

Good day sir, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

In reference to my previous thread on Greg Maxwell's economic ignorance, yesterday I came across the following tweet from someone who's profile says he writes for CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, and more:
https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/739043164795834368

development
dɪˈvɛləpm(ə)nt
noun
1. the process of developing or being developed.
synonyms: evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress, success, blossoming, blooming, burgeoning,

Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding by Aaron due to English not being his first language, but I will try to clarify for everyone's benefit.
Holding one's savings in a an asset like Bitcoin is what gives it value in the market, and directly furthers its development and use.
People like myself that choose to save a portion of our wealth in Bitcoin is what has resulted in the $9B USD market cap that Bitcoin has today.
This $9B market cap has lead to countless news articles around the world, resulting in millions of new people taking interest in Bitcoin.
I'd also like to point out his use of the term "hoarding". Note that "hoarding" is just a dysphemism for "saving", and saving money is a good thing, as anyone who was paying attention in their high school economics class would know.
If no one had been willing to "hoard" bitcoin, we currently wouldn't have more than just a few dozen people tinkering with Bitcoin as an interesting computer science experiment. Because of these bitcoin "hoarders" we now have the vibrant ecosystem we have today, with millions of active people around the world.
To anyone who has spent any time thinking about these economic issues in relation to bitcoin, it is clear that "hoarding" bitcoin is a good thing, and has directly lead to the development of the ecosystem we have today.

For Aaron, Greg Maxwell, and all of those who haven't spent time studying economics or business, this is a friendly reminder:
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/739064550016704512

Perhaps in the near future I'll write a short piece on comparative advantage and the division of labor. We'd all be better off understanding how those concepts relate to us in the bitcoin ecosystem.

So in reality (Aaron van Wirdum), pays to publish articles at Coindesk, for Blockstream (Bitcoin Core) which is affiliated with Bitcoin Magazine.

Talk about an independent writer

I also find it laughable that they are asking you to fund a shady development project (Bitcoin Core) that has conspired to steal millions from people, amongst all the transaction delays, theft from fees and attacks on our network.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes, agreed. And I think it's rather pompous that Greg expects you to donate a huge percentage of your holdings to their "development" process which is in itself deeply flawed. Hilarious.

Deeply flawed??? Majorly flawed, corrupt, insane!!!

Hilarious indeed, what a bunch of nutters.

"We will steal from you..."
"We will debate you..."
"We will call you out..."

Fuck off.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

You are clearly misunderstanding Greg and Aaron who are simply referring to "development" and maintenance of the codebase and not the more generic definition of development which includes saving to increase the market cap , promoting, and educating.

No one individual, neither you nor Greg, has the ability to make or impose economic decisions upon the community. Economic decisions must be made by the community as a whole. Cores code is simply one implementation among many that users, merchants, exchanges, and miners can choose from.

Just because you horde or save bitcoin gives you no right to make mandate or demand other developers what to work on. They can voluntarily choose to work on what they want and you can voluntarily choose what code you use and implementation you support. If you want to convince them to follow certain economic models a much more productive method would be to perform or pay for someone else for testing and show actual data which supports your hypothesis. Thus far the data presented by Gavin , Classic and BU team has been severely lacking. The data you present is full of assumptions and generalizations without understanding the technical nuances. Even Peter Rs newest blogs concerning Xtreme thin blocks isn't very competitive to the relay network or Matt's work on compact blocks.

Wait what, are you saying data presented by Bitcoin Unlimited is lacking? You are truly a first class space cadet today:

post23536.html
post23537.html
post23725.html

I would advise Roger not to spend a dime on Core's shady development project. A development project that is conspiring to steal from its users, attack networks and delay transactions unless gouged for fees.

You guys are sick, what you have turned into is a bunch of greedy pigs. Stealing from your users, causing them aggravation, you should be ashamed of yourselves you pathetic little men.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

No one is arguing that [hodling/investing/saving/hoarding/whatever you want to call it] doesn't help Bitcoin in any way at all, Roger.

What you implied in your previous forum post (and what you said in your Twitter DM you would explain in this post) is that your hoarding furthers Bitcoin development: development of the free and open source software that underlies this industry.

You have failed to provide any evidence backing that claim.

(Even in a more general sense, if you think an increase in monetary value is the primary driver for the typical FOSS developer, I can only assume you haven't met many of them.)

A lot of people in this industry under-appreciate Bitcoin's most active developers; the guys poring their time, talent, and dedication into building this technology, for which they ask nothing in return.

But you consistently go the extra mile. You continue to use your influence to discredit them. You keep repeating the lie that they are not interested in scaling, and suggest they don't understand basic micro-economics - not to mention that you host the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet, and the most dishonest news site.

And now you are taking it to another level. You are effectively taking credit for the work these developers are doing. We should all be thanking you for showing them the light. Please.

Roger, despite all this, I want to like you. You seem like a guy with his heart in the right place, who really cares about Bitcoin, and has done much to promote this project in the past. However, you're also the most severe case of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in my entire life. Someone who doesn't know how to properly construct a transaction (that's assuming you weren't intentionally lying), shouldn't have anywhere near as loud an opinion on one of the toughest security engineering challenges on planet earth.

And since you seem to believe economics is an exact science, I suspect you're expertise in that department is sub-par, too. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong: present me an actual argument based on your economic theory, and I'll listen.

So far your contribution to this debate has consisted of wishful thinking, cherry-picking six year old Satoshi Nakamoto quotes, and taking screenshots of stuff you don't like - that's not counting the toxicity. Speaking of division of labour, I'd prefer you'd just stick to promoting Bitcoin.

I don't think you get it, nobody gives a flying fuck about Core anymore, especially not after all these scams. So, you're broke, thats not our problem, go and get a job, don't steal from us and attack our networks.

You guys are on a level of mental I have never seen before.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

No one is arguing that [hodling/investing/saving/hoarding/whatever you want to call it] doesn't help Bitcoin in any way at all, Roger.

What you implied in your previous forum post (and what you said in your Twitter DM you would explain in this post) is that your hoarding furthers Bitcoin development: development of the free and open source software that underlies this industry.

You have failed to provide any evidence backing that claim.

(Even in a more general sense, if you think an increase in monetary value is the primary driver for the typical FOSS developer, I can only assume you haven't met many of them.)

A lot of people in this industry under-appreciate Bitcoin's most active developers; the guys poring their time, talent, and dedication into building this technology, for which they ask nothing in return.

But you consistently go the extra mile. You continue to use your influence to discredit them. You keep repeating the lie that they are not interested in scaling, and suggest they don't understand basic micro-economics - not to mention that you host the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet, and the most dishonest news site.

And now you are taking it to another level. You are effectively taking credit for the work these developers are doing. We should all be thanking you for showing them the light. Please.

Roger, despite all this, I want to like you. You seem like a guy with his heart in the right place, who really cares about Bitcoin, and has done much to promote this project in the past. However, you're also the most severe case of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in my entire life. Someone who doesn't know how to properly construct a transaction (that's assuming you weren't intentionally lying), shouldn't have anywhere near as loud an opinion on one of the toughest security engineering challenges on planet earth.

And since you seem to believe economics is an exact science, I suspect you're expertise in that department is sub-par, too. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong: present me an actual argument based on your economic theory, and I'll listen.

So far your contribution to this debate has consisted of wishful thinking, cherry-picking six year old Satoshi Nakamoto quotes, and taking screenshots of stuff you don't like - that's not counting the toxicity. Speaking of division of labour, I'd prefer you'd just stick to promoting Bitcoin.

These guys are "whooooooooooooooooooooo crazy", seriously............

[helloworld]

I don't think you get it, nobody gives a flying fuck about Core anymore, especially not after all these scams. So, you're broke, thats not our problem, go and get a job, don't steal from us and attack our networks.
.

Sadly, most of the network still runs Core. :,(

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I don't think you get it, nobody gives a flying fuck about Core anymore, especially not after all these scams. So, you're broke, thats not our problem, go and get a job, don't steal from us and attack our networks.
.

Sadly, most of the network still runs Core. :,(

Rome wasn't built in a day.

[JalToorey]

Hoarding and circulation run in opposite directions. I don't believe ver even took a first year economics course. I would be blown away if he did.

[JalToorey]

Hoarding and circulation are opposites. Ver's argument is not congruent with itself.

[rogerver]

I don't believe ver even took a first year economics course. I would be blown away if he did.

I spent the vast majority of my educational career studying economics.
I suspect that is why I was able to recognize the importance of Bitcoin so much earlier than most people.

Hoarding and circulation are opposites. .

I agree they are opposites, and I don't think I ever said otherwise.

[JalToorey]

I don't believe ver even took a first year economics course. I would be blown away if he did.

I spent the vast majority of my educational career studying economics.
I suspect that is why I was able to recognize the importance of Bitcoin so much earlier than most people.

Then engage in dialogue with me sir, because you will understand me, I am sincere. Also I did not mean to double post. How will you get a population to spend/circulate a currency that is worth hoarding?

[helloworld]

I don't believe ver even took a first year economics course. I would be blown away if he did.

I spent the vast majority of my educational career studying economics.
I suspect that is why I was able to recognize the importance of Bitcoin so much earlier than most people.

Then engage in dialogue with me sir, because you will understand me, I am sincere. Also I did not mean to double post. How will you get a population to spend/circulate a currency that is worth hoarding?

People have needs and desires.

Bitcoin might affect irresponsible spending...but that is a huge positive in my book.

One other user commented once: What would you rather earn for your work? Money that is designed to be worth less tomorrow, or money which is designed to worth more?

[rogerver]

How will you get a population to spend/circulate a currency that is worth hoarding?

I won't. The whole point of Bitcoin is that people can decide for themselves what portion of their bitcoin they should save vs spend. I do a great deal of both.

[JalToorey]

How will you get a population to spend/circulate a currency that is worth hoarding?

I won't. The whole point of Bitcoin is that people can decide for themselves what portion of their bitcoin they should save vs spend. I do a great deal of both.

This is not economic science. I am asking how we are going to get a currency, whats future value is destined (or at least perceived) to rise, to circulate. Because as you know, our ENTIRE global financial system, being Keynesian, in fundamentally based on the principal that money needs to be inflated to encouraged spending.

So it is both a very very simple AND a very economic and scientific question to ask, how is it you are rationalizing a currency that is worth hoarding while simultaneously suggesting to people that it can be mass adopted and circulated?

These things run in opposite directions to each other.

[errrok]

In reference to my previous thread on Greg Maxwell's economic ignorance, yesterday I came across the following tweet from someone who's profile says he writes for CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, and more:
https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/739043164795834368

.

So in reality (Aaron van Wirdum), pays to publish articles at Coindesk, for Blockstream (Bitcoin Core) which is affiliated with Bitcoin Magazine.

Talk about an independent writer

I also find it laughable that they are asking you to fund a shady development project (Bitcoin Core) that has conspired to steal millions from people, amongst all the transaction delays, theft from fees and attacks on our network.

Bit unfair to drag CoinDesk into the mud here

http://www.coindesk.com/author/aaron-van-wirdum/

Wrote just 9 articles and last article was in March 2015, bit before all of the 'block-size debate' went crazy.

[rogerver]

Bit unfair to drag CoinDesk into the mud here

http://www.coindesk.com/author/aaron-van-wirdum/

Wrote just 9 articles and last article was in March 2015, bit before all of the 'block-size debate' went crazy.

I love Coindesk.
The only reason I mentioned them was because he mentioned it in his twitter profile:

[rogerver]

How will you get a population to spend/circulate a currency that is worth hoarding?

I won't. The whole point of Bitcoin is that people can decide for themselves what portion of their bitcoin they should save vs spend. I do a great deal of both.

This is not economic science. I am asking how we are going to get a currency, whats future value is destined (or at least perceived) to rise, to circulate. Because as you know, our ENTIRE global financial system, being Keynesian, in fundamentally based on the principal that money needs to be inflated to encouraged spending.

So it is both a very very simple AND a very economic and scientific question to ask, how is it you are rationalizing a currency that is worth hoarding while simultaneously suggesting to people that it can be mass adopted and circulated?

These things run in opposite directions to each other.

I read John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money from cover to cover when I was younger.
I think the difference is that you were fooled by it.
I would suggest that you start with some of the works by Ludwig von Mises.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bit unfair to drag CoinDesk into the mud here

http://www.coindesk.com/author/aaron-van-wirdum/

Wrote just 9 articles and last article was in March 2015, bit before all of the 'block-size debate' went crazy.

I love Coindesk.
The only reason I mentioned them was because he mentioned it in his twitter profile:

Me as well, + coinbase.com

Understanding pirate talk can be challenging at times

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

In reference to my previous thread on Greg Maxwell's economic ignorance, yesterday I came across the following tweet from someone who's profile says he writes for CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, and more:
https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/739043164795834368

.

So in reality (Aaron van Wirdum), pays to publish articles at Coindesk, for Blockstream (Bitcoin Core) which is affiliated with Bitcoin Magazine.

Talk about an independent writer

I also find it laughable that they are asking you to fund a shady development project (Bitcoin Core) that has conspired to steal millions from people, amongst all the transaction delays, theft from fees and attacks on our network.

Bit unfair to drag CoinDesk into the mud here

http://www.coindesk.com/author/aaron-van-wirdum/

Wrote just 9 articles and last article was in March 2015, bit before all of the 'block-size debate' went crazy.

I've sent handfuls of clients coindesk's way

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I won't. The whole point of Bitcoin is that people can decide for themselves what portion of their bitcoin they should save vs spend. I do a great deal of both.

This is not economic science. I am asking how we are going to get a currency, whats future value is destined (or at least perceived) to rise, to circulate. Because as you know, our ENTIRE global financial system, being Keynesian, in fundamentally based on the principal that money needs to be inflated to encouraged spending.

So it is both a very very simple AND a very economic and scientific question to ask, how is it you are rationalizing a currency that is worth hoarding while simultaneously suggesting to people that it can be mass adopted and circulated?

These things run in opposite directions to each other.

I read John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money from cover to cover when I was younger.
I think the difference is that you were fooled by it.
I would suggest that you start with some of the works by Ludwig von Mises.

The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution.

[JalToorey]

I read John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money from cover to cover when I was younger.
I think the difference is that you were fooled by it.
I would suggest that you start with some of the works by Ludwig von Mises.

Yes I already pointed out your unwillingness and inability to address the question. go read a book is not at all addressing a question, especially one so basic and fundamental as mine.

I ask you what your plan is to get a hodl'd currency to be circulated and you tell me "I don't have or need a plan".

Is your reading comprehension that bad? I am asking, given YOUR model that you are ESPOUSING...how do you resolve the fact that your players need to be circulating something they are hoarding in order for bitcoin to be adopted.

It is a very very simply question. Easy enough to understand I think, and it completely shows that your model, your conception, your economics, the picture you paint, is non-sensical in relation to its own SELF.

If bitcoin is perceived to continue to rise in value then it will not be circulated, I think even a child could understand the simplicity of this. Will you address the question, or continue to dodge will spouting irrational non-sense, and claim to understand economics because you have read Keynes?

(in b4 "I don't have to answer your stupid questions!)

[rogerver]

I disagree with your fundamental premise that someone needs to make sure Bitcoin or other currencies are "circulated".
Since I don't think what you are suggesting needs to be done, I don't have a plan on how to do it.

I think I have a better understanding of economics than most from having read Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, and others. I've also read Marx, Keynes, and Galbraith, but I disagree with their points of view.