Hoarding Bitcoin is a Good Thing

[Aaron van Wirdum]

Couple of points:

1) "the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet" wasn't referring to forum.bitcoin.com, it was referring to r/btc.

2) Couple of posters seem to refer to me as "these guys". Not sure why; I'm just one guy.

3) I'm not asking Roger to fund Bitcoin development. I'm just pointing out that him hodling bitcoin doesn't.

4) Couple of posters have said there's something ironic about my post. I would like to point out that's not an actual argument. If you have one, feel free to present it.

5) Regarding the discussion on deflationary currency: that's a great example of why economics is not an exact science. If economics were an exact science, we'd be doing tests in a closed setting, we'd be able to repeat these tests, and we'd be able to predict the outcome of these tests. None of this is possible for economics. At best, we can construct a model and compare it to real-world examples. But real-world examples are typically subject to a million different and ever changing factors. And in general, economists tend to use examples that fit their model to confirm their thesis, and explain away examples that don't. Indeed, many economists seem to forget that the model they are applying is something they came up with in their own head - not a natural law. Therefore, any claim by an economist to some higher truth, and them dismissing anyone who isn't aware of this "higher truth" as ignorant, is in my opinion - well - ignorant.

[Steffenpp]

Roger waves his arms, talks about ego, but he is leading the charge when it comes to throwing mud against bitcoin developers. Who does he think he is?

[JalToorey]

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.

Thank you for the response.

I think it is important to read the literature. I have read some, but also no doubt stuff you have not. Nonetheless there is also fundamental understand, simplicity, and observable reality (either today or history).

You have already agreed with me that hoarding and circulation are in opposite directions.

People cannot hoard and circulate at the same time in economic science. Such a notion is absurd.

People hoard good money, money that is expected to rise in value, and they spend bad money, money that is declining in value (ie inflating).

My understanding is you agree with this, and I do know that economic science see this as completely accepted.

As a matter of fact our entire global financial system is based on this principle, and I might add it is not "mistakenly" based on it. That is to say, it is not a premise of the system, it is how it OBSERVABLE Y works.

You don't "have a plan" and you don't think you need a "plan", but you certainly do need an explanation other wise anything you are espousing is clearly based on irrational logic sir.

If bitcoin is destined to go up in value, people will not spend it (again this is observable reality as we can see bitcoin is not gaining any significant merchant). People will hoard it and they will circulate the money they do not want.

You do not have a coherent argument until you can explain how the hoarders will eventually circulate bitcoin. If you want to ignore the implications of rational actors then you are ignoring the science of economics, and you have no claim vs others in regard to science.

Edit/Cliffs: To be clear you ABSOLUTELY do need to resolve this point otherwise your argument does not hold water in academia or under any pretense of "economics".

[JalToorey]

5) Regarding the discussion on deflationary currency: that's a great example of why economics is not an exact science. If economics were an exact science, we'd be doing tests in a closed setting, we'd be able to repeat these tests, and we'd be able to predict the outcome of these tests. None of this is possible for economics. At best, we can construct a model and compare it to real-world examples. But real-world examples are typically subject to a million different and ever changing factors. And in general, economists tend to use examples that fit their model to confirm their thesis, and explain away examples that don't. Indeed, many economists seem to forget that the model they are applying is something they came up with in their own head - not a natural law. Therefore, any claim by an economist to some higher truth, and them dismissing anyone who isn't aware of this "higher truth" as ignorant, is in my opinion - well - ignorant.

Yes we all love to be like "hey science isn't perfect therefore my theory/argument is valid" but what happens is your theory/argument can be valid, just not scientifically, nor academically (in other words learned people will have none of it).

I am saying something very very simple, and observable reality has not refuted it. Nor any limitations on experiment that you are using for obfuscation on the matter.

People do not spend that which they are hoarding, this is simple, obvious, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. It is also accepted science.

So how do you resolve such a model that suggests people will hoard bitcoin all the way until it is circulated? Those are in different directions and flies against both conjectural science AND observable reality. It also goes against common sense.

[JalToorey]

Are you trying to justify your conclusion or are you actually considering the question?

You have not come across someone with the perspective or knowledge that I have.

I am asking THE most important question in the world.

[JalToorey]

Sorry for the triple+ post.

Sirs, can you tell me how you think this will play out? Do you understand what I mean to ask...give me your narration please in regard to the present to the near and far future of bitcoin in relation to the global economy/financial system. (hopefully in relation to my question)

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

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.

You definitely have the "right" understanding of economics.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Couple of points:

1) "the most toxic Bitcoin-forum on the internet" wasn't referring to forum.bitcoin.com, it was referring to r/btc.

2) Couple of posters seem to refer to me as "these guys". Not sure why; I'm just one guy.

3) I'm not asking Roger to fund Bitcoin development. I'm just pointing out that him hodling bitcoin doesn't.

4) Couple of posters have said there's something ironic about my post. I would like to point out that's not an actual argument. If you have one, feel free to present it.

5) Regarding the discussion on deflationary currency: that's a great example of why economics is not an exact science. If economics were an exact science, we'd be doing tests in a closed setting, we'd be able to repeat these tests, and we'd be able to predict the outcome of these tests. None of this is possible for economics. At best, we can construct a model and compare it to real-world examples. But real-world examples are typically subject to a million different and ever changing factors. And in general, economists tend to use examples that fit their model to confirm their thesis, and explain away examples that don't. Indeed, many economists seem to forget that the model they are applying is something they came up with in their own head - not a natural law. Therefore, any claim by an economist to some higher truth, and them dismissing anyone who isn't aware of this "higher truth" as ignorant, is in my opinion - well - ignorant.

Who are you to say which is a toxic place and which isn't? This is your opinion, not the opinion of the people. When people are mad, furious, out-raged, at what is happening in their economy, you can expect to see what you are seeing. Our users are getting ripped off, scammed, thieved. Our networks have been attacked, my network has been attacked. All due to Blockstream and Core associates.

I'd suggest focusing on being a real journalist and writer, instead of telling who to invest money where.

Roger's motive is to see Bitcoin do well, your motives are to further a corrupt agenda. You are the bad people, not us.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Roger waves his arms, talks about ego, but he is leading the charge when it comes to throwing mud against bitcoin developers. Who does he think he is?

The fuck are you talking about??????

Roger is your definition of a peaceful person. I've never seen him pull out the ego card, not publicly or privatley. This is a man who needs Bitcoin to survive. Not only does he have fortunes invested, he is one of the earliest investors of Bitcoin.

We are throwing rocks at Bitcoin Core because you have lied to people, ruined careers and continue to push Bitcoin towards a settlement system with a goal of stealing peoples money through Lightning networks. Blockstream & Bitcoin Core members have a bad history of scamming, not just 1 person, over 10!!!! Google their names for your proof.

We're not going to allow Bitcoin to be held hostage by banks or governments. We will do everything in our power to protect against this and we will win. Bitcoin is a Peer 2 Peer electronic cash system, not a Bank 2 Peer 2 whatever else you decide to mold Bitcoin Core into.

You guys really think you are going to succeed, fucking hilarious

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

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.

Thank you for the response.

I think it is important to read the literature. I have read some, but also no doubt stuff you have not. Nonetheless there is also fundamental understand, simplicity, and observable reality (either today or history).

You have already agreed with me that hoarding and circulation are in opposite directions.

People cannot hoard and circulate at the same time in economic science. Such a notion is absurd.

People hoard good money, money that is expected to rise in value, and they spend bad money, money that is declining in value (ie inflating).

My understanding is you agree with this, and I do know that economic science see this as completely accepted.

As a matter of fact our entire global financial system is based on this principle, and I might add it is not "mistakenly" based on it. That is to say, it is not a premise of the system, it is how it OBSERVABLE Y works.

You don't "have a plan" and you don't think you need a "plan", but you certainly do need an explanation other wise anything you are espousing is clearly based on irrational logic sir.

If bitcoin is destined to go up in value, people will not spend it (again this is observable reality as we can see bitcoin is not gaining any significant merchant). People will hoard it and they will circulate the money they do not want.

You do not have a coherent argument until you can explain how the hoarders will eventually circulate bitcoin. If you want to ignore the implications of rational actors then you are ignoring the science of economics, and you have no claim vs others in regard to science.

Edit/Cliffs: To be clear you ABSOLUTELY do need to resolve this point otherwise your argument does not hold water in academia or under any pretense of "economics".

From what it looks like to me, nobody is interested in debating you. Nobody is going to debate a bunch of scammers that is pushing Bitcoin to be a settlement system with bank and government control.

We have tens of thousands of users on our side who do not want to change Bitcoin to this, you have what, 70 people and corrupt control of Bitcoin Core development. Not to mention all the corrupt statistics you push out on a daily basis. It is mind boggling how bad you want this even though in the end your plan will never amount to anything. Nobody will use it.

You scammers are nuts!!!!!!!!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

5) Regarding the discussion on deflationary currency: that's a great example of why economics is not an exact science. If economics were an exact science, we'd be doing tests in a closed setting, we'd be able to repeat these tests, and we'd be able to predict the outcome of these tests. None of this is possible for economics. At best, we can construct a model and compare it to real-world examples. But real-world examples are typically subject to a million different and ever changing factors. And in general, economists tend to use examples that fit their model to confirm their thesis, and explain away examples that don't. Indeed, many economists seem to forget that the model they are applying is something they came up with in their own head - not a natural law. Therefore, any claim by an economist to some higher truth, and them dismissing anyone who isn't aware of this "higher truth" as ignorant, is in my opinion - well - ignorant.

Yes we all love to be like "hey science isn't perfect therefore my theory/argument is valid" but what happens is your theory/argument can be valid, just not scientifically, nor academically (in other words learned people will have none of it).

I am saying something very very simple, and observable reality has not refuted it. Nor any limitations on experiment that you are using for obfuscation on the matter.

People do not spend that which they are hoarding, this is simple, obvious, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. It is also accepted science.

So how do you resolve such a model that suggests people will hoard bitcoin all the way until it is circulated? Those are in different directions and flies against both conjectural science AND observable reality. It also goes against common sense.

What you are saying is we should all spend our fortunes in savings of which is Bitcoin, you are seriously off your rocker. You can spend all your money, I am going to save + spend mine.

We already give-back to the community. Roger spends tens of thousands each month on IT, salaries and investing into Bitcoin. That is not hoarding Bitcoin, that is investing.

How many donations have you personally made? I know that if we publish Roger's donations versus yours, he will come out 100,000% on-top. This is a guy who loves to help people.

Your arguments are piss-poor.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Are you trying to justify your conclusion or are you actually considering the question?

You have not come across someone with the perspective or knowledge that I have.

I am asking THE most important question in the world.

The most important question in the world would be something like, "How do we end poverty for everyone". Or, "How do we cure all diseases".

You have no first-hand knowledge, your arguments are piss-poor, you fool nobody. I would assume that this is the reason you are on here lobbying bullshit instead of doing some real good in the world.

What a mixed bag of marbles you guys are!!!!!!!!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Sorry for the triple+ post.

Sirs, can you tell me how you think this will play out? Do you understand what I mean to ask...give me your narration please in regard to the present to the near and far future of bitcoin in relation to the global economy/financial system. (hopefully in relation to my question)

Core's plan will fail, nobody will use Core or Lightning. Nobody is going to give any real time of day to a bunch of hustling scammers with insane motives.

How can I be anymore clear?????

[JalToorey]

I maintain the citizens of this world, the players in our global economy, cannot be expected to circulate a currency they are hoarding because these two actions are polar opposites of each other.

I am not a scammer, I do not need to read mises or whomever to make the question valid.

It is BASIC economics and accepted as science.

I have shown that Ver's argument is not rational because it is inconsistent with itself.

And now we have a trail of posts here, reddit, and twitter, showing this group unwillingness to directly address this obvious incoherence.

Who will address the simple question of how we are expecting hoarders to circulate what they are hoarding?

[JalToorey]

, nobody will use Core or Lightning. Nobody is going to give any real time of day to a bunch of hustling scammers with insane motives.

How can I be anymore clear?????

Yes you post your opinion a ton, and its clear, but it flies in the face observable reality. Core is not budging and the anti-core argument is clearly waning, while the price of bitcoin is increasing REGARDLESS of this groups sentiments that bitcoin cannot be successful with this block size state.

Reality is proving you wrong, and your sentiments are in conflict with themselves.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I maintain the citizens of this world, the players in our global economy, cannot be expected to circulate a currency they are hoarding because these two actions are polar opposites of each other.

I am not a scammer, I do not need to read mises or whomever to make the question valid.

It is BASIC economics and accepted as science.

I have shown that Ver's argument is not rational because it is inconsistent with itself.

And now we have a trail of posts here, reddit, and twitter, showing this group unwillingness to directly address this obvious incoherence.

Who will address the simple question of how we are expecting hoarders to circulate what they are hoarding?

No, you are attempting to take Bitcoin and steer it down a bumpy road for commercial purposes, run by banks and governments.

This won't work and time will show you this.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

, nobody will use Core or Lightning. Nobody is going to give any real time of day to a bunch of hustling scammers with insane motives.

How can I be anymore clear?????

Yes you post your opinion a ton, and its clear, but it flies in the face observable reality. Core is not budging and the anti-core argument is clearly waning, while the price of bitcoin is increasing REGARDLESS of this groups sentiments that bitcoin cannot be successful with this block size state.

Reality is proving you wrong, and your sentiments are in conflict with themselves.

Reality is not proving me wrong. All we have is a bunch of bad guys propping up Bitcoin. I wasn't born yesterday

On the bright side, I've seen this done many times and have witnessed the failure first hand.

As for Core, I don't care if they budge or not. I was a Core supporter a couple of years ago until their direction started going downhill. They are hopeless, they cannot be helped, they are headed for failure.

Now, I will use software that I believe in, that I see a future in and which is safe to me.

Your biggest enemy is new user adoption, which you don't and won't have. Pad the numbers all you can, it will all come crashing down because it is not from organic growth.

Let's re-visit this conversation in 36 months and see where we are at, agreed?

[JalToorey]

Let's re-visit this conversation in 36 months and see where we are at, agreed?

Yes you want to address the question in 3 years time.

I cannot force any of you to admit the obvious truth. I cannot force you to answer my question. But I can show repeatedly that each of you will use any tactic you can in order to dodge the simple question:

How does a hoarded asset circulate?

And we create a public trail of constant derailing from a fundamental economic truth.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Let's re-visit this conversation in 36 months and see where we are at, agreed?

Yes you want to address the question in 3 years time.

I cannot force any of you to admit the obvious truth. I cannot force you to answer my question. But I can show repeatedly that each of you will use any tactic you can in order to dodge the simple question:

How does a hoarded asset circulate?

And we create a public trail of constant derailing from a fundamental economic truth.

Your question is directed towards Roger, not me.

I've already explained to you that I consider it saving. Nobody is going to tell me what I should spend or save, I'll decide that on my own.

To clarify that for you, it's the investors choice whether or not to hold or sell their asset. Therefor, it doesn't need to circulate if the investors intention is holding it. In this case, it would be considered a long-term asset.

You really should study economics!

Let's re-visit the state of Bitcoin Core in 36 months.

[JalToorey]

Yes you want to address the question in 3 years time.

I cannot force any of you to admit the obvious truth. I cannot force you to answer my question. But I can show repeatedly that each of you will use any tactic you can in order to dodge the simple question:

How does a hoarded asset circulate?

And we create a public trail of constant derailing from a fundamental economic truth.

Your question is directed towards Roger, not me.

I've already explained to you that I consider it saving. Nobody is going to tell me what I should spend or save, I'll decide that on my own.

To clarify that for you, it's the investors choice whether or not to hold or sell their asset. Therefor, it doesn't need to circulate if the investors intention is holding it. In this case, it would be considered a long-term asset.

You really should study economics!

Let's re-visit the state of Bitcoin Core in 36 months.[/quote]Yes and so you have left no room in your answer for a currency, which implies CIRCULATION. You don't have a money on your hand you have a gold.

You don't even understand the question, but you are still able to show that you are mistaken in your belief. A hoarded commodity is not a global currency. Just like gold is not a currency.

People spend and pass inflated money, this is accepted economic science, under Gresham's law, and there is a plethora of observable history to prove its truth.

Your understanding is flawed and it is easy for readers to see.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes you want to address the question in 3 years time.

I cannot force any of you to admit the obvious truth. I cannot force you to answer my question. But I can show repeatedly that each of you will use any tactic you can in order to dodge the simple question:

How does a hoarded asset circulate?

And we create a public trail of constant derailing from a fundamental economic truth.

Your question is directed towards Roger, not me.

I've already explained to you that I consider it saving. Nobody is going to tell me what I should spend or save, I'll decide that on my own.

To clarify that for you, it's the investors choice whether or not to hold or sell their asset. Therefor, it doesn't need to circulate if the investors intention is holding it. In this case, it would be considered a long-term asset.

You really should study economics!

Let's re-visit the state of Bitcoin Core in 36 months.

Yes and so you have left no room in your answer for a currency, which implies CIRCULATION. You don't have a money on your hand you have a gold.

You don't even understand the question, but you are still able to show that you are mistaken in your belief. A hoarded commodity is not a global currency. Just like gold is not a currency.

People spend and pass inflated money, this is accepted economic science, under Gresham's law, and there is a plethora of observable history to prove its truth.

Your understanding is flawed and it is easy for readers to see.

You referred to Bitcoin as an asset, therefor the information I gave you was directed to assets.

People do spend and pass inflated money, this doesn't make it sound. This is a good example of how the USD and YUAN crash all the time. Up until recently, the USD was at historic lows.

If you need to tell readers what to believe, then this is where you have a problem.

Poor Bitcoin, under attack from bankers

[JalToorey]

Yes you agree with me that we inflate our currencies so people spend them. Curious what you feel the usd was down against.

Nonetheless you fail to acknowledge the absurdity of expecting a market to circulate that which they are hoarding and it is very telling...

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes you agree with me that we inflate our currencies so people spend them. Curious what you feel the usd was down against.

Nonetheless you fail to acknowledge the absurdity of expecting a market to circulate that which they are hoarding and it is very telling...

Bankers making horrible decisions, or did you forget the mortgage crisis amongst all the other scams these institutions signed off on.

Recession? Your bankers caused this.

I don't see how we can further this argument, you are clearly a sore loser.

Again, hit me up in 36 months and let's review the status of Core

[JalToorey]

Yes you agree with me that we inflate our currencies so people spend them. Curious what you feel the usd was down against.

Nonetheless you fail to acknowledge the absurdity of expecting a market to circulate that which they are hoarding and it is very telling...

Bankers making horrible decisions, or did you forget the mortgage crisis amongst all the other scams these institutions signed off on.

Recession? Your bankers caused this.

I don't see how we can further this argument, you are clearly a sore loser.

Again, hit me up in 36 months and let's review the status of Core

To be clear you claiming to understand how the global financial system works? Because I don't think you are, but you are alluding to it. Are you claiming to understand our global economy?

[zju]

Hoarded bitcoins are unavailable while they are off the market. Increased hoarding reduces the supply, which leads to a higher price. As I understand it, this is the core argument for "hoarding is a good thing".

However, it must be noted that hoarding has no purpose unless the coins already have value. I could hoard 256-bit numbers on a computer at home, but they would still never have any value. Hoarding does not give coins value. Instead. it increases the value that they already have by reducing the supply of valuable coins. Circulation is what gives the coins the initial value.

In short,
Circulation: necessary and good
Hoarding: not necessary, but still good

[JalToorey]

Hoarded bitcoins are unavailable while they are off the market. Increased hoarding reduces the supply, which leads to a higher price. As I understand it, this is the core argument for "hoarding is a good thing".

However, it must be noted that hoarding has no purpose unless the coins already have value. I could hoard 256-bit numbers on a computer at home, but they would still never have any value. Hoarding does not give coins value. Instead. it increases the value that they already have by reducing the supply of valuable coins. Circulation is what gives the coins the initial value.

In short,
Circulation: necessary and good
Hoarding: not necessary, but still good

This is amazing. Sure everything you say is fine. But how does bitcoin become a world CURRENCY, that CIRCULATES, if it is being continually HOARDED.

Circulation does not drive up the price of a currency, and regardless all you are suggesting is that eventually circulation will drive up price. This would cause people to hoard, and not circulate bitcoin.

Bitcoin, as it's inflation schedule stands, is NOT set to be a mass circulated currency. Money doesn't work like this.

And I maintain this is basic and clear accepted economics.

[zju]

But how does bitcoin become a world CURRENCY, that CIRCULATES, if it is being continually HOARDED.

There are always bitcoins available to be circulated. Currently, there are approximately 1,500,000,000,000,000 satoshis. Even if 90% are hoarded, there are still 150,000,000,000,000 satoshis being used.

Circulation does not drive up the price of a currency,...

"Circulation" is an ambiguous term. I'm really writing about MV = PQ. Ignoring V, the value of the money supply (M) depends on circulation, represented by PQ.

... circulation will drive up price. This would cause people to hoard, and not circulate bitcoin

I agree. An increasing value could cause people to save more, possibly to excess. That could potentially result in non-ideal economic conditions, but excessive saving does not necessarily lead to a catastrophe -- fears of a deflationary spiral are overblown.

Bitcoin, as it's inflation schedule stands, is NOT set to be a mass circulated currency. Money doesn't work like this.

Grandiose statements such as those need to be backed up.

[JalToorey]

There are always bitcoins available to be circulated. Currently, there are approximately 1,500,000,000,000,000 satoshis. Even if 90% are hoarded, there are still 150,000,000,000,000 satoshis being used.

This does not address the nature of the markets. When hoarding and circulation are in opposite directions you cannot build a world currency on hoarding. There needs to be incentive to circulate it, and there is not. This is quite clear, and I am confident, after reading your post that you can understand this. You CHOOSE to look past it, because it does not fall in line with the story you are telling yourself of what bitcoin is and what it is to be.

"Circulation" is an ambiguous term. I'm really writing about MV = PQ. Ignoring V, the value of the money supply (M) depends on circulation, represented by PQ.

I think you are saying, the more people spend/part with a money, the more valuable it is. And that your conclusion is that if we make lots and lots of transactions, the money will be worth more. We could devise some experiments for this, but they won't be reasonable, and they won't show the truth fo this.

I agree. An increasing value could cause people to save more, possibly to excess. That could potentially result in non-ideal economic conditions, but excessive saving does not necessarily lead to a catastrophe -- fears of a deflationary spiral are overblown.

I hope that you do agree, because it is accepted economic science, and observable reality that we have data on. Now, all of a sudden you suggest that would lead to "non-IDEAL" economic conditions...which is remarkable because Nash believes it will LITERALLY lead to Ideal conditions.

The deflationary spiral, of a currency, would be terrible, as a currency, because currency has its roots in latin "to circulate". But the result, in regard to the world currencies that exist today, would be an asymptotic trend towards money that's value stays at par for all time.

A myth no one believes in because they are doing the math backwards.

Grandiose statements such as those need to be backed up.

I have taught you something in a strange way. And your last line here says nothing but, "I will believe it when I see it".

Nonetheless I have shown that big-blockers do not have an argument based on accepted science.

[zju]

There are always bitcoins available to be circulated. Currently, there are approximately 1,500,000,000,000,000 satoshis. Even if 90% are hoarded, there are still 150,000,000,000,000 satoshis being used.

This does not address the nature of the markets. When hoarding and circulation are in opposite directions you cannot build a world currency on hoarding. There needs to be incentive to circulate it, and there is not. This is quite clear, and I am confident, after reading your post that you can understand this. You CHOOSE to look past it, because it does not fall in line with the story you are telling yourself of what bitcoin is and what it is to be.

What do you mean there is no incentive to circulate? There are many advantages to using Bitcoin as a payment system.

"Circulation" is an ambiguous term. I'm really writing about MV = PQ. Ignoring V, the value of the money supply (M) depends on circulation, represented by PQ.

I think you are saying, the more people spend/part with a money, the more valuable it is. And that your conclusion is that if we make lots and lots of transactions, the money will be worth more. We could devise some experiments for this, but they won't be reasonable, and they won't show the truth for this.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is a maximum number of bitcoins that can be used in transactions during any period of time. That makes bitcoins a scarce resource and it gives them value. The more demand for bitcoins for use in transactions, the higher the value.

[JalToorey]

What do you mean there is no incentive to circulate? There are many advantages to using Bitcoin as a payment system.

Circulation and hoarding are opposite words. When there is incentive to hoard, there is NOT incentive to circulate. This is a scientifically accepted truth.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is a maximum number of bitcoins that can be used in transactions during any period of time. That makes bitcoins a scarce resource and it gives them value. The more demand for bitcoins for use in transactions, the higher the value.

Yes I understand you, but you are saying something that is non-sensical. When people circulate money, it is not getting more "scarce". It does not create value. Circulated money does not go up in value. Hoarded money goes up in value. This is how accepted economic science works. Otherwise we could just keep sending bitcoin's back and forth and the price would go to the moon. That is absurd.