2. Cohen argues that Bitcoin has a built-in deflation mechanism. As the supply of more Bitcoins run out but the 'bitcoin economy' grows, the value of a single bitcoin will increase over time. Knowing that the value of your bitcoin will increase, it makes sense for a person to save the bitcoin and spend normal money instead, as the normal money is known to lose value over time. Cohen predicts that this will bring bitcoin transactions to a halt and also comments that like point 1, it is an effect that puts early adopters at a considerable advantage.
That makes sense to me,
as long as I have "normal money" to spend. But if I keep spending it, eventually I will run out, unless I replenish my supply by earning more of it one way or another. But when I think about that, I believe I'd be more inclined to earn bitcoin specifically due to its deflationary nature. So eventually I would have no "normal money" left, and only bitcoin, and would gladly spend bitcoin to buy goods and services, regardless of the fact that it'll be worth more in the future than it is now. But critics never think that far, do they?