Ultimately, limited supply nature distinguish bitcoin from other fiat/electronic currencies,this is one key feature of bitcoin, and probably why it attracts people. (Too much inflationary, central controlled currencies already)
The question in my original post is if the "saving" habits together with the deflationary aspects of bitcoin cause its overall impact on economy limited in scope. I fully expect bitcoin to be successful as a special "asset", but as a "currency", if it is constantly appreciating against other everyday life assets like housing/food/energy, then if people have choices of token asset to spend (either a fiat currency, a bitcoin, a central controlled electronic currency, a whatever medium of exchange with certain popularity), people will choose the one has high probability of depreciating in value to spend. The supplier, on the other hand, is in the position earning money, so usually want to accept what ever that is popular/liquid in nature. ( He can then later exchange this popular currency into a currency that is deflationary to "save" or "hoard" ). By the mechanism of these micro-economic behavior, deflationary currency have a tendency to quit the market ( as a currency, not as an asset)
Why is this referred to as a "hoarding" problem? Why is saving not the correct term for this? To me, it's derogatory to call saving hording. At some point, the coins will be spent or sold. Hoarding is what those people on TV do, keep it until it is trash. Unless it's your plan to keep your BTC until you format them away, it's not hoarding.
Correct.
Because bitcoin is a
deflationary currency it will be attacked by all who believe such currencies are doomed.
Attackers (debaters if you prefer) should use logic to discuss the relative merits of fiat currency versus bitcoin. However, they are likely to also try emotional attacks, and calling bitcoin users "hoarders" is an emotional attack. It isn't logical, but that wasn't the point of the attack.
Exactly!
And the truth is, if people don't like bitcoin's limited supply, they can simply choose to not use it. The fact that they argue it usually points to the fact that they want input into the decision of others, not just themselves.