Quote from: herzmeister on April 18, 2013, 07:41:27 AM

1. what's wrong with taking control of the stored information of the value of my labor?

What kind of non-sequiter is that? Your paycheck is the valuation of your labor and uses the units of currency to denominate that value, the question is do you deserve to be given more, equivalent or less value by society then your labor was initially worth at a later date by just stuffing the currency token under a mattress. You argue that your act of stuffing is somehow increasing societal wide wealth in the future and thus your somehow entitled to that increased wealth (which even your argument was made by someone else's investment and work).

Quote from: herzmeister on April 18, 2013, 07:41:27 AM

2. saving is merely a deferred form of investment. Saving up first will be preferred to loaning.

Then you admit that investing and not saving is the source of future wealth? If so then only the investor can make a claim to a have earned a surplus, aka a return on investment. Even if saving (capital formation) is a prerequisite to investment it is not investing, no risk has been taken yet. Show me ware BTCs are actually invested in anything productive (no mining or circulating more BTCs dose not count) and I'll admit the possibility that someone might have earned a return.

Quote from: herzmeister on April 18, 2013, 07:41:27 AM

3. there is no value removed from circulation, especially if it's only the bits and bytes of a cryptocoin, and not silver that would actually perhaps be needed for other productive procession. If I die without passing on all my bitcoins, no productive value in society is lost. Bitcoins withheld from circulation merely raise the value of all others, until I spend them. At most this causes higher volatility than necessary. But with sufficient adoption, things will even out.

Again your trying to have it both ways, if BTC's are meant to be currency then hoarding them is removing currency from circulation, removing currency from circulation causes money to rise in value and goods to drop in price. This sends price signals through the economy and it is not a signal that encourages anyone to invest, it tells producers they are making TOO MUCH and to make less instead.

The actual demand removed from the economy is sending the same "Their is too much stuff" signal, but the money reduction is being multiplied by the velocity it previously had, the 1 currency unit would have circulated multiple times buying goods and services and would have supported prices even more, the longer the currency is not circulating the more purchases it is failing to influence.

An investment though IS spent, its just spent on capital goods. This sends a signal that production of capital goods should continue or even increase. If the investment improves production and lowers costs then the investor can sell at a lower price while still making a profit and then his lower prices can make other activities profitable. When deflation occurs from reduction in consumption and money supply their is no business that benefits because they have unsold inventory that loses value on the shelf and can then never cover it's cost of production. So business reduce production to match the lower demand.

The end result of deflation is always a destruction of capacity and capitol to the point ware goods become so scarce that they stop falling in price and the deflation burns itself out. The greater the deflation the more physical capitol is wasted or lost.