a) Now, that's a different assertion from the original one. (People will stop buying stuff). I'm glad we agree on this one. Ain't gonna happen.

b) Are saying the well-off never squander money on stupid things?

Is the last sentence some kind of "ad hominem"? Because, it would be a pity.

a) No, it's not different at all. If money is worth more tomorrow than today, that exerts negative pressure on purchases, suppressing the retail economy. People will still buy things, just less of them. What's so hard to understand?

b) I really have no idea where you're trying to take b.

"Is the last sentence some kind of "ad hominem"? Because, it would be a pity."

An ad hominem would be if I said your arguments were invalid because of who you are, that's what it means. I was making an observation about your ignorance based on the content of your arguments, entirely different.

> You have no concept of history or the problems associated with a gold standard do you?

I think that's not applicable to bitcoin since it's as comfortable to pay with microbitcoins as with bitcoins.

Subdivision of BTC is irrelevant to talk about deflation. Talking about this (as the BTC wiki does) is just handwaving and does nothing to address the economics.

I thought one of the problems with deflation was that people used to hoard cash and there was not enough money availale to facilitate normal daily trades. Such thing won't happen with bitcoin.