Don't worry, we've still got the "Bitcoin is inherently deflationary and incentivises hoarding" talking point.

That talking point also becomes less convincing the more retailers start accepting Bitcoin.

That it's inherently deflationary is a fact (this stems directly from the fact that there is a limited supply). That it's popular doesn't change this.

> That it's inherently deflationary is a fact

That's true, but it's hardly a mistake. It was deliberate designed to be deflationary, and proponents of Bitcoin like that idea.

I'm aware the choice was deliberate. That still doesn't make it any better of a system.

And of course proponents like the idea; they're already invested in Bitcoin. The more new people who use it, the greater value proponents' existing stockpiles will have.

> And of course proponents like the idea; they're already invested in Bitcoin.

That's a circular argument. Why would they have invested in Bitcoin in the first place?

Not really. "Ooh look, Bitcoin is deflationary, let's invest" → invest → "Hey everyone, come use this great Bitcoin thing!" is a logical chain of action.

Problem is that we've had deflationary currencies, and they were terrible. People will soon find out how easy it is to manipulate a currency with limited supply.

> People will soon find out how easy it is to manipulate a currency with limited supply.

As opposed to inflationary government currencies, the entire point of which is to be endlessly manipulated by a central authority? I don't think the track record of those is anything to be proud of.

Then you don't remember the gold panics. The stability of inflation of inflationary government currencies over the last few decades is nothing short of astonishing.