[millstone]

I hope there are better arguments for the deflationary nature of Bitcoin than this article.

The author uses the utterly senseless definition of deflation as a change in the total money supply, instead of per capita money supply. If Bitcoin becomes more popular, its asset value increases because demand for it has increased, not due to "political numéraires" (whatever those are). Increasing the population but keeping the money supply fixed is fundamentally deflationary, and Bitcoin's "population" has the potential for large growth.

Second, it's astonishing that the author would approvingly quote a passage like this:

Deflation rewards the prudent saver and punishes the profligate borrower. The way a society, like an individual, becomes wealthy is by producing more than it consumes. In other words, by saving, not borrowing.

This is naive bullionism taken to a whole new level of insanity, with physical gold replaced by numbers in a file. Saving is equated with producing, as if putting my bitcoin wallet on a thumb drive and stuffing it under my mattress starts up a factory. Entirely absent from this morality play is the prudent investor, who borrows or spends out of savings to buy capital goods with the hope of increasing production, and is punished.