Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument, so can anyone please point out the flaw in my dismissal of this argument ? 1) assuming bitcoin will deflate 2) this me

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument, so can anyone please point out the flaw in my dismissal of this argument ? 1) assuming bitcoin will deflate 2) this means that existing bitcoin holders will be able to exchange their bitcoins for more $ than ever on mtgox/... 3) the conclusion is that this will make people leave bitcoin Needless to say, if this is the argument, that people will leave bitcoin because they earn too much without doing anything, good luck with that one. So where is the flaw in my thinking here ? I would also like to point out that a deflationary system won out over a debt based one many times in history. Saying it can't happen doesn't seem like it's based on anything. The obvious big example would be the end of the (west) Roman Empire, but there's dozens of examples in the last 2 centuries alone. This is yet one more case of people in the west thinking that because it hasn't happened in the west in the last 60 years, that it cannot happen (and they simply don't know just how often it happened before that). Debt based currencies are fundamentally pyramid schemes, slightly obscured by the fact that the growth phase can last a very long time, but that doesn't change anything, not really (except opening up the possibility of a person being born into a pyramid scheme and aging and dying normally while the pyramid scheme is still growing). This will not work for bitcoin because bitcoin itself depends on infrastructure that depends on those existing pyramid schemes (ie. USD/EUR/...). It will work for house ownership and maybe for gold ownership.