For starters, he clearly misunderstands what it means for the Fed to print money. When you increase the money supply, somebody is getting "free money", even if it's indirectly. The more dollars there are, the less each individual dollar is worth. If everybody got their share of the newly minted money there would be no difference, but in practice just a few institutions will be the direct recipients of the new money. For instance, when the Fed prints money then uses it to buy California-issued bonds, the California government is indirectly getting free money.
> Or at least have constant in rate of growth? Yes, of course you would, because that's the only way to actually accommodate more people using it.
This is an elementary mistake. Bitcoins can be subdivided almost indefinitely. If they go up 1000 times in value, we'd just start using milibitcoins.
> As a quick thought experiment, let's say demand for Bitcoin grew as more people found out about them. Well, you'd expect the price of Bitcoin in dollars to grow rapidly. Now assume I own one Bitcoin. I also have a dollar bill. I would like to purchase a Pepsi. Which one of those will I spend? Obviously the devaluing dollar gets spent before the skyrocketing Bitcoin.
This is nonsense. A transaction takes 2 willing participants. If bitcoin's value is expected to go up, then naturally the merchant will prefer getting paid in bitcoins rather than the dollars.
The main problem of Bitcoin is that currencies are like social networks: they're only useful if other people are using it, and often they never achieve the critical mass necessary to be successful. This, and the large risk of being outlawed by governments.
