The difference between hoarding and saving is the expectation of windfall profits, or (in the case of the crazy person) the "saving" of items that have no value in the market.  Saving doesn't entail expectation of windfall profits.  That's not to say it can't happen, and of course when you put money into the bank you hope it increases in value, but the proper definition of saving does not involve an expectation of windfall profits in the future.  Amassing a storehouse of guns and liquor in anticipation of the apocalypse, however, that is hoarding. 

OK I'll bite.  What am I missing?  What have I said that is inaccurate?  Instead of taking a pot shot at me, why don't you educate us?

With btc Bob does not have plausible deniability, because every single BTC transaction is documented.

Miners seem determined anyway to improve the chance of early adopters of any new blockchain being able to make coins with trivial ease. They accomplish this simply by not mining new blockchains and by verbiage aimed at discouraging other miners from mining new block chains.

Please spend your fortune and implement this as BCPCoin - then we'll see how many people want to use your system. Or just donate your coins and be done with it. But the incessant whining is just too much.

I think in most cases you are correct.  The dictionary definition, however, generally looks at speculation as a risky investment.  Most of the time an asset that may appreciate significantly might also decline in value significantly.  But this is not necessary for hoarding.  For example, I could "hoard" guns and liquor on the belief that anarchy will break out and these commodities will become incredibly valuable.  But I don't think this is "speculation" because these are not high risk assets, and they generally maintain their value over time.

I find myself spending a lot of time trying to pull people away from a vision of BTC that they want to be true, versus the reality of it.

Speculation is defined as "investment involving high risk but also the possibility of high profits"  My definition did not focus on risk, hoarding doesn't necessarily involve high risk, it merely involves an anticipation of windfall profits due to either scarcity of the resource or external catastrophe (or both).  You can hoard something that is not a high risk asset, speculation requires a high risk of loss. 

recording a small serial number from a blurry, black and white, 480*360 camera? good luck.

I'll give it a shot:

Hoarding has three general meanings in an economic sense.  They are as follows: (1) acquiring excessive quantities of items that have little value in the market (think the crazy person who hoards paperclips), (2) acquisition based on an expectation that certain items will become extremely valuable related to current values during times of economic, political, or environmental crisis, or (3) acquisition based on on an expectation that such items will become extremely valuable compared with current values due to future scarcity.

Saving, on the other hand, merely involves guarding or preserving an asset for future use.  It does not require an expectation of future windfall profits, or excessive acquisition of items that have little value in the market. 

Did I win?

1JxsbbP2k5KHYGWtmggT7yJJ4eRtj7n9sJ

Concept of the dynamic equilibrium works on large ensembles only, and also, on large time intervals, compared with single interaction's time. For now, to input/output BTC/$/goods from the bitcoin market, one may spend many hours or even days. Even if one sell/buy a small thing like T-shirt or coffee-cup or $ equivalent of that.

From physical point of view, Bitcoin society is like a highly rarefied gas, with some thousands of atoms, @ time intervals of some microseconds. It is apparently NOT an equilibrium system.

How is my example beneficial?  In profiting from BTC, I have given nothing to society.  I have only taken.

Sure, but how long will these 50 btc block remain stale.  If the currency takes of some of the initial transactions will be mostly anonymous (I doubt this, because I know of dbs that have been tracking ip address of connections etc.), but as they get used (is that what they're for) slowly we'll be able to track a btc and it's journey through the btc economy.

When the DEA kicks in the door for a major drug bust, they get a list of btc addresses used for drug transactions.  They can now go into the blockchain and look at every address that sent money to these accounts, and possibly track down the users.

If the DEA found cash.... well.... unless your fingerprints, or the bill was marked, they aren't going to tie the cash back to the users.

One of the biggest misconceptions of bitcoin is the level of anonymity.  Cash is FAR more anonymous than btc.

@bituser, how do you feel about missing out on 0.5 BTC?

One way to think of this is that you had a sure (almost) 0.5 in your hand, but then you gambled it all in order to get 0.65 (you gambled 100% to get a 30% return).

It hardly ever is, that's why I'm more of a Libertarian than a Liberal.

while i believe that markets in general should not be 'regulated' by the state i strongly support one strike rule - if company decide to knowingly sell something dangerous\risky or simply wrong described stuff it should be wiped out from the market by the state

i should be able to buy anything from everyone and anyone should be able to sell me anything, but as soon as some one forgot to mentioned that "new batch of lcds have tn screen instead of ips (that they shipped to reviewers and stores for display)" or "that used to be spring water but now we use tap water without changing label" they should be punished hard