Gary North, supposedly an economic advisor to Ron Paul, and a predictor that the world would collapse due to Y2K, wrote an article claiming that Bitcoin is a Ponzi bubble.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/gary-north/is-bitcoin-a-ponzi-scheme/That claim was thoroughly debunked (or not, depending on whom you asked) by John Mather here
http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/12/01/ponzi-logic-debunking-gary-north/In response, Gary North wrote two rebuttals. In the first, he claims that he never called bitcoin a fraud, despite that being the implication of calling it a ponzi bubble, AND that bitcoin consists of people making BS to sell it off to the next fool.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/11843.cfmIn this one he also continuously makes the mistake of not recognizing that for a currency to get big enough to actually support any level of economic activity, it MUST grow rapidly if it started at $0. The whole argument seems dumb if you take his recommendations, and try to purpose starting a purely digital and distributed currency that starts off with a multi-billion dollar market cap. But I digress. As mentioned, after this article, he wrote another follow-up here
http://www.garynorth.com/public/11844.cfmIn which he claims
"Recently, the Economic Policy Journal ran an article, "Is Bitcoin Money: What Economists Have to Say." The editor asked a dozen economists. Two said "yes, Bitcoins are money." ... Everyone else said "no.""
The article he references is here
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/is-bitcoin-money-what-economists-have.htmlGary North claims 13 economists, 2 yesses, and 11 no's. But read the article yourself. The actual statements are 3 yesses, 8 "not yet", and 2 no's. Many of the "not yet's" even seen positive, and claim that specific thing that North seems to miss, that bitcoin must continue to grow to become more widely accepted as money. Honestly, I didn't even read the rest of his rebuttal after this "2 yes and the rest no" claim...
So, did Gary North pretty much lie to try to make his case?