Nobody understands economics well enough to predict what Bitcoin will become. For a start, both of those pieces hinge on the dangers of a deflationary spiral. But it is far from clear or agreed how such a spiral would work, or whether it would encounter a natural limiting factor. To the extent that deflation might cause a decrease in demand, it's not even clear that that's a bad thing - because we live in such a consumption-oriented economy it's hard for economists to even conceive of - let alone analyze - the idea that people might only spend money when they need to.
The issue at hand is the return on investments, not the value of goods and services. I still purchase technology because the value of having access to that technology exceeds the current cost - the resell value. No one is buying warehouses of Galaxy Tabs, expecting for a positive return a year from now, and if normal investments (for example, the capital required to build the Galaxy Tab) which normally have a positive return assuming 2% inflation suddenly become outstripped by deflation, then no one will invest.
So, instead of looking into the matter emperically, you argue that so and so said it and you believe in those people and therefore anyone with opposite opinion must be wrong, regardless of what they say?
Trolls do what trolls do.
ps. I agree with Krugman that Bitcoin is more likely to be treated as commodity and, as a result, causes the hoarding problem. But whether the hoarding could kill Bitcoin due to lack of activity in the bitcoin economy remains an uncertainty. Especially now that the exchange rate is down.
I'm not much of a fan of Krugman's blogging (which is fairly partisan), but it's pretty inaccurate to summarize his academic work as "built around big government manipulating the money supply". Yes, he's some variety of neo-Keynesian, but so are conservatives like Gregory Mankiw; Krugman's a vaguely center-left one, solidly in the mainstream (and considerably to the "right" of the modern-monetary-theory group). By "partisan" do you just mean that, like most economists, he isn't a follower of Austrian economics?
That's precisely what I meant by "built around big government manipulating the money supply"
As for partisan: I think all economists that take a definite position fall under what I meant by "partisan." I meant: advocating a niche view that is not accepted by a majority of experts. (In economics, I don't think there is currently any view that doesn't fall under this description.) That's not to say there isn't a correct view; I think there is.
While I haven't taken the time to try to deconstruct his argument line by line, I would be shocked if it's not disingenuous in more than one way.
Yes, I know he won the economics version of the Nobel prize; no, that doesn't change my opinion of him.