1) Hoarding is just another word for saving and by throwing that term around with the implication that it is *bad* is a form of logical fallacy and appeal to emotion. I am considering turning on AUTO REPLACE of Hoarding with Saving everywhere in the forum.
2) Spending Gold doesn't give it value any more than Saving gold. Society is all about voluntary exchanges and one person choosing not to exchange is perfectly VALID and fundamentally based upon property rights. It would be immoral to compel them to take any other action. Most people don't complain about someone "hoarding" their wife who could other wise be contributing to economy.
3) Bitcoin is not deflationary, it is 12% inflationary when viewed entirely from the monetary definition of inflation. The fact that demand is growing faster than supply masks the consequences of inflation (rising prices). On these forums lets stick with monetary inflation. Inflation is no different than a company issuing new shares and it transfers value from the current share holders to new share holders. Whether this is immoral or not depends upon who benefits from the issuance. If a company issues shares in exchange for a capital infusion then the value of the original shares goes up despite being a smaller percentage. On the other hand, if a company grants their buddy shares with no meaningful consideration then the value of the company does not increase.
When money is viewed as an equity or share of the economy, then you realize we are all minority shareholders. The immorality comes as a result of Shareholder Oppression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_oppression
where the 'majority' can make decisions that harm the minority. Unfortunately with USD the shareholders don't even get a vote. In the case of Bitcoin the shareholders agreed to the terms which were hardcoded into the blockchain and thus it is not immoral.
So if you are going to define something as immoral please confine it to cases where someone violates the principle "don't do unto others what you don't want them doing unto you".
In the case of Bitcoin you realize the same problem that dollar holders have... those that make the decisions have a different class of stock than those whom the decisions effect. Namely, a bitcoin can be viewed as a share without voting rights and all voting rights are allocated to a different kind of share called 'hash power'. This is what makes proof-of-stake better in principle and practice: voting rights are not separated from economic rights.
In my opinion Brent is the one being a 'selfish bastard' by demanding someone else be 'selfless'. See the irony in demanding someone be "selfless" (by selling gold below what it is worth to them) so that you can personally gain? Brent is a great guy and I mean him no disrespect personally. I just have to demand truth and objectivity in discussions like this.
The reason for using BitGold, BitUSD, and BitBTC is because they represent the 3 primary categories of currency. Of the three I suspect only one of them will have value lasting longer than BitShares X itself.... BitGold. BitUSD will hyper-inflate and BitBTC will fall due to increasing competition from BitAssets which have greater price stability.