Great. I hope you will agree most of these are differences of opinion ("particularly important", "serious problem") rather than empirical fact. Moreover, I hope you will agree that people with similar conventional beliefs on inflation & economics are in power, and the world economy is not doing very well. FWIW, here's a first cut at separating statements of opinion & fact to drill down to potential empirical differences.
That money exists to serve as an improved barter good,
rather than barter being a degenerate form of trade that
exists mostly in the rare cases when credit is
impractical.
Not sure about your disagreement here - are you saying that credit is more fundamental than barter? Money as an improved replacement for barter is hardly controversial. Credit is a third layer on top of money, which only comes into play when there are actual goods to be traded.
That quantity fixation or durability are
particularly important properties of money.
If you care about money as a long-term store of value, these are important characteristics. Paper notes from most countries that existed in the 1800s don't hold their value today. Gold coins do.
That gold is particularly important, versus
anything else that is pretty and value-dense.
Gold is important because it can't be mined as easily as paper is printed, and because it's an element and thereby difficult to truly counterfeit without an atom smasher. As such it limits the spending power of governments. It's also important for the same reason any network effect is important, namely other people use it (and have used it since historical times).
That the only forms of money are commodity-backed and pure
fiat.
This is possibly a factual disagreement. But either a paper note is exchangeable for a fixed quantity of a commodity like gold or it isn't. I suppose you can have some limits on redemption on a daily basis, but otherwise it seems like a reasonable boolean distinction. Please do elaborate on what you have in mind.
That the USD switched from the first camp to the other in
1971.
This also seems to be a factual claim. The US under Nixon did indeed abandon the gold standard fully in 1971, removing the $35 dollars per ounce peg (
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/nixon-gold-s...). Most people both pro- and con- would refer to this as "going off the gold standard".
Describing the USD without reference to the Federal
Reserve at all.
I think that's implicit. Not sure this is a "common error".
The assumption that the debasement of coins over a 300
year period had any harmful effects other than making the
coins less pretty 1700 years later.
This is not an assumption but is explicitly argued. The underlying thesis is that governments that debase their currency by printing money eventually find their ability to compel obedience waning, as their official scrip is rendered useless.
That +200% wage and price inflation over 130 years is any
kind of serious problem.
Given that this period coincides with the decline and ultimate fall of the Roman Empire, I wouldn't call this a "common error" either.
That hyperinflation and regular inflation are the same
thing except in degree.
This claim is not made in the slides. But both of them do have the property in common that one's currency becomes less valuable. "Normal" inflation has devalued the US dollar 23.45X since 1913 (roughly $1 in 1913 buys $23.45 today; see usinflationcalculator.com). If that happened in one year we'd call it extremely strong inflation, if not hyperinflation.
That Bitcoin limiting supply controls inflation.
Please give a counterargument here. How can you inflate a currency if the supply is fundamentally limited?
That the problems with deflation are somehow non-obvious
or not happening observably in Bitcoin right now.
What are the problems? A rise in market cap to $1B over four years from nothing and adoption by millions in the face of government opposition looks like a smashing success. Fluctuations aren't unilateral seizures; everyone in Bitcoin has chosen to be in Bitcoin.
That flat-rate Demurrage fixes Bitcoin inflation.
I suppose you mean "fixed Bitcoin deflation"? Freicoin may not "fix" deflation but it's a currency which has regular inflation built into it. Because Kyle supports deflation he certainly did not claim that Freicoin is a "fix", but rather a technical embodiment of an alternate philosophy.
In short, I think most of the points you raise are not "common errors" but rather (at best) disagreements of opinion. Would appreciate any elaboration on the points of seeming factual disagreement.