First, to Matt’s report that a Google search reveals a goodly number of printed references to the article I said had been ignored. My principal response is: WOW! WHO KNEW? Well, I would, if I ever bothered to read what other people write. I knew about John Roemer, of course, a super bright mathematically very sophisticated Marxist who wrote a reply to my article at the time [well worth reading.] But I had no idea anyone else had noticed it. Thank you, Matt. You have made an old man happy.
About bitcoins. I read up on them once but know next to nothing about them. The article linked to is great fun, and basically correct about Marx. I recommend it. Bitcoins raise very interesting questions about the nature of money, a subject that interested me a good deal for a while, and about which I wrote a lengthy and unsuccessful analytical paper for my files [nothing I would ever want to share.] Early in my explorations of mathematical economics, I noticed the curious fact that in General Equilibrium systems of equations there did not seem to be any variable for money. I pointed this out to a UMass economics graduate student who was taking the Mathematical Microeconomics course I was sitting in on, and he looked at me as though I were an idiot and said, “But of course not!” It struck me that a super-sophisticated model of a capitalist economy with no place for money probably had a few conceptual flaws, but I knew enough to keep my mouth shut.