http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation ... let's not go too deep into biology ... it is a brutal game of killing and giving life and not a good source of proofs for Your points :-)

Let's go back to currencies. Do You think that a currency that changes value by 100%-300% is a good currency :-) Such a change would devastate business in a BTC based country.

I'm no economist, but if bitcoin mining reaches the cap, and there's therefore no new currency entering into the btc market, holding
on to money could present a serious problem.

If 1 guy held on to like a million btc in hopes that the value would rise as a result of there being less in circulation, that could
potentially be disastrous to the economy right?

I agree.

Its not #2.

To my memory, whenever we've seen a wall put up then removed, unless the market moves drastically after removal, it goes back up.

An impatient market maker trying to get it moving, I think.

Here's a thought.  Somebody with bitcoin to sell figured out how to mess with feed data.  Put up big wall, people place bids ahead of wall, sell into bids.

that also makes sense to me. If I had a ton of coins i wanted to sell, it would make sense to put asks up in small amounts and throw a massive bid wall up to push the market into buying my coins. Assuming he wants to maintain part of his position in BTC.

I would say it compliments it. One thing you can do with it is exchange bitcoins for fiat without the need of a centralized market such as mtgox. Which will be very useful for bitcoin.

That still hasn't explained why having a set cap on your currency is such a good idea.

Even money backed by a gold standard has influx of new gold from mining as well as fluctuations on the gold market which can have drastic repercussions on the currency.

HOW and WHY is having a 21M cap and a set "mining" rate on bitcoins a desirable thing?

As I said in another thread....

You guys are taking this way too far.

Matthew welched on a silly bet, to try and prove a point. You guys are treating him as if he TOOK MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKETS.

Considering how relaxed most people have been, in regards to Trendon Shavers aka Pirateat40 (causing most of my frustration) I find Matthew's situation to be a bit 'scape-goatish' under the circumstances.

Does Matthew really deserve to be punished to the extent he currently is being punished ?

There are far more people on this forum that have done far worse and still don't seem to have a scammer tag or their names dragged through the mud and THEY ACTUALLY LOST PEOPLE'S MONEY. Nothing was lost in the 'Matthew' situation, right ?


Shall we make our way to the Lending and Securities Forums and start getting those scammer tags applied to the people that actually TOOK REAL MONEY from people and not simply made a bet where NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS and cost the participants exactly ZERO... ?

Lets go over the claim of the self-proclaimed internet economist - attention whore that bitcoin is a scam.

Since bitcoins are non-renewable commodities, early adopters have a one time advantage that disappears on the day they sell out their bitcoins; It's a one time gain, as opposed to the happy few bankers who control central money creation, whose advantage is lasting and growing over time.

Early adopters are necessary to bootstrap innovation: only the state or a similar tentacular organization has enough clout and propaganda mechanisms at its disposal to bootstrap a new currency to everybody at once.

Hence, saying that bitcoin profits early adopters too much amounts to negating the possibility to offer an alternative to central money.

Screams manipulation to me. Especially in the last few seconds. Boy I would love to see somebody instantly buying up say 80k coins when a sell wall is erected.