Eh, hasn't worked that way. Case in point: today someone was asking me about Bitcoin. The amount of misinformation is staggering. His understanding was that bitcoins had values that change depending on when you got them (such that the first bitcoins are worth more than the ones we get today and their value goes down as time goes on). It ended up with a discussion that led to confusion and a "I don't know why anyone would trust something that has nothing backing it" statement.

The net result to him will still be a loss. It is a small loss but a loss nevertheless. The one making the profit will be the one sitting out.

What is the purpose of overcapacity? There is none, so it is profitable for governments that people should be employed to the full by any means (besides, employed people are less prone to social unrest). There is still much room for making the elites' lives better, even in the Caribbean. So no worry for the majority of humanity...

Talk to outsiders about Bitcoin and its pricing. The most common thing you'll run into (other than "it's a scam") is complaining about how much a coin costs. Outsiders don't KNOW you can break it down. They don't have that comprehension. Therefore, again, what you or I know about Bitcoin means absolutely zero. Nothing. Nada. We're already in. It's OTHERS we care about bringing on-board, therefore we have to cater to THEM. That's how markets work.

I like hot pink cars that have no windshield, 6 wheels, no AC/heater, no seat belts and no headlights. So I go make them because I like them. Does that mean they're going to sell to others? Hell no. Why? Because not everything I like is something everyone else likes/agrees with. It's that simple.

Your fundamental assumption is invalid. Maybe there are a few who will do this way, but most who transact in Bitcoin do so to spend them. Otherwise there no reason for them to do so.

The monetary base is kept in that so called reserve by the bank at the moment. As you mentioned , they will let the money trickle down to the whole society as slow as possible. So the ppl eventually will receive the printed money in hands. So I believe the inflation is not reflected in reality yet, but just the matter of sooner or later.

This would make no sense on a larger scale. Machines exist so that humans could switch their activity to something more interesting/rewarding. If all men would one day become unemployed, then there would be no market for the goods machines produce. So it is a self-balancing system with a feedback loop...

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

i would sell all of my bitcoin when one can buy me a house and a supermodel for a wife  

Could you please cite authoritative sources about the inflative monetary expansion back then. I'm singularly curious how this is possible under the Gold Standard Act (which set de facto gold standard in the U.S., and was canceled only in 1933, that is after the Great Depression had already begun) when the U.S. dollar had been freely redeemed for gold (1 dollar per 1.5046 grams of pure gold).

So what triggers spending those reserves?  It must be something... that is the point of a reserve.  That is when high inflation hits.

I reallllllllly hope this post was just trolling. Otherwise I'd highly suggest you look into taking courses on business, marketing and psychological principles behind purchasing.

You're not marketing to me. You're not marketing to Theymos. You're not marketing to (insert name of someone that already knows about Bitcoin). You're marketing to people that have NO idea how things work, are computer illiterate, and just want things to "work." Learn how to run a business and then read my post again and you'll actually understand why it's true.

You may have that suspicion but it wouldn't be true. Increasing the user rate by 10 fold would increase demand by potentially the same rate and given that supply is tightly controlled the price would have to come up to meet the demand. There's nothing "pyramid scheme" about it.

The great thing is that in both options the price can increase. One option is organic. The other option is manufactured, and borderline collusion, manipulation, "Central-bank like".

this method is about as easy as saying "If every bitcoiner convinces 10 people to become a bitcoiner, bitcoin will reach mass adoption, and the price will increase accordingly"

I'd even say my method is easier.

In your example you say that "Bob" and the vendor use an exchange to facilitate the transaction. In your explanation quoted here you say that on an exchange the bitcoin never moves (until you withdrawal), this seems to contradict your original theory.

If bitcoins disappear from the system as you theorize, this would already be happening as transactions occur. So the current price should reduced the impact of your reduced supply theory. There wouldn't be a way to manipulate the current price (since it already accounts for the bitcoin taken out of supply due to transactions) unless you coordinated a significantly higher than normal number of transactions, which I guess is what you're proposing? One more point, the increased number of transactions can't happen all at once, I mean even the exchange has to take the orders one by one. So after each transaction the price would increase and increase and people at the end of the coordinated transaction series would get screwed because they'd be paying the very inflated price.

Finally, coordinating price manipulation is what the Fed and central banks do (to a extent). You're falling victim to the same price and value manipulation schemes that this system is trying to correct or escape. Perhaps that's the scariest part of this talk. The fact that someone who's devoted to bitcoin can become so fixated on the price "going to the moon" that they'd propose price manipulation to do it.