Well yeah, but mainly because people were concerned over the safety of bitcoins I would say, not because they weren't traded enough.
Also, bitcoin had undergone a major price appreciation, that allways sets the stage for increased profit taking.

Golds monetary use has a large effect on its price.  If (above-ground) scarcity and usefulness in industrial applications were the determinant of value, silver would be more valuable than gold.

Not true, if the majority of people holding the asset see the value of it, it will retain this value in the end, nothwithstanding short spikes or crashes in price due to low liquidity.  Just look at the mt-gox debacle where the price went close to zero, it bounced right back up afterwards...

I think it might be true practically as well.  Bitcoins could have a useful function in being a store as value as well as being a medium of exchange (although a longer track record of resilience against possible attacks on the system would be much appreciated of course).  Although something cannot be a store of value without the ability to exchange it for something else, not a lot of exchange is needed. 

I agree that bitcoin would be worthless without the ability to trade them for something else, but technically, if there were no sellers, then bitcoins could maintain their value without any trade in them...

I too believe the bitcoin rules could be changed, little by little, similar to the transition from the gold standard to pure fiat as we have it today.  But it takes decades to boil a frog that way without it jumping out of the cooking pot, so at least we'll have a few decades of "good money".

nicely done

It's being mentioned, only, they are cherry-picking out the negative comments (ECB paper is fairly neutral on the Ponzi-terminology), except for Rudd-O, who defended bitcoin, but got a bit too fed up with SudoGhost and went on a rant .

And it was a good initiative 

While I don't believe inflation is needed and good, nor that more consumption is usually a good thing, I do see reduced investment as a probable economic outcome (probably less bubbles too though, except for the big bitcoin bubble that is bound to happen if the systems manages to survive all hurdles :-), still orders of magnitude away though).  The degree to which this will have a negative impact on the economy will depend on the rate of deflation (since investments need to produce at least that percentage of profit, and then some).
I don't agree with the idea that people will suddenly look at investments in a different light, maybe some idealists will, but this will never be more than a minority.  I don't see why there would be more of these types of lending than is currently being done.  The majority of lending practices will still be about making money.


Couldnt agree with you more.

My line of thinking is similar to that of coindiver, perhaps there has already been an increase in the price in anticipation of the event, and many people will be disappointed that there is no big increase in price (amount of mined bitcoins in the short run is low compared to the total stock which determines the price), causing a price drop.

In the end, its all speculation, we'll just have to find out...

While I welcome discount deals, nothing wrong with 78% of bitcoins not being spent, right?
Just means plenty of people use it as a long-term investment.  I am guessing the fact that it can be used this way has motivated plenty of people to learn more about bitcoin, download the client and blockchain, and do the occassional purchase as well.
More purchases and a bigger bitcoin economy would obviously be good for BTC acceptance and value however.

I don't have a Wikipedia account, but I will make my point anyway (maybe someone else can have a go at it on the wiki talk).

If I am getting it right the essence of his argument is not whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme or not, but just that as it has been mentioned as such in an article (or several articles), it should therefore be included on the wikipedia page.

My main point would be: why would Wikipedia need to report false claims?  If people claim "(2*(2+1)) = 5 " on several news websites, then should wikipedia mention this, when logic and the correct application of arithmetical laws shows this is not the case?  If I say "the sky is only green, always has been green and always will be green", should this be mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky ?

If the claim can be logically debunked by looking at the definition or properties of a Ponzi scheme, it has no place in the article.

On the other hand, you might say the argument is so commonly believed that there is value into reporting it (in contrast to the green sky for example), fine.  But then it should be clearly  refuted with the proper arguments afterwards.  Just adding "It is commonly said the sky is only green", might be technically correct, but then just leaving it as such is obviously lacking for a encyclopedia.

You might think bitcoin is a shitty investment for delusional people, but it is not a Ponzi scheme, so this statement should be either removed, or mentioned but corrected with the proper arguments.

I get the reasons for the restrictions, but i sucked that i have already been on this site 4+ hours, but I only registered now....

Ah well, pointless post 1....