Pointless tangent is pointless. You picked on the word 'stable' and used it as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post:

An economy is much better compared to a machine in operation than a static construction such as a bridge.

There's scant evidence that two heads are better than one, and absolutely none that a billion heads are better still.  A mob's intelligence does not grow with its numbers, quality is not a function of quantity, though a shrewd Georgian once pointed out that "quantity is a quality all of its own."  Everyone gets to be a wit.

101 (non-duplicate) guesses, and nobody got it.

The correct answer was: 241

SHA256--> 9a52486ec6b39cd0cf036954621843b0da87cf0cb36aedd8317e10593641129f

Thanks for playing, maybe I'll do another one of these soon when I have more bitcoins

In Politics, often times the right hand doesn't know (or care) what the left hand is doing.

In all honesty, I think what happened is that PayPal, a California based company, filed a complaint naming the bitcoin foundation and using local sellers as evidence. The state didn't even bother to see if there was a connection and sent the scary looking letter. No actual discovery was performed.

That's my suspicion.

It's infinitely more useful than your internet monopoly money (which appears to be crashing as we speak).

(Let's use examples of -2% growth during bust, 4% growth during boom, and 2% long-term goal, figures out of my ass)
I actually still believe that this aspect of the Keynesian economic theory is sound. Specifically, when the cycle goes into bust (e.g. -2% growth), you spend to support it, when it goes into the boom (say 4% growth) you take in more to suppress it, and thus, on the grand scale, even it out to a somewhat of a 'steady' growth of, say, 2% over the long term.Over all, value gets sucked into a "rainy day" fund, and expanded when the rainy day comes.

governments had millennia to perfect the scam, and today it works flawlessly.  

Those fake buy walls are actually a huge risk for the wall owner.  He thinks he's just propping up the price for his smaller sells, but if another whale wants to cash out, he can easily sell into them and the wall owner will be stuck with 3K extra coins that he can't unload.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy, it would probably need:
population headcount change = 0
people's changing 'needs' = 0
land or industry encroachment on other economies = 0
net non-renewable resource depletion = 0
net inflation = 0

Therefore, (unless I've missed some other factors for stability) any profit is probably either inaccurate accounting or a transfer of wealth from the loser to the winner. One example of a profitable activity might be to innovate a new machine that produces widgets more efficiently than the machines all the other widget-makers use. Despite rejecting "intellectual property" (I guess that's off-topic and maybe a good candidate for another thread) you guys seem strongly in favour of doing these innovations for the sake of competition (no arguments there).

However, the reward for innovation seems to be the same as the reward for resource depletion, inflation, banning contraceptives, and all that other stuff. I.e.: because profit. With all those other opportunities, why choose innovation?

Without intelligent oversight, to me it seems you'll eventually get your stable economy, but only after numerous resources have been depleted, and various bubbles (including population bubbles) have burst. It's a doomsday scenario.

Secondly, even if things manage to stabilise, there's still a big question mark over how the current (or a future) level of technology would be sustained without all that extra energy being pumped in. The whole world's basically running on oil, gas, coal, nuclear fission, and cheap labour.

1. Regulators released guidance indicating that bitcoin buying/selling within the bitcoin economy is affirmatively OK, and would not require every user registering with the government, as many conspiracy theorists had direly predicted.
2. Many bitcoin users are in the US.
3. Many bitcoin investors are in the US.

The sum of that != bitcoin hostile.  Just the opposite.

It's also silly to loudly complain when people are standing up and volunteering to take slings and arrows on behalf of others.

Hard to decide if uncomfortable facts are intentionally ignored, or if i'm not being direct enough.  Phrases like "reduce the burden [on] government" and "worry about drunk drivers" only add to my confusion, so i'll highlight some points, betting on the off-chance i was misunderstood:

There are no "burdens" for governments.  At least not in the sense of "something which must be done, but they'd rather do without."  Those "burdens" are governments' lifeblood & raison d'etre.  That's what governments *do,* they live & breathe the stuff.  Lightening one set of "burdens" will just drive governments to create new ones.  One war fizzles out?  Start a new one: on drugs, on another country, on terror.  Most grownups know that most wars aren't started to be won.  They are nurtured and lovingly tended to by intelligent men so that they may continue to be integral workings of our modern economy.  

Knowing this is enough neither to stop wars nor makes them unnecessary. Just like knowing governments are motivated by their own, and not your, self-interest is enough to make governments disappear.  

*Take this as a margin note, meant to put my other posts in perspective.  It is not intended to be factual, falsifiable, or an attempt at logical derivation.  Simply to shed some light.  I hope this disclaimer is enough to avoid another pointless tangent.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.  The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.

Darktongue(260uAC) = Wallet[ACLEZ37|Darktongue->SendAbstractCoins(ACN1KKE1|Praxis ,  250 );