If this baby goes down though, I believe 90 is no save bet as we will at least go back to 70, maybe lower.

Just use your common sense. The "trust" or "activity" levels may give a a hint about the trustworthiness of a user.

I think it's not a great idea.

Posting the exchange rate furthers the screwed up perception that Bitcoin is just a proxy for the USD. It also encourages more emotional involvement with the price roller coaster.  Over focusing on USD/BTC prices may encourage regulators to argue that Bitcoin isn't its own valuable asset but is instead some kind of shell game to move around USD (which is a crappy argument, but it's made stronger the more people fixate on the exchange rate).

Then you have an issue of _which_ price? There are multiple exchanges, the prices are different... the differences are real and reflect complicated things like people's trust of the exchange itself.  And then even if you look at a single exchange— the last trade price is the last trade price. It may have nothing to do with what you can trade for now, etc.

It's not reasonable for all things, but what I'd like to see is more goods and services being priced actually in Bitcoin without reference to USD, because without that we won't have price stability. Promoting the market prices would be a step in the wrong direction.

Now, if someone wanted some kind of optional ticker thing, sounds fine to me, but you can do that via a browser addon...

They probably will not be extreme because transaction fees are actually a voluntary agreement between the miners and those who send bitcoins. You can choose not to give a fee, but your transaction will take longer to process because less miners will be willing to accept your transaction in the block they are generating. When no coins are generated as a reward, they will all expect transaction fees, but if they refuse one for being not enough bitcoins, another miner may take it. Thus, there will develop a balance between what we are willing to pay and what they are willing to accept.

Forgot the blockchain spam. That's BS.

A lot more jackass than the blockchain spam is the mass acumulation and hoarding of first bits.

You know, in my country domain names are free to register, and we got the same kind of greedy people running crazy bots and the such to be able to register as much as possible. Thankfully they later had to and were able to cap it on a per person basis, but the damage was already done. We will not even be that lucky here. These abuses will ran rampart.

"Hey, here is a free amazing resource BTC has which, incidentally, is great for newbies, usability and further adoption."

"Oh cool. IMPERIALIST MODE ON. Let me capture them all before anyone finds out, and then sell for 20 a pop out of thin air."

Nothing further from the ideals of BTC and precisely the opposite of what we need right now IMHO, but I can't however negate the fact that a free market is a free market after all.

By the time that happens, Bitcoin will either be relatively irrelevent, or have conquered the globe. If Bitcoin is the global currency, its growth is proportional to the destruction of bitcoins and the net growth in value of all things on the globe combined. Bitcoins will become increasingly scarce compared to assets; if twice as many things are being traded at any one time, there must be twice as much value in the money supply (plus deflation caused by hoarding), and thus coin value must go up if coin volume does not increase.

Doesn't that conflict with the recent protocol change to reduce spam where you cannot spend single satoshis anymore?

Also, if a public protocol has to rely on "please don't do it because it would cause problems" then the protocol is desgined to fail.
The blockchain has to be able to deal with such a transaction, either by successfully processing it, or by rejecting it.
Otherwise Bitcoin would be instantly ddos'ed if this transaction would be a problem.