Still have the issue of no one wanting to mine it, leaving all the mining work to the government. Then there's the issue of Bitcoin type networks being global, meaning the government's mining activities could be supplanted or screwed with by foreigners. About the only secure option a small government would have is to either force everyone else in the country to mine, too, or get rid of mining and just run a secure ledger all by themselves, having total control of all coin distribution, and tracking all transactions digitally from a single centralized location (what central banks already do).
I don't think there is a way for any government or private entity to own a private Bitcoin clone, simply because not enough people would ever be willing to mine/secure it.

I was talking about a purely hypothetical (not to mention impossible) situation where the price is perpetually increasing. Sorry for not making it more clear.

Sorry if I misunderstood but when you said "What's good for speculators who are long" I just assumed you meant perpetually increasing prices.

Perpetually increasing prices is actually bad for evangelicals, because it'll cause a repeat of the summer bubble. Bitcoin becomes harder to accept when it undergoes such unhealthy bubbles periodically.

Perpetually decreasing prices is annoying for merchants.
Perpetually increasing prices is annoying for customers, which results in lower sales, which in turn causes headaches for the merchants.
Which is why I said stable prices are good for merchants.

Annoying indeed. Whoever they are, they just spent nearly $100k in the last 30 minutes stabilizing the price.

I honestly cannot see how a speculator could benefit from having the price stabilized.
Yes, stable prices are good for bitcoin evangelization.
Yes, stable prices are good for bitcoin merchants.
But no, stable prices are not good for speculators.

Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher and legal codifier, who was also court physician to the Muslim sultan Saladin in the twelfth century, understands the dietary laws chiefly as a means of keeping the body healthy. He argued that the meat of the forbidden animals, birds, and fish is unwholesome and indigestible. According to Maimonides, at first glance, this does not apply to pork, which does not appear to be harmful. Yet, Maimonides observes, the pig is a filthy animal and if swine were used for food, marketplaces and even houses would be dirtier than latrines

The cultural materialistic anthropologist Marvin Harris thinks that the main reason for prohibiting consumption of pork was ecological-economical. Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in Israel and the Middle East. They cannot forage grass like ruminants. Instead, they compete with humans for expensive grain. Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean, hence a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem. Harris points out how, while the Hebrews are also forbidden to eat camels and fish without scales, Arab nomads couldn't afford to starve in the desert whilst having camels around.

Through science we know why pork is prohibited.

I was wrong.