Hmm... I can´t see the problem because there are 13.5mio. bitcoins are for mining.
Yes, 13.5m bitcoins that are currently 2,000x harder to produce, and are likely only to be harder to get as the award drops and if bitcoin increases in popularity.
And yes the market iss too small for speculation and manipulation but I can´t see a advantage in for example EnCoin because the result would be similar because the Encoin will started as a unknown new currency and the first buyers would buy a lot of Encoins to profit in later time when a lot of buyers come into the market and want new Encoins.
Encoin wouldn't distribute currency like bitcoin. It is inflation that is controlled by market forces (not enough coins, prices rise, make more coins based on their cost to produce).
To resolve this problem you must regulate the Encoin market and the Encoin becomes more and more to fiat money.
Big difference is the people control the supply, not a government mandate.
The character of unregulated free currency would be destroyed and I don´t believe that such bitcoin-clone will be successful with this tactic.
Unfixed supply of money does not equal regulated.
I mean that the speculation is good for the bitcoin because the bitcoin would be discussed very often on web and other media and it seduced a lot of new speculatores and investors to buy bitcoins for profit.
We must see that the application and acceptance of bitcoin will increase when the value of bitcoin will increase.
Yes this is fantastic for early(-ier) adopters, but it does nothing for a currency. A currency should strive to have a stable purchasing power, not strive to be an increasingly valued commodity.
Look for gold or silver today it will accepted much more than 10 years ago because the value of the metals are increased. And the speculations in gold or silver make it to a important theme in the media like TV ;-)
The value of the metals are not increased, the demand for the metals is increased. Using these metals to back currency was a large contributing factor to a little-known thing called the Great Depression.
So I don´t see a problem in the early adopters of bitcoin because they can sell bitcoins and make a lot of profit only one time and more and more new bitcoins will decrease their influence ;-)
This is not true. As the value of BTC gets higher and higher, only a small number of coins need to be sold to make a very large profit. This "trickle in" philosophy allows the early adopters to support generation after generation of descendants while doing zilch for the economy.
And look to mtGox on a good day the volume is higher than 100.000 BTC ;-)
And this is a relatively meaningless statistic. Most of the volume is speculation, ergo most of the volume is trading back and forth. This isn't economic activity (drugs) which caused the price to rise to USD 30.
