Quote from: goatpig on June 04, 2011, 12:09:20 AM

This is your stance. Then you relay to the trade history on MtGox to maintain that stance. Yet that same trade history shows that since mid April, pretty much since the price spiked above $2, that MtGox has been experience a 30d volume consistently within 900,000 to 1 Million BTC, and now the price is on its way beyond $15. The 30d expected inflation through mining is anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 BTC. This means that on a month and half span, about 1.5 millions "old" BTCs have changed hands (without accounting for the freshly mined coins in that period), which is over 1/4th of the total "old" BTC supply. According to your hoarding theory, this is impossible. Now I suggest you reflect on your stance.

It's not impossible. Hoarding doesn't mean "nobody exchanges coins". It simply means that in case coins were exchanged, there's a high probability that the buyer is buying for the sole purpose of later profiting. And the seller is selling because he either needs money immediately or he's afraid the price will drop and had enough profit, so he exits the market safely. By the way those two reasons are exactly why I plan to liquidate some of my own coins soon.

I never denied there were real transactions either, but I said there would be more of those if the price was stable. People won't have to worry about spending coins because they're afraid the price would spike soon after they spend them, nor would they worry about a price drop after earning a coin so they won't have to rush and liquidate them. What exactly is your problem with a stable price system?

Quote from: benjamindees on June 04, 2011, 12:04:29 AM

Well then I hope you learn that an economy is not proportional to the number of transactions.

Would replacing "number" with "volume" make you happy? You people got nothing to say to address the real issue so you worry about silly definitions. I'm still waiting for a decent rebuttal against my proposal.