To put is simply as I have in another thread. Would you rather have a 10'000 BTC or a $500k house for the next 10 years?
That depends on how rich you are. If you are still in the stage of buying your first or second house, house should worth more than bitcoin. But for those holding 10+ houses and wonder where to put their extra fiat, bitcoin is the way to go
- then there is a problem of some early adopters who accumulated large holdings of BTC. Anecdotal stories tell of accounts with 100k+ BTC. These players can potentially wipe out the whole buy orderbook at mtgox. Since they cannot & should not be controlled, they are dangerous to the BTC. In fact my gut reaction on April 10th was that one of the whales have had enough, decided to get some hard cash and unloaded.
Totally fine, as more and more such people cash out their coin, some one else will become the new "early adopters" holding 100k+ bitcoin, bitcoins just changes from weaker hands to stronger hands
- the only fundamental difference is that with BTC new currency issue is limited however with traditional currencies this power resides with a central bank who has the power to issue new currency at will.
If I'm a commercial bank, I will ensure price stability by only put money on those elements which are not included in CPI, for example house and bitcoin. By doing so I can endlessly get money from central bank without worrying they start a new round of tighten
- Now if "committee" somehow allowed for these BTCs to be created don't they have the same powers as a central bank??? Who controls BTC protocol? Public vote? Committee? Who are these people?
The coins you received as a compensate are not created as will, they are tooken from slush's pocket, no one can create coin out of thin air
So far there is no clear decision making process for bitcoin, mostly rely on IRC channel communication between pool operators and core developers, and the worst thing they can do is forking the chain. But even with a forked chain, existing coins will not be affected