"Bitcoin community at large is still oblivious of the fact they are actualy testing and improving our proposed one world currency system."  

I don't see how bitcoin fulfills this. Not that the early adopters and inventors of bitcoin don't "deserve" the many coins they have, but they have not received that as compensation for having given anything to society. The same goes for fiat: what value has the ECB/FED/govt given to society that justifies them being able to redeem the enormous sums they print up?

With fiat, money is debt. With bitcoin it's a commodity ("some finitely available thing", at least). Your abstract idea of bookkeeping who owes what or is owed by "society" is pretty,.. well: abstract and not very applicable anywhere I'm looking. Bitcoin is an excellent implementation of something different. It can't be an implementation of what you talk about, because bitcoin has no concept of "value being give to society".

I think you might be talking about karma. :-)

...

Right now it's possible to get bitcoins without adding trade value, but only because it's necessary to create the initial supply somehow. Even now, though, the amount of coins being traded on a regular basis is many times the supply of new coins being minted, and mining is only going to get less signifigant over time.

I will be interested to know more about it, please explain

I've never understood the notion of bitcoin as a commodity.

Money, in the abstract sense, is value that you have given to society, that you have not yet redeemed.  It is a token of a half-completed trade.  Bitcoin is an excellent implementation of that abstract idea.

The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[3] A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them. "From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist."[4] Petroleum and copper are examples of such commodities.[5] The price of copper is universal, and fluctuates daily based on global supply and demand. Items such as stereo systems, on the other hand, have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface, the perceived quality etc. And, the more valuable a stereo is perceived to be, the more it will cost.

In contrast, one of the characteristics of a commodity good is that its price is determined as a function of its market as a whole. Well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets. Generally, these are basic resources and agricultural products such as iron ore, crude oil, coal, salt, sugar, coffee beans, soybeans, aluminum, copper, rice, wheat, gold, silver, palladium, and platinum. Soft commodities are goods that are grown, while hard commodities are the ones that are extracted through mining.

The means by which the initial supply of bitcoins is generated is an implementation detail that is only temporarily signifigant.

The post you replied to is descring steady-state behavior and you're talking about the one-time startup behavior.

Right now it's possible to get bitcoins without adding trade value, but only because it's necessary to create the initial supply somehow. Even now, though, the amount of coins being traded on a regular basis is many times the supply of new coins being minted, and mining is only going to get less signifigant over time.

Newly-mined currency doesn't represent "value ...

I do not think they can forbid Bitcoin, because all the negative things (money laundry, drugs, illegal payments, criminal activities) also apply to CASH. They haven't forbidden cash money right?