Actually, that's a pretty good idea. I've I was part of the Python community, I think I would offer this suggestion to on the relevant mailing list. Someone aught to.

Deflation is actually built in intentionally if you look at it's production curve (and assume market growth). The claim is that deflation is not an issue, though I'm not sure how much/if this is backed up by theory. I have yet to hear a well supported argument about the merits a deflationary currency.

Why do you say that? By what standard? It's total value is only important with regard to the size of the market which uses it. As long as its growth matches market growth, the value of the market vs other currencies should not be the thing that gets in the way.

I think that's the hope.

Who are the "victims" of deflation? Deflation results is effectively appreciation of the currency. Anyone holding them gains wealth. And that's effectively deflation problem in that people would rather hold than spend when holding effectively increases wealth.

The "get in early" aspect applies to lots of things that are not pyramid schemes. If that was enough to make the determination, then the whole of financial markets would be a pyramid scheme.

If you are of that opinion, well, fair enough, but that doesn't invalidate Bitcoin.

Being backed by a government means that it's backed by the common interests of a large population, and that it's backed by the laws of the country. These provide predictability/stability.

Bitcoin is not yet backed by the common interests of a large population, but it is backed by the rules built into the software. While bitcion is unstable right now, it is most likely because of the small common interest population (the relative small size of the goods market), its rules are more stable than a governments, and from the perspective has the potential to be more stable if it ever gains a large enough common interest population.

Have you considered that there is more than just sugar in Coke?

Normal sugar is just as bad. RTFA.