In short, the answer is "no, there is no evidence that miners are holding".

However, I agree that dumping by miners, by itself, does not explain the fall from ~900$ in late january to ~350$ today.  Inflation due to mining is only 10% per year. 

That inflation may be amplified by the fact that part of the bitcoin supply is frozen by long-term holders.  Namely, if only 1/5 of the bitcoins are in the hands of short-term speculators, and all the mining output is being dumped to the open market, then the effective inflation would be around 50% per year.  Even so, it seems hard to blame the slump on miners dumping.

To me, the simplest explanation still is: the Chinese speculators are leaving the market.

Is there any evidence for that claim (other than some big miners saying so)?

When you buy stock, you become owner of a fixed slice of the company's assets.  When the company makes a profit, they either divide that profit among the stockholders (the so-called dividend), or reinvest the profit in more factories, stores, etc., so that each shareholder owns the same percentage of a bigger pie.  If the company goes bankrupt, its assets are sold and the money is divided among the shareholders. If the company gets bought by another company, each shareholders gets a slice of the sale price.  So, the price of a stock is basically determined by what traders think that the company's assets are worth, and how much profit it will make in the future.  That perception often changes for better or worse, hence the price changes.  Some people try to profit from those changes, by buying and selling stock at the right times.  Others just hold stock for a long time, collecting dividends and/or trusting that the company's assets will grow in value.

Bitcoin pays no dividends and has no assets.  When you buy a bitcoin, you buy a plot in an imaginary estate with 21 million plots, whose ownership is recorded in the blockchain.  It is claimed that those plots will be increasingly used as money, so other people will want to buy your bitcoin for that purpose, and pay for it more than what you paid.  That is the only way to profit from bitcoin, whether in the short or in the long term.

No, I am not defending Coinbase.  Just pointing out that, as a legal commercial business, they are probably required by law to keep all their business records for five years. (I say "probably" because I am not certain that such is the law in the US; it is here in Brazil.)  The purpose of that law is to ensure that the IRS can do a tax audit (of Coinbase, or of any of their customers), and law enforcement agencies can use the data in their investigations, within that time frame.

I doubt that the courts will force Coinbase to break the law, only because you do not like it.

Not to defend Coinbase or anything, but they must be required by law to keep all their business records for five years, if only for tax auditing purposes. 

Erm, what is "illegal funds", if not funds obtained illegally?

But the whole point of hardware wallets is that they can be used with untrusted computers, such as one may have to use while traveling.

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the judge specifically referred to demeaning statements that BFL counsel made about the FTC and the receiver.  Now where was that document again...

EDIT: Found it:
http://ia802308.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531.110.0.pdf

Indeed it is not explicit about who was the offending party... but I find it hard to imagine the FTC name-calling the receiver or the judge...

Yes, thanks.

It would have about the same effect as 100 posts that just say "ripple is great", except it would be much less of a nuisance.

In fact, wonder whether you even know what ripple is.  I asked a simple factual question a while ago, and it went without answer.

I am puzzled -- do they expect the judge to agree that the FTC should have responded to one email claiming that the FTC is stealing money from the customers of Honest BFL?

Considering that the judge felt it necessary to reprimand them and threaten them with sanctions, in an official public court document, I would think that this question is quite settled now.

Can't you work out a deal with your sponsor, so that you get paid the same if each month you put out 1 totally non-informative post with 100 lines, instead of 100 one-line posts?

The price rose, for as-yet unknown reasons, from ~450$ on May-20 to ~650$ on Jun-03, and held there for a few days,

On Jun-12 the USMS announced the auction of the SR coins. The price immediately fell ~70$, and wandered about ~580$ until the auction.  It was ~600$ on auction day, Jun-29.

On the next day, Jun-30, the price jumped up again to about ~650$.  However it started to decline gradually, and by the end of July it was back to ~580$.

The drop after the announcement may have been manipulation, as claimed above.  However it could have been due to  general fear that the auctioned coins would end up being sold on the open market, and/or that the auction would close well below market.

The recovery on Jun-30 would then be due to the news that all coins had been bought by a ingle bidder.  Most people inferred, rightly or wrongly, that his bid had been well above market, and therefore that he was optimistic about the long term, and therefore he would not be dumping those coins on the exchanges.  (Anyone recalls when exactly Draper came public?)

Is the current slump related to the new USMS auction?  The times do not seem to match, and the impact of this new auction's announcement has been nothing compared to that of the June one.

Wait, has it been confirmed that the transactions that emptied the 1QAH account were made by the FTC?

Your wish may be granted soon.  The Chinese traders must be dumping and leaving the market, that is the easiest explanation for the 800$ to 370$ drop since January.  Still another 200$ down to go, I would guess, and then the Chinese Years will be over.

Scandal about Huobi's BitVC... or FUD planted by OKCoin?

Chinese article: http://www.btcbbs.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=25035&extra=
"火币网bitvc员工不得不说的惊人内幕"
"Huobi.com's bitvc employee reports amazing insider info"

English article based on it: http://www.bitell.com/t/2150
"We're Shocked!!! An Employee of Huobi BitVC Disclosed the Behind Story of His Working Platform, Huobi Co-founder Du Jun Claimed Huobi has Presented that to The Police"

There was some talk to that effect on this thread, at the time.  Some even wondered whether those coins would become prized collectibles, "the bitcoins seized from SilkRoad". 

However, the people who put up actual money for them probably believed in the fungibility of bitcoin.  As for the historic value, I doubt that people would line up to see them.

-- Rosie, would you come to my apartment to see my SilkRoad-seized bitcoin?
-- You mean, a physical coin?
-- Well, no, it is on the blockchain.  But it can be traced back to the first USMS auction.
-- Then we can see it here, on your iphone, no?  Show it... hm... wait, there, isn't that BTC-e's hot wallet?
-- Well, yes, but I have a notarized certificate attesting that this 1 BTC output you see here comes from that 3000 BTC input over there, and if you backtrace that...