Bitcoin Forum

How a currency that approx 50% is held by a few people can be stated as a decentralize money? These people together can influence the value of bitcoin with their spending. In a way, they are in control of it's value and saying that it is fully decentralize is only a lie. The more the bitcoin will be valuable, the more they will be able to be in control. Unproportional holding of a currency is never good for the majority.

Who are those people knight, tell us!?

I guess Satoshi and his friends who stared the bitcoin

I do not think decentralized means what you think it means...

All I see there.

The problem is even bigger since we don't know exactly who they are

What is your viable alternative, then? Are you proposing a communist-based system, where all money and wealth is distributed 'equally'?

If the wealth of the world is distributed equally amongst everyone, given that some time passes on the assumption that this is occurring in the market economy, disparities in wealth would occur once again. Some would use their wealth to beget more wealth, whilst others will immediately use their wealth for pure consumption, subduing themselves to poverty again.

See this enlightening article: http://afrodaddy.com/content/why-rich-stay-rich-and-poor-stay-poor

The reason why some people hold a lot of bitcoins is either:
A) They spent a lot of resources obtaining them, either by mining or exchanging using fiat
B) They adopted Bitcoin in its infancy when 10k Bitcoins were worth no more then a couple of pizzas
This holds the same as with any commodities/shares/store of value.

I could go on and on with this topic, but in a nutshell: Do you really understand what 'decentralized currency' mean?

Between creating money out of thin air to create inflation and spend big holding of currency that create inflation, the result is the same. You're steeling peoples savings in their wallet.

Holding money and not spending it (commonly known as: hoarding *cough*), creates DEflation not inflation. Maybe I got you wrong here. If so, pls correct me.

Also, It occurs to me that many in the community have unrealistic ideals about bitcoin and how its going to change society (SERIOUSLY ;) )
Many seem to think we are approaching a state of universal equality and happiness with the broad adoption of bitcoin. A world without banks and poverty. How is that even possible? The only thing thats gonna change is the medium of exchange, our increased reliance on technology, a quicker and cheaper form of money transmission made available and the further globalisation and ubiqity of the financial sector. Banks will still be needed to take loans (lenders on this forum are nothing different, they only differ in size and service range from common banks). Capitalism will still ravage the planet and its inhabitants, especially with less regulatory boundaries, by which its implications can be softened. People will not turn into better creatures, just because they can make financial transactions across in the globe in a blink of an eye.
I would wish for some of those changes to happen in the longrun, but bitcoin alone will not suffice to accomplish any of those achievements. A change in society and a change in mind has to take place on a local scale, for which bitcoin can be used as a tool to facilitate those, if used correctly.

stupid, or just fudding?

I also stare the bitcoin. I just can't help it, sometimes I stare at my wallet admiring the bitcoin.
Good to know I have something in common with Satoshi. We both stare the bitcoin. Satoshi did, I still do.
Who else here stares the bitcoin? Please tell me I'm not alone, now that Satoshi doesn't stare the bitcoin anymore...

I stare. But then Satoshi and his friends stare it too and then rob me of my bitcoin.

I stare so much people fear i'll go blind before the block reward halves

^^^  LOL!

Remember, the outcome of the value of a bitcoin is based on the observer!

Bitcoin's decentralization was never intended to apply to how fairly and evenly its units were destributed.  Rather, bitcoin's decentralization is that transfers happen without a single service provider maintaining and verifying a ledger of transactions and in that it can be made practically impossible for third parties to gain control over users' units of exchange.  The value of a bitcoin is a function of market forces and the protocol simply doesn't have anything say about it.  Frankly, I think you've completely misunderstood the meaning of 'decentralized' in this context.

Yeah, you'd like that fail socialist bullshit of everyone has to get the same portion wouldn't you. Piss off.

And I'm only this rude because of the fact that there's an untold amount of empirical historical evidence about socialism and how much suffering and agony it always causes that I have zero tolerance for anyone who still tries to spread that bullshit as some sort of ideal we should all be striving for.

You're not a fan of quality, are you?

Nor is he a fan of low prices.

Have first hand evidence from living in a communist country. Better not try!

There are many cryptocurrency alternatives already, with different distribution (inflation/deflation) parameters. What kind of distribution model do you want to choose? You are free to use any of the available currencies, or you can start your own cryptocurrency. But why would people choose your currency over others?

Well, his observation is neither smart, nor rational, so I'm gonna say C: All of the above

You are incorrect there:

The first can be done an INFINITE number of times.

The second could theoretically be a problem, but it would only work ONCE, after which they would be out of coins.


Anyway it is known that neither Satoshi nor the other super early adopters have THAT many BTC. A couple of millions in $ which I wouldn't mind having myself, but then that's about it.

Even dumping it all they would only be able to suppress the BTC price a few years at best. Just mtgox alone trade their worth in volume over the span of a few months.

Lastly they have nothing to gain from doing so and what they DO have to gain they have earned by giving the world BTC.

A suggestion to all the people who are opposed to one or more fundamental design features of Bitcoin:


Don't use it.


Thank you for your time.

Or better, design your own better currency and conquer the world :D

 it just must serve to put zhe current criminals out of power.....
no problem here thats transfered for a time to Satoshi and friends cause inventing a univerally accepted uninflatable medium of exchange ( if the 21 million limit really is written in stone) saving the planet from utter dept slavery has to be rewarded.

Cheers Zyk

C:/user/desktop/stupid/fudding/alloftheabove/findthebadmen...execute!!!

I have always liked this explanation of the economy with a group of friends that go drinking and decide to split the bill. Even the most idiotic of people must understand this right?

http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/bar_stool_economics

Windows paths use backward slashes lol FAIL \\\

one of the richest old dragons probably is knightmb with ~300k bitcoins.

currently it is still well possible for many people to buy 1/1000th of the bitcoins he has: 300btc ~~$2500

how does that compare to the fiat world?

gates and slim: 60+ billion dollars --> 1/1000th of that?  $60,000,000  --> good luck


--> bitcoin wealth distribution still is 24,000 times balanced better than fiat money. but it might not be for long.

Wow, look at you!   Ya got me.  You're really on top of your game today!

 ::)

Um how about you start here...

Bitcoin meets the goal outlined in the first paper:
http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf


http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Bitcoin never claimed to achieve a "fair" (by whatever nebulous moral, religious, or personal values you define it) distribution of coins.

Bitcoin is a network which requires no trusted third party (noobs often forget you still need to trust the counter-party).

I can acquire coins (either directly via coinbase or indirectly by trading with someone who has some). 
I can send those coins to another party.

None of that required trust or reliance on a third party.  Bitcoin achieves the goals outlined by Satoshi.

The problem with this staring competition is unfair early staring advantage. Satoshi and friends have been staring bitcoin for so long that we don't have a chance to stare at bitcoin even remotely as long as they can.

I'm making my own currency: StareCoin. Difference to bitcoin: I will pre-stare 50% of the coins for promotional purposes, plus: it will be more fair, because even people with glasses can stare. Rawdog is disallowed to participate, he'd have too much of an advantage.

btw: whoever laughs loses all his StareCoins.

Maybe he was using R

I've been talking to a person that started on knight22s train of thought. I actually got them to the point where they suggested that the currency would have to be re-distributed fairly among all participants on a monthly basis in order to undo any unfair distribution that might have occurred. Only then it dawned on him...

I'll bite the bait, and assume you are serious, then I'll put you on "ignore" - first of all, you are making unsupported claims to prove a predecided, firey conclusion. Second, you are free to buy or mine coins as you please, just like anyone else. A totally decentralized, level field for everyone. Thank developers for the opportunity that is offered to you for free, even if you are too blind to recognize it.

We're at 9,304,250/21,000,000.

50% of the bitcoins haven't even been mined yet.  There have been several very large coin dumps.  Each time this happens many buyers take control of coins from one seller.

Control of the supply of new currency is unarguably decentralized.  Your buddy Ben and his board of fat cats controls the creation of new USD.  You have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Join us and enjoy the benefits, or walk away and hope you don't regret it.

If you stare at a schrodingers cat its not really dead.

Instead of being hostile fcks, you can all educate him. He clearly doesnt understand distribution and decentralization.

What can i expect from bitcoin community?
 ::)

i'd extend that to society at large, honestly... though particularly so the internet. maybe that's just me and my experiences... though honestly, i kinda like it that way. educating people is great, it really is. but, to qoute Ron white, i think it was - "you can't fix stupid." ...course that was probably a horrible person to qoute just then...but the sentiment fit.

...ya know, sometimes i'm a real asshole... oh well. :D

I don't think I was hostile, and half the posts are trolls talking about pathname conventions.  There is always a few hostile fcks.

If ppl are born stupid and you cant fix them, what the point of belittling them?

The whole thread can be done with one simple reply. You would think a new bitcoiner coming to this forum reading this type of thread would take bitcoin seriously?

There should be more enforcement from the admins to keep children in their playground.

having read some of the OP's other topics my conclusion is knight22 is NOT a real person, but either someone too lazy to do some research or a sock puppet out to troll....

seriously seriouscoin?
your first post in this thread did nothing to educate anyone, lead by example maybe?

I guess you can send men with guns around to steal their money...oh wait....

Decentralized means that no central party controls how Bitcoin operates.

Decentralized does not mean that every person who holds coins is equally wealthy.

Further, having tons of coins does not bestow any special power upon the holder of the coins. While someone with many coins can "dump" them on the market and affect prices, this is only temporary, for after the dump the person will have surrendered his coins to dozens of new owners, and thus you should see that the problem is self-correcting.

A wealthy person can only "manipulate" a market for a temporary amount of time, and does so at great risk (and often great loss) to himself.

I'm usually all for being nice and explaining things.

knight22 however thinks he knows all the answers already and attacks one (if not the) fundamental feature/value of bitcoin (decentralization) by saying it doesn't exist and also takes a stab at a very emotional topic (early mover advantage). Probably most thought him to be a blatant troll.

I can understand why he's not met with caring understanding and I don't think that's what he needs, either.

I did that once. While I was staring, the live cat ate its dead self. After that it turned to me and said it was rude to stare, then changed into a pig with wings and flew away...  ???

wasn't there some blotter acid called "schrödingers" at one point?

That's not very accurate as comparison since these billionaires you talk about don't hold >60 bi USD in cash or in their bank accounts as money. They hold an enormous amount of assets which, when quoted in dollars, reach such value. But these assets are not USD and could very well be quoted in BTC for example.

OP's BS nevertheless.

Except the wealthy in America pay much lower taxes and much of their wealth is from printed dollars handed out by government to them - printed dollars that devalue the dollars of the middle class mostly.

In my country that linked example however is pretty spot on.

Actually, in America the number that don't pay anything would have started out as 5, and the one rich guy would be paying closer to $70.  The top 5% in the US pay roughly 80% of the total taxes.  That's not a tax rate, mind you, that's the net total tax revenue.  49% of the population pays zero net taxes to the federal government, and roughly half of them get more from federal programs and grants than they pay in.  I should know, I'm one of those who get back as much as I pay in.  The irony there is that I pay in a lot.  I earn a great deal of money, upper middle class even by US standards; yet I have a lot of deductions and tax credits.  For example, I'm a foster parent; so the government (via block grants to states, and then the state to me) pays for the expenses of those fosters.  Althouh that is mostly just a repayment, I do literally receive just about as much money via those reimbursements than i pay in federal taxes.  And I'm in a middle class tax bracket, and paid in about $13K last year.

I honestly don't have all the numbers and there is so much propaganda floating around I hardly know what's real these days HOWEVER:

IF much of the top wealth in the USA really is from printed dollars then the tax paid by the receivers of such mean nothing:
Its like if I rob you and then donate a few nickles to charity.

Considering the deficit printing and the bailouts and that the richest often hold their wealth in assets, not fiat, I would not be surprised if in truth the poor and the middle class in the US carry the largest burden.

Sure the top 5% of the population may not be well-connected bankers or corporate heads, but they may well be working for such.
(EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
1 tril deficit/15 tril gdp = 1/15 used dollars are printed)


I think money printing is more disruptive than most realize. It doesn't just lower fiat value, it makes it impossible to see whether a venture is creating value for society or just tapping into the flow of fake money - given time such confusion corrupts your entire economy vastly.

The two are not mutually exclusive.  The line for joining the top 5% is about $120K per year, which is considered upper middle class by our own government tax bracket system.  So yes, one can literally say that the top 5% pay 80% of the taxes, while also say that the middle class shoulders most of the burden at the same time.  Bear in mind that when a politico speaks, he doesn't always use those words in the same way that you might understand them.


Yup.

Interesting observation about your cash flow statement.
On the other hand (as the famous one-armed economist would say), you and I and everybody else in a developped country have a lot of public assets on our balance sheet like roads you  can travel, hospitals, mostly educated people around you, etc

Having said that, @OP, the bitcoin money supply mechanism is both decentralized and self-regulated:
there is no incentive to hoard beyond a certain, stable equilibrium point where the two functions of money (store of value and medium of exchange) are fulfilled optimally.
Because bitcoins are infinitely divisible (I know about satoshis being handled as integer numbers by the current reference implementation but that is not cast in concrete),
the exact position of the equilibrium point is irrelevant (we can have 99% percent hoarding at equilibrium and still enjoy a fully functional monetary system).

About entitlements and taxes in US, I'll just leave this here: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

I agree that every person who holds coins have not to be equally wealthy but the problem is when the imbalance is way to big, it's give control to the holder on the value of the currency.

Also, it is false to say that this person can dump is currency only once. Of course, he will do it in a manner that a huge amount will come back to him again (investment, companies, assets, etc)

When a person or a group of person are in control of the value, IT IS CENTRALIZE. And no matter how you will call it, the problem still remain.

Interesting.  I'm pretty close to the minimum wage end (I make decent hourly rates, but I work less paid hours.  I do a lot of other work I don't get paid for, and like to spend time with family and friends).  I don't use any welfare programs.  I was wondering why I wasn't eligible for the EITC since an extra $5000 (likely less since I'm unmarried with no children) sounds pretty nice, but I looked it up and I'm just now 25, which is the cutoff (ages 25-65 are eligible), so I will be eligible this year.

Anyway the only problem I have with that article (other than its obvious bias that detracts from credibility in places) is the use of the term "disposable income".  The minimum wage example doesn't have $37,777 in disposable income.  The $5k EITC could arguably be disposable income, but the rest of it is benefits, not cash.  

Let's assume for a second that your definition of centralization is correct.  How would you create a decentralized currency?  I could see something like limiting the amount any one address can hold, but people will just open multiple "accounts".  We could tie accounts to identity, but then we need an organization to verify identities.

I think that this is something that will be hard to solve. But that is why I am posting this tread, to start a debate and look if we can find a solution.
I have noticed that time limit is very unpopular in this forum. That will probably solve this problem but of course this solution is not perfect because it will create other problems..

Bitcoin decentralization is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Regardless of who you are, you are free to buy and sell as many bitcoins as you like, to mine, or to contribute code, without asking anyone for permission first.

In terms of outcome, yes the "natual outcome" is an unequal distribution of power,  but enforcing a perfectly equal outcome would require curbing the above freedoms for some bitcoin users. Where to draw the line?

I am not even sure if a perfectly equal power distribution is desirable.

People who own more bitcoin are typically more invested in bitcoin and more capable and motivated to defend it than casual or newbie users.

In that case we can only hope the big holders will spend their bitcoin with a responsible manner... and this is something we can never be sure about

It's also something we can't be sure about in the 'real' economy. Wars are to a large extent caused by 'irresponsible' spending of resources.

-bgc

I told you the rich people are relatively KNOWN and it is KNOWN that they do NOT hold all that much money.

There is NO single person out there with 99,9% of all bitcoins who can use it as monopoly money.

If that WAS the case I might agree with you, but its not, so admit that fact or make it obvious you are trolling.
If he "dumps" for companies or investments then he is just using BTC for normal trade which is a GOOD thing.

Manipulation of currency is per definition something unnatural... like printing or confiscating etc.

Yes... but no one is with bitcoin.

So what do you call it then? That's right de-centralized.

OK then but do you have any numbers to share?

Look at the numbers in Jon Matonis' article here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/22/the-bitcoin-richest-accumulating-large-balances/

BTC is pretty hard to track, however there is a known genesis block that is the first block.

That was created about 3-4 years ago and the BTC generation has been steady since by protocol design.

This means that even if satoshi was the ONLY miner the first YEAR he still "only" has 2.628.000 BTC or ~17 mil $ or what must be ~12.5% of all bitcoin there will ever be.

That is a long long way from 99.9% and likely far from what anyone has, as there have been multiple and different miners for most of bitcoins time and they likely used at least some of their coins before the value went way up.

the 50% of the bitcoins have not yet been mined.

Well I guest 12.5% of total holding is not enough to control but only influence the value. That is reassuring me.

Thanks for sharing.

Do you?  I can personally know for certain that it's impossible that anyone else has 99.9% of bitcoins, because I have direct evidence that there are several people that have enough to total to over 0.1% of said coins. 

Yes! Onward to bitOrwllianism comrade!  We can only achieve decentralization by centralizing control to ensure that it is decentralized.

I like the cut of your jib.

Read the article. There is one address that holds about 5%. The next largest address holds about 1%. Nobody has 12.5%.

He was referring to a theoretical maximum number that I calculated.

+ address balance means nothing. You could have more.

And, again, the protocol wasn't design to address that concern.  The decentralization of bitcoin doesn't have to do with value.  There is no way to address the concern your raising.  Want to know why?  Because it has to do with the economics of supply and demand and that some people simply have enough wealth to influence the value of any financial instrument.  There is no solution to this "problem".

Sure there is... Off with their heads!

Disclaimer: this is a joke, killing people is bad m'kay?

I think that his concern was that Satoshi created a trillion BTC for himself before he released the client.

BTC would still be cool and all, but with that much wealth in the hands of the creator he might as well have put in a "print BTC"-button.


An alt chain with less initial cash would have been the easy solution to that.

He could have, but he didn't and couldn't do it now.  The running codebase wouldn't recognize it as valid.  There is no special powers that Satoshi (or anyone else) can grant themselves at this point.

ftfy

• January 3, 2009: Genesis block established at 18:15:05 GMT
• January 11, 2009: Bitcoin v0.1 released and announced on the cryptography mailing list

The early miner was pretty slow. It took much longer than 10 minutes per block. Only about 100 blocks (5000 btc) were solved by Jan 11.

Part of that was because Satoshi also coded a minimum difficulty into the algo, which was high enough that one cpu was never going to be able to reach that mark.  Since there were no gpu miners yet, this required that a number of other players jump into the game before the 10 minute target interval could be obtained.

So Satoshi didn't give himself more advantage than he deserves as the inventor. He even gave himself much less than what could be argued as a "fair first mover advantage".

relevant old thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333 ("Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers")