Thank you for your thoughts.


I hear what you're saying about the potentially corrosive influence of money in conflict-of-interest scenarios - and I am prepared to accept that, to a certain extent, that's what this is. And if it is the case, then it needs for some people to be ensuring this aspect isn't brushed under the carpet.

However, what is as far as I can see not helping at all is that the fact that it may be so is used to dismiss otherwise reasonable-sounding arguments.  Exactly the same happens with the other side dismissing arguments because of the assumption those making them are funded by Ver / Jihan.

The way I'm experiencing soooooo many exchanges is that they typically go like this:

commenter 1: 'I believe this particular aspect of your pro-segwit / anti-segwit argument is weak because...'
commenter 2: 'No, I disagree because [technical-sounding] reason'
commenter 1: 'I am familiar with that argument but disagree because...'
commenter 2: 'Yeah, but you're only saying that because you're corrupted by Blockstream / Ver.'
commenter 1: takes the bait, gets annoyed
commenter 2: ups the insults, proclaims massive generalisations about 'the other side'
End of discussion, nothing achieved!

This, or variations upon it (for segwit, read big blocks, BU, Core, EC etc. etc.) happen hundreds of times a day and it achieves nothing other than to further polarise and deepen the schism in the community.

Regarding the history, how this all came about. I was deliberately vague and circumspect in my response here for obvious reasons. Funnily enough, just after that, I had an interesting read that rings true to me - even if it overemphasises some aspects and ignores others. http://bitsonline.com/war-message-board-bitcoin-unlimited/

This is where I disagree. If we dismiss a whole group as 'beyond hope' rather than engaging where we can on aspects with which we agree and disagree - and to make a reasonable attempt to assume that they do have the best interests of Bitcoin in mind (even if it's not true) - we may have some hope of begining to reverse the polarisation. If reasonable discourse with a massive bunch of people who have a significant stake in the project is 'beyond hope' then I fear the whole project may be 'beyond hope'!

Thank you for your thoughts.
I wasn't intending to limit my considerations in that manner though that may be simply because I'm not familiar enough with the other proposals currently under consideration / development.
A potential vulnerability of LN for theft / fraud was not what I had in mind, rather the risk for anyone getting involved with bitcoins with small amounts being at risk of never being able to move them because of fees. If the likelihood is in creasing that the failure of the community to come to a consensus will lead to no change - or a change that does not allow fees to return to something that allowed for a multitude of use cases - then I need to be thinking differently about the use case I had in mind that brought me to Bitcoin in the first place.

Because if fees are on their way up by another order of magnitude or two then we should be warning poorer people with fiat-abusing governments to hold out until 2nd tier technologies are mature and available - and to live with the hyperinflation in the meantime. Because buying on-chain bitcoins in small amounts carries a significant risk they'll never be able to spend them - or that they'll lose such a high proportion in fees to move it off-chain that they would have been better off sticking with the abused fiat!

These sound promising in that respect. And as for the 'problem' of a dependency on miners to transfer back, as Andreas Antonopolous says, it's not a choice of having everything on the chain or not, it's whether we want the 2nd tier to be private databases such as Coinbase's or something something that is decentralised. And I'd much rather trust a miner (who has an enormous amount at stake in the success of the Bitcoin space) than 'banks'.

Then let's hope for - and work towards - a day where you and I can meet up in a coffee bar in Khartoum, paying for it with a bitcoin-pegged whatever (or with bitcoin itself - who knows)! I said to myself as we took off from there (in 1996) that I would be back one day when they have governance that does not tear the country apart and that its people are free to build lives for themselves and for their families. Currency is just one piece of that jigsaw. The country has since split (North and South) so the killings are not as bad as they were but most of us have heard of the Darfour camps and have an image of depravity even if many aren't aware of where it is and the causes of the problems.

However, I live in hope and part of my motivation in engaging in conversation that often seems to be a total waste of everybody's time is the hope that between us, we can make something happen that has Bitcoin - or something, anything - that can at least solve the currency abuse aspect and see what part that may have in moving towards resolving the other stuff.

That may well be so. Except in this instance, as you can not but understand by now, I wasn't was I? Whether the original misunderstanding was genuine or not, by now you're just being obtuse, riding that horse high, and proclaiming to the world how you know better than everybody else what free speech means.

OK, so we've discovered I have a different theoretical opinion than you on the limitations (or lack thereof) of free speech. But given your insistence that it does not apply in a theatre because it is private, how on earth does can you genuinely believe it has any bearing on my choice to ignore - and to declare that I ignore - something you wrote that - as I saw it - was not in line with the spirit of what I was intending by instigating this particular thread?

I think I'll hand you the award of thread de-railer and leave it at that.

Ah, thanks for this - I thought I was going mad for a moment. Glad it's not just me! I have to say I haven't hung out round these parts for a couple of years (since the politically-motivated 'moderation' got out of hand) so I don't really know who is who. Funnily enough, I only posted this here because after having written it and posted it on r/bitcoin it lasted about three likes and ten minutes before being removed so I thought I'd try here. No point in posting it in /rbc because I'd just get choruses of 'yeah, they're all corrupt and blah blah'. Not saying they're not right, but not helpful to me in trying to really be as open as I can to arguments from any side.

I hear you - and I think stating some of the things in this way may not be conducive to bringing the debate back to economic and technical considerations. There may be an element of the lack of social skills with some technical experts, but I don't think to generalise about Core that way is likely to get the people you might most need to hear your arguments to listen.

Only last night was I wondering whether Core would consider rolling back segwit if it doesn't get accepted within the year. But my fear is there is so much pride at stake - too many egos to be bruised by stepping back and acknowledging the other side might have had a point that the extremes on both sides may prefer to see the ship go down than to climb down. On Blockstream (at least you didn't go the whole Axa / Bildaberg), whilst there is a possibility there may be influence, first, I'm not convinced it's substantial, second, there's no need to go there to make constructive arguments against the block-size limit and third, again, it really doesn't help! For any Core contributors who have been convinced by the technical merits of the path they've taken, these kinds of accusations just sound ludicrous and those making them will be dismissed and any valid points they have will be lost. It's the same as the r/Bitcoin Core fanbois assuming and accusing anyone who is not in full agreement with them of being paid by Ver. Sometimes it seems like the whole community (if I may borrow Carlton's phrase) has gone 'full retard'! 'It's too late for compromise' is just a way of justifying a refusal to listen and to engage without sounding like a five-year-old. But I'm beginning to think if we picture stubborn five-year-olds refusing point blank to listen to anyone and sticking to what they want irrespective of anyone and everything, that's closer to what's going on here than most would like to acknowledge.

Thank you for saying this. It needs to be heard more often from 'our' side of the debate. What the first 'natural' bottlenecks would have been and when they might have begun to have an impact is a matter of educated (or not-so-educated) guesswork. But there is no doubt it would - and will if we get past the present impasse.

One of the most frustrating aspects to me are the economic illiterate arguments that this forced 'fee market' is a positive thing. It is economic rent and from Adam Smith, those who get it know that it is crippling to an economy - as it is increasingly crippling to the economy as we feel its impact.

I don't think that's fair. Many have been engaged in the debate for a long time. But here's how I see it: when a small number refused to consider they may not be seeing the whole picture, that they may be mistaken in their view, when that stubbornness resulted in the loss to the project of some sharp minds such that they could steer the rest of the contributors to do things their way, there was a high likelihood we'd get to the split community we have today. Add to that the campaign to control the narrative and stifle discontent and I'd say it was almost inevitable we'd reach here.

It seems everyone else has lost interest in this thread otherwise I'd be tempted to simply ignore this response. But seeing as there's no discussion to derail by pursuing it...

I have to say I'm beginning to suspect you're having me on here. You're not seriously as outraged as you make out are you - because I criticised your reference to Gavin Anderson, saying that I wouldn't respond to it - or some such?


Oh yes I will (sorry, I can't think of anything more appropriate than a pantomime response to that one)!

Melodrama aside, you are correct with respect to my only being responsible for my own speech. I have no interest whatsoever in limiting your speech to whatever 'my personal definition of reasonable'. The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'. I was not referring to what you say in this thread or on this or any forum. I don't know of any clearer way I could say that I accept and would not wish to impinge or restrict in any way your freedom of speech.

Regarding this thread, I had merely expressed a preference for the tone here and after your Gavin reference, I had implied that in my opinion you had not respected that and that I would not respond to itf. You jumped on your high horse. I accepted that and said you're welcome to say what you want. I was just politely asking - from the top - that opinions here be expressed in a much narrower format than free speech allows. I requested that, you chose otherwise. So be it. I'm not offended. I haven't a clue what you're so hot under the collar about!


Yes, absolutely. Here at least we are both on the same page, if only you could see that!

Oh my, and don't you love it when you believe that's happened because you can feel self-righteous in going off the handle and laying into those who offend you so!
Look Carlton, Please go back and read it again. If you take away your apparent misinterpretation of my 'within reason' and accept I was talking about principle (seeing as that was the direction you'd gone in), not about whatever you may choose to say in the thread I'd started (the moderators would jump in and intervene LOOOOONG before I'd say anything here 'should not be said'. The rest was just an expression of a preference. And if you understand free speech as well as you believe you do, you'll realise I do have a right to express a preference.

Get a grip! Who do you think you are, my mother?!!

Are you seriously trying to claim here that saying that someone has 'gone full retard' is not an attack on a person but on the substance of his argument?

At this point, I think we've gone past any hope of you and I deriving any benefit from taking this further. I haven't yet, but seeing as you went to the trouble of writing the rest, I will at least respect that and read it and give it consideration - but I won't respond because I believe by now it's a waste both of your time and mine.

I'll wish you the best.

I'm not seeing this as cynical at all. I'm pleased you've expressed this point as succinctly as you have. It is my position too and I'm failing at present to see flaws in this reasoning.

At the risk of being cynical myself, if we follow this through, the wiping out of the savings of small users reduces the usable currency so in a kind-of parallel to the argument small-blockers make about big miners using orphaning to push out small miners, what we have here going on right now is big hodlers gradually seeing the usable coin further reduce from 21 million (minus yet-to-be-mined, minus losses). In practical terms, losses through wiped-out savings are have the same impact on value (by reducing available coin) as losses through private-key loss. So it is in the interest of substantial hodlers that the advocates of high on-chain transaction fees continue to get their way - providing of course, that restricting the use cases to three as per Core-plan (please see OP) doesn't cause the collapse of Bitcoin altogether.

Unfortunately, I get the impression there's a not insubstantial number of hodlers of reasonable sums in the 'f*** you, I'm all right Jack' subset of ancaps / libertarians / gold-bugs. This could - and may already - be influencing the failure for this to have moved forward for so long.

Thank you, I can more-or-less follow that and it makes sense to me. I'm hoping, though I can't entirely trust myself on this, that that is more because I follow the reasoning in your logic than that I'm agreeing because we're in agreement of the harmfulness of the current block-size limit!

Thank you for the clarification - and I appreciate the manner with which you stated it.


That was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if it came over that way. What I was attempting - and have clearly failed - to accomplish was to keep the tone of the discussion as per my OP subject. Had this conversation happened between us in person, had you mentioned Gavin 'going full retard' with a few others in the room listening, participating, I may - seeing what's to be seen in your face and demeanour when talking, hearing the tone of your voice etc. - have responded with different words or in a manner that I doubt very much would have resulted in a verbal outburst such that you just wrote.

Whatever you think, I don't think speaking in this manner of someone nor speaking in the way in which you've now responded is helpful. I am not a moderator. I have no control over anything anyone may wish to say. I certainly would never wish to imply for a fraction of a second that I don't absolutely respect yours and everybody's rights to express whatever they wish.

I did not say it was unimportant. I was merely attempting to keep the tone of the conversation to that which I find most constructive.

and I will defend your right to say whatever you want in whichever way you want wherever you want (within reason). I will also defend my right to request, at least in this thread that we keep things civil and, even if by implication that we drop the ad homs. I won't either apologise for responding to something I find to be unhelpful accordingly - even if I'm wrong and Gavin actually is...... (not that I agree with you).

And I'm trying to draw attention to the fundamental and important distinction between saying something is foolish and calling someone a fool - or worse.

I'm not so interested in what's right or wrong at this stage in this context but of what's helpful in having any hope in having this conversation move towards a resolution rather than the community and the demise of the first mover.

I can follow that argument, and may agree that, all things considered, he may have been advocating for a sequence that would make more sense otherwise.

However, neither you nor I are privy to all the considerations, circumstances, understanding, even over-riding life paradigm, that Gavin did at the time. I'm happy with 'I disagree' or 'having done as much research and study as I can to understand things to the extent I do, I can see no circumstance in which what Gavin advocated makes sense' - I've made a similar statement in this thread myself about something else.

I think going as far as to say 'I'm right' is unhelpful.
Taking it to 'He's wrong' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he must be stupid, corrupt, etc.' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he's an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful.
(and not that you said this but just to complete this list)...
Taking it 'this person still has respect for him therefore he / she must also be wrong, stupid, corrupt, an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful still - and it is this last one that appears to be dominating most of the Reddit Bitcoin-related subreddits.

I was hoping for better than that if only in this particular thread. And to be fair, to a significant a large extent I am being rewarded - from yourself included.

Thank you. I appreciate the simplicity in the what you say  - and if this is true because of something that could be addressed such that it isn't the case, then it is what I was referring to - which, for some reason, doesn't appear to be on the wiki list of big-block objections.

But apart from the possibility that this can be somehow addressed, given hashing difficulty will adjust to accommodate increases in time, is the problem with 'time taken to process by 4'  that it becomes a race, not just of hashing power, but of the processing required before hashing can commence? Could you link me to a reference that discusses this matter (preferably one where counterarguments can also be voiced and considered).

Carlton Banks did explain to my satisfaction what he meant by it. If I understood him correctly, another way I'd describe it is if you change the scale of a map you get a lot more area shown for each increment increased. According to Carlton Banks's argument, this means at best, we get 'only' double transaction volume by doubling the block chain. For (I'll avoid the word scaling) increasing the potential transaction throughput to a number that would satisfy potential demand, we need something that does more than linear growth.

From the other heated argument above I can see there may be a reasonable case to be made that you don't even get 1-1 (throughput / blocksize) which if true, makes it even more important to find longer-term solutions - of which segwit may be one.

However, not everything has to be addressed at once and to me - as to Gavin and others - 'kicking the can down the road' by having an increase that would have prevented us from getting to what we have today - a currency dropping off on-chain use cases by the day. To this day I fail to see how it can be worth risking the totally unknown consequences of the presently worsening situation - deliberately letting it get to the stage of a ceiling-hit-forced-fee-market - in order to 'encourage' or speed up the development of second-tier solutions.

Talking of Gavin, I omitted your references to 'flaming and pretentious' and dismiss the oft-repeated 'Gavin [having gone] full retard' as an example of some of the phenomena I talk about in the last post. I'm trying to put such statements to one side and not let it colour my preparedness to listen to the reasoned arguments people who are saying such things are making. At the risk of sounding patronising, I suggest others participating here do likewise.

I'll answer this one first but I'm aware of the risk that more than one aspect of my response may trigger a derailing of the thread into something which was deliberately de-emphesised in my OP. So I'll request restraint here!

To be clear, I did not state I am against segwit.

I have my concerns based on technical objections I've heard for which I've not seen responses that satisfy me. However this may simply be down to the following phenomenon: that it's often easier to follow and to be convinced by the reasoning of an objection than to follow and to be convinced by what for experts may be a satisfactory response but not for me - not because of a potential weakness in the argument but because its following requires a deeper technological understanding than I possess. I realise this response opens a whole can of worms but my request here is that you accept the openness of my expression of where I am with it and not jump on the fact of my not being convinced to turn this into something else! The context is the OP please?

One of the things I'm trying to overcome when it comes to Core and Segwit is my negative emotional response to it. How do I put this?! The culture into which segwit was born is one of high toxicity. If I were to trace back to one root cause for that I'd say - in the context of my experience real face-to-face contact last night - that we are soooooooo much more likely in written discussions to assume bad faith, stupidity, corruption etc. and to respond accordingly with accusations and insults in we are in real-life conversation. I think if most of the debate had happened by the presentation of ideas followed by meetups of small groups to discuss them, we - and Bitcoin - would be in a veeery different place by now.

We saw a culture within Core (since before it was known by that name) that made some prior key contributors and respected figures in the community feel they were too at odds with where it was going that they no longer had a part in it. And I get the impression it was a small number of  convinced, possibly stubborn individuals who determined the current direction Core (it's much easier for someone passionate for the general cause and for contributing by coding to select project areas that are less controversial with the core strong-arm).

We have the possibly irreparable schism in the community which I see largely due to a choice made and followed to this day of taking a particular definition of an altcoin and using it to prevent open, balanced discussion about possible ways forward (says I, hoping my tangential reference is clear enough to make my point whilst being obscure enough for it not to derail the topic). Part of me screams that I simply don't want to see those who played a part (or who failed to take a stand) succeed - and a truly unreasonable side of me even says: '...even at the cost of the failure of Bitcoin'!

Another unhelpful human trait in this regard is the contrast between true experts in any field being quietly confident and happy to explain to those who are open to their ideas v. those who falsely believe they are experts who have an apparent need to shout loudest, to be confrontational, to accuse etc. Guess which group has the biggest influence on the directions of forums such as here and Reddit? Related to this, but I think slightly different, is another human trait - the gap between our belief of the absent or tiny role of emotion in our apparently reasoned arguments versus the actual role of emotion in those same arguments. So whilst my current quest includes trying to disentangle the merits of Core and segwit from my emotional response to them, I'm not asking here to be convinced of segwit right now. I'm asking that the points I raise in the OP to be addressed - I'm looking for things that will help me be able to see past those - and then, possibly to look at segwit differently in time.

Thanks for the responses to-date. Plenty food for thought for me to sleep on. I'll respond to the extent I understand and am capable of coherently expressing my thoughts tomorrow.

Thank you.

Would you elaborate please what you mean by 'it doesn't scale'?

I believe I am more open to put the politics to one side and to be persuaded that the Core roadmap has more merit than my ideas*

Rather than just asking, I just brushed up on the arguments according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy but I'm still not sure I know what you mean.

I recollect talk of a technical issue that, as things stand, means an increased block size causes a disproportionately high demand on bandwidth. Is it this you're referring to? Or maybe that given the potential demand, there's no way the blockchain would suffice on its own, thereby requiring off-chain scaling? Or something else?

On the first, even with my low technical understanding, I can see that there would be sense in addressing this prior to increasing the block size. However, on technical issues, I look to see to others whose judgement I trust who have better understanding - such as Gavin & Mike - and on this I don't recollect this issue as being seen as a big problem.

On potential demand, I have no argument with the blockchain not being able to hold it all in the long term. It could, however, hold more and I am given to understand that technical minds outside of Core see very little risk in increasing current capacity, allowing continuity of the growth as we've experienced so far whilst allowing time for technology, ideas and development to continue.

If it is something else you mean, I'm genuinely interested.

Whilst I have given my current responses to my two guesses as to what you meant, it doesn't mean I'm dismissive of what you write. Responding as I have helps air and articulate where I'm at at the moment whilst keeping the door open to being persuaded otherwise.

Thanks again Carlton Banks

* this very same post got shadowbanned on r/bitcoin within 10 mins (https://www.ceddit.com/r/Bitcoin/new/) but despite this, though disappointed, I'm not angry and not deterred in pursuing the most reasoned conclusion of which I'm capable, whatever that may be.

Preamble you can skip if you want: I'm as guilty as many on both sides of snarky, smart-arse comments but tonight I just spent a very enjoyable hour (doing a face-to-face trade) with two who hold different opinions than me. I think we all learned something and I'm confident we all had more respect for the legitimacy of holding a different view from ourselves.

My primary point is that a technical expertise does not make one an economics expert and therefore there's a danger in trusting the technical experts to make the decisions that risk what has proven to work thus far i.e. enough space to accommodate almost all transactions.

I wanted, since visiting Sudan in the mid nineties, a currency that would protect people in countries from government actions that truly screw them over such as the monthly doubling the money supply to pay the army (that doubled the price of everything on the day the army was paid).
I had figured out in the years after that public key cryptography might be the basis of an independent currency and was hoping someone smarter than me might figure it out. But even though I was kinda expecting it I was still blown away by the elegance of Satoshi's solution.

One of the exciting things was that the same currency served the needs of so many different groups of people including: the Austrians / gold-bug types, libertarians / ancaps and others including me who see value in an incorruptible currency, people screwed by high remittance fees or by gov't restrictions of internal or international currency transfer, the unbanked who are cut off from financial services most here take for granted, its use for contracts such as with Factom - even those, such as me - who liked to give small amounts away* or raise intrigue with shopkeepers, restaurant owners by offering physical (or later wallet app) bitcoins for my meal etc. etc. The fact that there were, in addition, so many use cases that we could not even imagine what they might be was just mind-blowing for me.

The failure to do something about the transaction bottleneck before it started to nudge fees up and (and/or cause delays orders of magnitude higher than before) is and will continue to have an impact. This isn't about laying blame today. I think it's fair to say all stakeholders (in the wider use of the term) including developers, miners, other users and moderators jointly - if not equally - have to-date failed to make a change a user can use today.
I am looking forward to seeing 2nd layer off-chain solutions bringing all kinds of new use cases. I also mourn the loss of the use of the blockchain for the other use cases as their viability is eroded to nothing by fees and delays.

As I see it, those whose judgement on Bitcoin's future has apparently earned the respect of the majority on this sub due to their technical merit, have a plan that accepts the loss of the multitude of use cases (on-chain) as a price worth paying to have Bitcoin be as strong as possible for the three use cases they deem worthy: censorship-resistant-currency, store-of-value, settlement-layer.

If this argument continues to prevent the increase of the block-size limit, as much as I'd like to see them proven wrong, I genuinely hope that Bitcoin will continue to be of value to enough for merely those three use cases to survive and to thrive. The fact is we don't know. Nobody can know. The combination of use cases and unlimited potential use cases was what got us to where we are today. How long can we chip away at the other use cases and still have something that holds value? Maybe indefinitely? It depends entirely on the faith and the preparedness of those who stay in to pull us out of whatever next big dip is. It is still a significantly inflationary currency and the higher up the price goes, with more coming on board at higher prices, the further it has to fall. And we ought not forget it is not the only player in the crypto space.

From what I understand of 2nd layer channels, they're not going to serve the Sudanese and those in the many countries where the spread of mobile telephony means they could potentially exchange what for us are small amounts to protect themselves. My hope is that Bitcoin can still do this - as I believe was the vision of Satoshi and as I understand some with a much better technical understanding than me (GA, for one) believe is still possible.

But if it's not Bitcoin, I'm kinda hoping for the sake of what it once was that it survives and continues to reward those who believed in it but more importantly, if it's not Bitcoin, I'm really hoping another currency will take up the baton for those who most need use of this technology - and if that is at the cost of Bitcoin falling by the wayside, so be it. We - jointly, as a whole community - will only have ourselves to blame.

*Those many, many 25mBTC paper wallets I gave away may, unless their owners figure it out soon, be sums that are forever not be economically viable to move.

 Is there interest from any reputable traders, maybe someone who remembers me from here from back in the day?

Of course, technically speaking if in April 2015 we are a cent above April 2014 we can call the last year to have been reversal - as would we if it's a cent below, providing it's not broken Nov 13's record, be able to say the downward trend from Nov 13 continues.  All this of course in retrospect.  In the meantime all we can do is give it our best guess using the tools available.  If I believe there be a fair likelihood that it go below April's low within weeks then it is not unreasonable to consider this to be the downward trend still.  On the other hand, if the chart with my favourite parameters is giving me sustainable growth over a number of weeks - or something so fast upwards that it drags the weekly average upwards with it - then I'm inclined to think maybe we have finally reversed* - though as I mentioned above, I may be wrong.    

*If I'd need a spirit level against the chart on my monitor (or more sophisticated tool to accomplish the same ) to tell whether yesterday or April was lower then I don't think it unreasonable not to conclude we are already in a long-term upward trend.

We're a loooong way to me being convinced the trend has reversed though I can't help but wonder.  My favourite conservative trend reversal parameters chart indicated once over the winter holidays that it had turned (though I didn't believe it) and then again through most of May - that I admit I did begin to believe - but turned out not to be the case.  It's not even showing a blip on yesterday and today's!

falling/realcrash/Ongel,

Have you got a script to keep opening new accounts?  Is the game to see how long it takes people to spot it's still you? 

How high a proportion of the world's gold would need to be with one entity (e.g. the Chinese gov't), given a viable alternative to the rest of us as a store of value were an option, for gov'ts and people worldwide to go: 'nah, I'm not playing the game of gold having a substantial store of value anymore, we're just going to buy it for pretty things and industrial use' and it's value permanently dive off a cliff to somewhere relative to its demand for those other things?

I'd like to throw in my Satoshi's worth to the apparently polarising issue of whether distribution of new coins according to bitconin distrobution is 'fair' or a good idea.

I'm not one of the absolutists, believing today's distribution to totally represent some ideal that it has as a consequence of the decisions of the smartest and wisest found its way to its just place.

As others have said first there's the issue of a significant number of coins, especially early days and more recently, gox, of scammed coins out there in possession of the less savoury characters.  Second there is something in me that simply won't buy the idea that someone who mined or bought a huge chunk early and sat on it who are now worth the same as an entrepreneur who brought something fantastic onto the market and created a company and employed people and marketed it to make it happen 'earned' it to the same extent as the entrepreneur did.*  I will note that I do not begrudge early adopters and though a winter 2012/13 guy myself I consider myself both a reasonably astute and very lucky early-ish adopter myself.  Third, again as someone said further up, a rational investor who was balancing the risks might have put some money in early days but I also suspect many saw $$$s, ignored the risks and threw in way more than they could afford - even to the extent of reckless borrowing.  They may in retrospect have made a 'great' decision but like me, were also very lucky in what happened next and it could have (and in some cases still could) go horribly wrong so I don't see it reasonable to deduce that it is the consequence of rational behaviours that gives the current distribution some magic property of being just.**  No matter how good the technology, nor how good an idea, nobody knew, and nobody knows whether enough people would recognise that and want to be part of it for it to take off - and the question is still valid though much less so today.

However, in practical terms if we want to best leverage a network of people who value crypto and believe in its future then I can think of no better way than to use spin-off or side-chain-type technology which utilises the distribution of bitcoin as it is.

As for the idea of using litecoin or combination of alts etc. nobody will stop anyone from doing it but I see no value in it at all as an idea.  Much as some for instance ltc may by some criteria be a 'fairer' distribution for the reasons others have given here's why I think not:
 i) Where are the 'fundamentals' for alts in terms of numbers of wallets, numbers of transactions, numbers of merchants etc. etc? The fact there activity is miniscule compared to bitcoins leads me to believe the alt population does not largely consist of the smartest; ii) There are many who really get crypto who have not bothered with alts given so few of them are bringing anything new to the table.  This would exclude them (us) from distribution;  iii) many litecoin owners are in because they bought the 'silver to bitcoin's gold' idea which was a great way of marketing but I can still see no validity in it as a reason to consider it as being of value; iv) I know some people buy litecoin simply because it's 'cheaper' than bitcoin (per unit)!  What does that say about their understanding of crypto or maths or...?  v) ... and many people who are in the alts don't actually believe in them but just play the trading game to fleece the less astute (many of whom end up getting fleeced themselves).  As a network of people I really can't see how they'd likely turn out to have been a more valuable team of custodians for a new coin that actually does bring something substantial to the table than the bitcoin network!


*I could go on about this but to illustrate there is a parallel with owning land in the middle of a city and sitting on it for generations whilst doing nothing with it, watching the family's net worth go sky high thanks to the efforts and risks of everybody around them who is making the city a more attractive place to live thus driving up the value of their land for them.

**Just for the record, I am delighted Satoshi has what he has (assuming he still has access to the private keys) in terms of Bitcoins, would like that he he could also benefit from spinoffs and I would hope that enough people would see the injustice of anyone doing spin-offs excluding Satoshi that they don't take off.