Show Posts
I hear the following statement alot: Bitcoin is pure capitalism, it isn't supposed to be fair.
People who acquired alot of Bitcoins without much effort are supposed to deserve it because they got in early / had alot of spare fiat or generated them before the public knew about it.
I do not have this opinion for the following reason:
Bitcoin wasn't a currency until the first products and services were offered for it. Also it is supposed to be a chicken and the egg problem which I think it is not: You can start a working economy 0-second, once you gathered enough people willing to participate.
This is the main reason why I still doubt bitcoins success (or think it is likely to fail once there is an alternative to it)
And, quite frankly if some people would adopt my suggestion in practice bitcoins intended purpose would be obsolete, and it's current state of existence a sophisticated gambling system would loose it's merit once people realize rapid economic growth is indeed possible.
People who acquired alot of Bitcoins without much effort are supposed to deserve it because they got in early / had alot of spare fiat or generated them before the public knew about it.
I do not have this opinion for the following reason:
Bitcoin wasn't a currency until the first products and services were offered for it. Also it is supposed to be a chicken and the egg problem which I think it is not: You can start a working economy 0-second, once you gathered enough people willing to participate.
This is the main reason why I still doubt bitcoins success (or think it is likely to fail once there is an alternative to it)
And, quite frankly if some people would adopt my suggestion in practice bitcoins intended purpose would be obsolete, and it's current state of existence a sophisticated gambling system would loose it's merit once people realize rapid economic growth is indeed possible.
I'm not understanding your argument. (nor what 'adopt my suggestion' refers to above).
Can you restate it somewhat?
You seem to be saying that a large number of participants who agree to use it is the primary requirement and that this is a relatively easy hurdle(?)
Are you saying the lack of 'fairness' (whether real or just perceived) is going to be a showstopper to widespread adoption, and so a new currency with the attribute of apparent fairness will rapidly overtake it?
It's not obvious to me that a cryptocurrency with more fairness is ever likely to arise.
I recognise that in effect, massive adoption of bitcoin would result in a wealth transfer from the existing global economy to a large number of individuals who didn't contribute a comparable amount of economic activity in return.. but It's also not clear to me that this wealth transfer is anything more than a blip in the scheme of things considering the scale of the global economy.
People win lotteries, both win and lose big-time in gambling, and inherit massive amounts all the time. Those 'unfair' wealth transfers don't seem to be a major issue.. so what is the beef with bitcoin 'unfairness' anyway?
It's a psychological barrier to mass uptake? I hardly think so, as people will be acting to maximize their own returns more than worrying about whether someone else got a windfall surely.
I've probably completely misunderstood your argument though - hence my appeal for clarification.
