Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?

[deeplink]

I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.

I thought it was not allowed to use the P-word here. Ban him!

[MoonShadow]

Sharing all bitcoins initially is a very hard (impossible) thing to do. Think about it.

The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.

Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.

I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)

As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.

Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.

The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.

I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.

Feel free to fork the code and attempt your view.  It's already been done, though, and it never made it out of the planning stages.  The design of Bitcoin is not arbitrary. There are many reasons that bitcoin is the way it is, and being different from central banking/fractional researve/national fiat currencies is definately one of those reasons.

The Bank of Canada is developing an electronic version of their currency, so it won't be very long before you get exactly what you want without the effort.  It remains to be seen if it will offer any real alternative to Bitcoin, though.  I have my own doubts.

[MoonShadow]

I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.

I thought it was not allowed to use the P-word here. Ban him!

No.  The ignore button is to your left.

[ronenfe]

between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.

Obvious troll.  Nobody is this stupid.

I'm smarter than you if you waste resources on this system, this will never succeed this way. And what is a troll, somebody with different opinion than you?

[thoughtfan]

...I'm saying a different system should be used [that] has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.

It seems that you have now recognised that your 'fair' system is not Bitcoin.  Maybe now is the time to take this thread to the Alternate cryptocurrencies sub-forum.  Then I would suggest looking through there to see what others have come up with that could be more in line with your principles.  For instance Freicoin as I understand it only gives 20% of new currency to the miners with 80% available to go to charities/worthy causes.  If nothing there is to your satisfaction then see if you can, with help from others there maybe, come up with an alt that suits you.  

I think it a new method can be popular anyway ... and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.

If you do manage to get over the technical challenges (courtesy of the generosity of Satoshi et al at least some of the problems you are likely to encounter have been addressed and are available for your use free of charge) then it is a matter of seeing if you really do have a candidate to do better than Bitcoin.

If you prefer instead to stick to the Bitcoin forums dissing it for some of the aspects many believe are central its current and future success then don't be surprised if the responses aren't exactly positive and encouraging.

All the best with it

[xxjs]

Fairness is: Somebody has to pay for this!

[lassdas]

I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal,  with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.

So, let me rephrase that:
You don't know what Bitcoin is, how it works, or what it's good for, but came up with an idea that is somehow better?
How can you even decide that your idea is better, if you haven't understood the idea behind Bitcoin yet?

The whole point behind Bitcoin is, that it doesn't need a central authority.
You didn't even get that.

You have to do a lot of research.

[Walter Rothbard]

between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.

No problem.  Fork the bitcoin code and start a new, fairer chain today.

[niko]

I'm late to this party, but...

between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.

Someone may have invested - and risked - their $500 back in April 2011, you can invest - and risk much less - $500 today. It is perfectly fair. Furthermore, unlike dollars, euros, or dinars, anyone is welcome to start "printing" new coins under the same rules - doesn't get more fair than that. Finally, those who have coins can only enjoy the benefits by spending them into the hands of others - yours included.

So, think again. Bitcoin is much more fair than you thought.

[Walter Rothbard]

between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.

This is pretty much the guns and gold crowd.  They won't share bitcoins.  It doesn't matter if sharing would make a better world or not.
I grew up in Dallas and have lots of experience with this mindset.  Trust me, I'm a doctor.

How about you share some bitcoin with me, Prof?

[Walter Rothbard]

between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.

For some reason, this unequal distribution is not stopping latecomers from buying up bitcoin like crazy.

Which has the interesting side effect of redistributing coins.

[Walter Rothbard]

So from what I understand the system is based on the idea that the earlier you start mining the richer you are going to be?

Nope.  The system is based around the idea of an economy built on exchanges of bitcoin for goods and services.  Provide or good or service, and you can get some bitcoin.

(Mining is just a footnote.)

[Walter Rothbard]

they can use a biometric identification to prevent registering more than once.

Oops, you just compromised anonymity.

I am sure this system should not be harder to implement than the current one.

Please, demonstrate.

If you want this, you will have to build it yourself, because the rest of us don't want it.

But, according to you, it's easy, so why don't you just implement it?

[Walter Rothbard]

but the people getting in on the ground floor holding nearly all the coins

Please substantiate this.

You can get as many coins as you like, right now.  Like everyone else, you will have to economize and give up something to get them: time, energy, effort, resources, funds, ...

[Walter Rothbard]

http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/
We have about 360000 births per day globally
We also have about 151000 Deaths per day globally
How do you handle those?
 

Also, the value of the currency will change over time.  So if each new registrant gets only 1 equalcoin, early adopters may get a coin that is worth 1/10000th of a pizza, while later adopters will get a coin that may be worth 10000 pizzas!  That's not fair, and not equally distributed.

[Walter Rothbard]

the total number of coins would not be limited and it will rise over time.

I won't use that system, then.

I don't see how wasting electric energy for useless calculations that do not benefit the society called work.
We could also decide that each hundred jumps in the air will get a coin.
At least it could be something useful like starting global projects

I don't think "global projects" are useful.

The thing about useful is that it's a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

(Hint: the calculations that block-generating bitcoin nodes perform are not there just to waste time, though you might have read otherwise.)

I'm saying the decided method on how the total sum of coins is distributed is not fair, and the only fair method is to distribute it equally.

Distributed at what point in time?

[Peter Lambert]

In theory it would be possible to start out with every individual a share of the total of bitcoins. Problem is, in that case the idea, both of the technology and the limited supply, must have been agreed upon in advance. I don't see how that possibly could be true.

Hypothetically, if there was some way to prove your identity, the system could be set up so that each person who joined the network would be given an initial 50 units (or whatever number you picked). Would that fix the OP's desire for an equal distribution? The problem is there is no way (that I know of) to keep people from claiming to be new people and collecting extra bunches of coins. Rememberhow there was a bitcoin fountain set up by Gavin, giving away 5 bitcoins free to anybody new to bitcoins? He quickly had to lower the amount given out and add various checks to keep people from abusing the system.

[Walter Rothbard]

I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe,

I won't use it, then.

this has to be thought and invented.

You think it and invent it, then.  I don't want it, and don't want to put any effort into it.

The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.

Since it is so easy, you should get busy doing it.

I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.

Simply starting a new blockchain with the same rules as bitcoin, but now when more people are aware of it, might achieve some of what you want, and might even be a good idea.

By the way, I am not an "early joiner" of bitcoin.

[herzmeister]

I think the Freicoin (crypto-currency with demurrage) and Ripple (peer-to-peer credit) projects were created by organizations that do intend some kind of more equal redistribution after a while. Maybe you'd want to check those out.

[Peter Lambert]

I think the Freicoin (crypto-currency with demurrage) and Ripple (peer-to-peer credit) projects were created by organizations that do intend some kind of more equal redistribution after a while. Maybe you'd want to check those out.

I was just about to suggest Ripple as something to look into. If I understand correctly, anybody can generate currency in ripple.