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

[KWH]

You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about.  You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board

[ronenfe]

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.

That's right I don't know much about bitcoins expect to what i read in a few pages, I know it doesn't need a central authority. But based of what I did read which is that one person has 250000 coins which is 1 percent of the total wealth, and others also have too much, I can still say that a fair system is one that nobody starts with more than the other. I don't see any moral justification in which the first comer get the most, and I'm sure other better ideas can be thought to fix that.
It's also true I don't understand the reason bitcoins production is decided to work this way.

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.)

This idea happens in all economies. I'm not talking about how the bitcoins exchanged later, I'm talking about the problem in creating bitcoins this way.

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.

It's fair enough because he could keep the bitcoins and get the 10000 pizzas, it's up to him if he decides to spend it earlier or not But I don't think the value will be higher, the value should be constant if each person that starts to participate in the trade gets his coin.

[dirksizzlebod]

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

They coded and built the early version of Bitcoin. When any of us can create a cryptocurrency from scratch and then bootstrap it into existence, we'd also have a right to the fruits of our labors.

Lose the envy and do what you can to get some bitcoins. It's still a wide open game.

A billionaire could easily wreck havoc on the entire bitcoin market, because there are individual people worth way more than the entire bitcoin economy right now! Doesn't sound right does it???


<<<< scratches chin.

[ronenfe]

You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about.  You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board

What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.

I also can say you are a troll because you are an idiot, so?

[KWH]

You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about.  You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board

What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.

I also can say you are a troll because you are ronenfe an idiot, so?

Fixed that for you. Looks like you thing only YOU are allowed to comment, good luck on that one comrade. Time to turn your ignore to piss yellow. Yellow for the trolling troll.

BTW, I found your life story in the intarwebs:

[ronenfe]

You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about.  You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board

What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.

I also can say you are a troll because you are ronenfe an idiot, so?

Fixed that for you. Looks like you thing only YOU are allowed to comment, good luck on that one comrade. Time to turn your ignore to piss yellow. Yellow for the trolling troll.

BTW, I found your life story in the intarwebs:

http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h428/keithh409/img8012.gif

From your replies it looks that you are the one that didn't want me to post, caliing me things. So you are the communist that can't deal with other opinions, only by posting childish comments.

[BitcoinsForBio]

Life isn't fair.

I can think of one surefire way to make something worthless though, give it to everyone for free.

Why would anyone value something that required 0 effort to obtain?

The OP seems to be making the mistake that early adopters were given coins for free and risked nothing. This couldn't be further from the truth. They put time and money into Bitcoin at a point when it was almost guaranteed to be worthless at some point in the future. They risked losing everything they invested. Because they took those first steps, they paved the way by showing that some people value the properties of Bitcoin. This led to others learning about Bitcoin and assigning it value themselves. Each person who values Bitcoin gives value to the entire system. The system wouldn't work any other way.

OP, if Bitcoin is so unfair, I suggest you do something about it instead of complaining. Create you own currency and give it to the world for free. I think you will learn quite a bit and come away with a different point of view.

You're very much correct, but it's still very difficult to not be jealous of those people who made that excellent decision.

[MoonShadow]

You're very much correct, but it's still very difficult to not be jealous of those people who made that excellent decision.

How do you feel about those of us with the luck to discover Bitcoin early, and the education to understand it's implications, but not the balls to invest all I *cough* <<we had?

I made a small investment in late 2010, and since then my bitcoin holdings increased in value by about 41,500%  If I had the balls to withdraw from my 401K and buy bitcoins then, I'd be that guy with a fortune close to 1% of all bitcoins.  

BTW, that is probably Satoshi himself.  If he is still alive, he deserves it.

[Peter Lambert]

What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.

I also can say you are a troll because you are an idiot, so?

You are not a troll because you are an idiot. A troll is somebody who makes inflammatory statements with the intention of causing others to react. While you may be making these outrageous arguments because you do not understand bitcoin, we cannot tell. Therefore, you should learn more about how and why bitcoin works the way it does, then you will not accidentally make statements which are trolling.

[xxjs]

BTW, that is probably Satoshi himself.  If he is still alive, he deserves it.

A guy named Alexander did something like this 1000 years ago. They still talk about him.

[lassdas]

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.

That's right I don't know much about bitcoins expect to what i read in a few pages, I know it doesn't need a central authority. But based of what I did read which is that one person has 250000 coins which is 1 percent of the total wealth, and others also have too much, I can still say that a fair system is one that nobody starts with more than the other. I don't see any moral justification in which the first comer get the most, and I'm sure other better ideas can be thought to fix that.
It's also true I don't understand the reason bitcoins production is decided to work this way.

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.)

This idea happens in all economies. I'm not talking about how the bitcoins exchanged later, I'm talking about the problem in creating bitcoins this way.

Sigh, you still haven't understood:
It's not the production that was decided to work that way, it's the way the system works, the production, or rather initial distribution of coins is a side-effect of that way.
Satoshi could also have chosen to simply create all coins from the start and give them away to anyone he likes, but he didn't, he chose to fairly distribute the coins among those that keep the system running.

And here's the better idea you come up with:
a central authority in control of everything,
a central authority to check your biometric identity to decide if you get some coins or not,
a central authority that has the power to dissallow you to send transactions to certain individuals (terrorists, wikileaks, enemies of the state),
a central authority that also has the power freeze your account and assets at a whim (because you're a terrorist, wikileaks, enemy of the state),
a central authority that most likely will abuse its powers.

That's why we need a system that is independent of ANY authorities, if you don't like it, use PayPal (although they won't give you any coins for free either).


Anyway, I suggest you read a bit more about Bitcoin, what it is, why it was deeply needed and how exactly it works, maybe.....just maybe you'll understand someday why people value it.
Sorry to say, but as long as you don't understand what it is and how it works, it makes no sense to argue at all.

Over and out.

[Beepbop]

As stated a couple of times now, it's not useless work, it's work that keeps the system running.
It's work needed to be done by someone.

When no actual economic activity took place, no it did not need doing. It's like holding a webcam show in your living room with 0 viewers, holding on to half your paycheck, and then expecting to be paid at the same minute value as when the webcam show has a million viewers. The models who are asked to potentially join the service and actually bring in the views might balk at that prospect and choose a different provider.

That's not a currency. That is more like a share of a start-up business. Why anybody started buying into the business at all, injecting real money in it, is some weird quirk of human nature.

No work == No transactions == No payment system == No nothing.

Yet somebody is willing to give money for nothing. (And 2D chicks for free.)

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?

It's the newbie forum, and it's a pretty obvious flaw with the whole idea of holding Bitcoin or running a node - or at least seen as such by a large number of people. Most of them don't even register here - they just reject it and move on.

I see Bitcoin as a proof of concept and as an alternative payment processing system, like Ripple or Hawala, but the overblown focus of mining is something that should be solved - or at least it should be better explained in a way that's easily understandable. I'm quite well educated, and understand how asymmetric encryption work, but I still haven't "seen the light" after quite a bit of reading, and I am skeptical of any belief system that requires "convincing yourself" of anything.

Sure, forks are well and good, but I wanted to understand the original. Plus ASICs are cool as a concept in themselves.

At the moment, bitcoin are futures in electricity wasting, ridicule and job loss (as brought up in this thread). Sure, they're being used for some transactions too, but it seems in the mentality of some that the actual economic activity is a sideshow to the mining.

I can think of one surefire way to make something worthless though, give it to everyone for free.

I hope you don't work in marketing, because limited freebies are a great marketing tool. Note I said limited. You might be gifted your first Birthcoin at birth, or age of maturity, but that's the only one you'll be given by the system - you have to work for, or convince others to give you, any more than that.

[lassdas]

You should have read my part about the central authority above.

When no actual economic activity took place, no it did not need doing.

It needs to be done, no matter what.
If I want to transfer some coins from my account to yours, our transaction has to be stored somewhere,
either this storing is done in a central database, run by a central authority.
or it's done in a distributed database run by everyone.

We chose the latter, the distributed database and we call that database "the blockchain".
To create that database, THAT is what mining does, it creates the blocks that build the blockchain and which store all transactions.
Mining is not about creating coins, it's about creating storage-space.
If we don't create that database, we have no space to store any transactions at all and all coins (no matter how they are created or distributed in the first place) would be worth- and useless.

Without the work done by miners (rather call them block-creators), we have not only no coins, we also have no payment system, we wouldn't be able to transfer anything to anyone.

[Stephen Gornick]

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.

Or the occcu. 

The Occcu, falls under the category of a “basic-income currency” which is like a form of social security paid to all individuals.  About the only thing Occcu has in common with Bitcoin is that they both can be traded person-to-person online.

New Epic Fail Currency? 'Occcu'
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62983.0

[Aahzman]

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.

So, you admit you don't understand how bitcoin works, and you don't think it's a good system, and you don't want to use it.

So.....why are you here, exactly? GTFO, socialist.

[memvola]

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.

I think you need to think about the points raised in response to you much more carefully, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind most. I have some questions to you, which may help us communicate better.

Imagine that you will now start this new currency you've been imagining. And let's assume you have the power to overcome the immediate obstacles like having to spend billions to implement some identification scheme that has never been done before. Now imagine how you would start.

How will you deal with cheating? How will you deal with the problems that centralization brings? How will you deal with the fact that the conformity of all individuals to this system will ultimately be used against them?

I'm not saying you can't. I'm just asking how you imagine to deal with these. What would be your strategy? Which technologies would you use?

People have been thinking about these problems for a long time. You need to look up and try to understand the reasons behind the continuing effort that led to the invention of Bitcoin, and why it can't solve what it doesn't. I recommend reading about why's and how's of DigiCash, and why radically different efforts like Ripple are too hard to implement (it was eventually implemented to a satisfactory degree, so I recommend you have a look at its internals too, if you have time).

Besides the technical difficulties mentioned above, and most importantly, what will you do about the fact that all the money you distributed fairly will very rapidly consolidate in few strong hands? (Consider free voucher privatization during Catastroika.)

You have no shoes, I give you a "token" which is worth exactly 0, since you can't exchange anything for it. Someone comes to you and offers you shoes. You are glad that you got rid of that useless token. After "the emerging elite" collect enough wealth to have the incentive to develop an ecosystem around this coin, its value increases rapidly and you begin calling "unfair".

That is, if that someone ever came to exchange shoes for it. If it never happened, you still would have no shoes, and everything would be "fair".

So, yes, even if you could implement it, your system would not be fairer than Bitcoin, and has massive disadvantages.

Of course, you could, instead of waiting for someone to come give you something for the useless coin, help people with their chores in exchange for their useless tokens. Then you would be the emerging elite.

But where is the incentive? Why would you even waste a second to get any of those tokens that are exactly worth nil? What is stopping another party coming in and issuing same sort of tokens? Anyone can do that? Hence, the tokens are infinitely worthless.

So either you take the risk and put your effort into this instead of something else, or you don't. In this case, putting effort into this might not be worthwhile anyway IMHO. Maybe I'm wrong and then deserve to miss on it. In Bitcoin's case it was. There are many things you can do in your life and most would not be worth it.

Think for a moment that there are millions of different ideas all over the place, all of which are made readily available to you. Some are the next big ideas that will change the world. Some are not so much but might make you wealthy. Huge majority are worthless. The way society deals with this problem is, reward people who pick the right ones. Why are you so against this?

So, you admit you don't understand how bitcoin works, and you don't think it's a good system, and you don't want to use it.

So.....why are you here, exactly? GTFO, socialist.

S/he might be here to criticize and discuss. Why not? Besides, why is being a socialist a bad thing? Though I agree that criticizing without understanding here might have resulted in wasting everyone's time.

[Aahzman]

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.

I think you need to think about the points raised in response to you much more carefully, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind most. I have some questions to you, which may help us communicate better.

Imagine that you will now start this new currency you've been imagining. And let's assume you have the power to overcome the immediate obstacles like having to spend billions to implement some identification scheme that has never been done before. Now imagine how you would start.

How will you deal with cheating? How will you deal with the problems that centralization brings? How will you deal with the fact that the conformity of all individuals to this system will ultimately be used against them?

I'm not saying you can't. I'm just asking how you imagine to deal with these. What would be your strategy? Which technologies would you use?

People have been thinking about these problems for a long time. You need to look up and try to understand the reasons behind the continuing effort that led to the invention of Bitcoin, and why it can't solve what it doesn't. I recommend reading about why's and how's of DigiCash, and why radically different efforts like Ripple are too hard to implement (it was eventually implemented to a satisfactory degree, so I recommend you have a look at its internals too, if you have time).

Besides the technical difficulties mentioned above, and most importantly, what will you do about the fact that all the money you distributed fairly will very rapidly consolidate in few strong hands? (Consider free voucher privatization during Catastroika.)

You have no shoes, I give you a "token" which is worth exactly 0, since you can't exchange anything for it. Someone comes to you and offers you shoes. You are glad that you got rid of that useless token. After "the emerging elite" collect enough wealth to have the incentive to develop an ecosystem around this coin, its value increases rapidly and you begin calling "unfair".

That is, if that someone ever came to exchange shoes for it. If it never happened, you still would have no shoes, and everything would be "fair".

So, yes, even if you could implement it, your system would not be fairer than Bitcoin, and has massive disadvantages.

Of course, you could, instead of waiting for someone to come give you something for the useless coin, help people with their chores in exchange for their useless tokens. Then you would be the emerging elite.

But where is the incentive? Why would you even waste a second to get any of those tokens that are exactly worth nil? What is stopping another party coming in and issuing same sort of tokens? Anyone can do that? Hence, the tokens are infinitely worthless.

So either you take the risk and put your effort into this instead of something else, or you don't. In this case, putting effort into this might not be worthwhile anyway IMHO. Maybe I'm wrong and then deserve to miss on it. In Bitcoin's case it was. There are many things you can do in your life and most would not be worth it.

Think for a moment that there are millions of different ideas all over the place, all of which are made readily available to you. Some are the next big ideas that will change the world. Some are not so much but might make you wealthy. Huge majority are worthless. The way society deals with this problem is, reward people who pick the right ones. Why are you so against this?

So, you admit you don't understand how bitcoin works, and you don't think it's a good system, and you don't want to use it.

So.....why are you here, exactly? GTFO, socialist.

S/he might be here to criticize and discuss. Why not? Besides, why is being a socialist a bad thing? Though I agree that criticizing without understanding here might have resulted in wasting everyone's time.

remove the words "might have" from your last sentence, and i think it would be far more accurate. :-)

Discussion and reasoned argument are fine, but the OP is just blathering on and on, with no real basis for their stance other than "bitcoin isn't fair".  Regardless of how they rephrase it, expand it, or try to wrap it in philosophical twat-waffle-ry, their argument just boils down to "bitcoin isn't fair, because I say so." 

Well, some aspects of socialism aren't "bad" in and of themselves, but too often socialism is equated with communism, which sparks the democracy fire in us western-culture children. :-)

If Joe and I go to work in the fields picking peppers at $5 a bushel, and I bust my ass and pick 40 bushels of peppers, while Joe fucks the dog all day and only picks 10 bushels of peppers, yet at the end of the day, the bossman averages it out and pays us each for 25 bushels of peppers, how is that fair? I did $200 worth of work, while Joe only did $50 worth of work, yet we end up each being paid $125?

Likewise, I don't think the early adopters of bitcoin should feel guilty about having the foresight and the courage to invest in its potential.  They saw something and said "this could be fucking HUGE", and they are now being rewarded for it.  Good on em.

Anyway, tis a silly discussion from post 1, and it's gone circle several times in 5 pages, and is no further towards making the OP any smarter, so I'm out. :-)

[Beepbop]

How will you deal with cheating? How will you deal with the problems that centralization brings?

Decentralize what can be decentralized. Only centralize what must be centralized, such as internet address space, and maybe approval of new versions of the software. If one were to make an elaborate protocol, it might even include several government- and privately owned identity providers, with strict checks and balances, and ultimately a market based approach to who is trusted and not. (Think ratings agencies and auditors checking the inner workings of the companies, publishing their reports about them, and the market deciding who they consider most trustworthy.)

How will you deal with the fact that the conformity of all individuals to this system will ultimately be used against them?

Well, unfortunately, the reliance on biometry or other unique property means that there must be some tie to the individual. Sure, it could be a one-way hashing function just to check that you're not the same person as somebody else, so you couldn't easily go back from hash to individual, but even so that ability to tie one person to a coin makes it only half-anonymous, like other *coin forks. (Say, somebody forcing you to use the biometry and hash to check if you did a particular transaction that somebody didn't like. Even an unbreakable hash doesn't protect you from that. You could only try to claim that it was a hash collission.)

Besides the technical difficulties mentioned above, and most importantly, what will you do about the fact that all the money you distributed fairly will very rapidly consolidate in few strong hands? (Consider free voucher privatization during Catastroika.)

Coins will indeed accumulate to those who provide a useful service/product over time. Isn't that what we want? The slight inflation caused by population growth, an the fact that those who provide services also have expenses, will help prevent excessive hoarding. Saving is fine, but if one guy ends up with 99 percent of the currency, it might as well be his used underwear. Or he could be the king and declare it to be the fiat currency of the land.  

You have no shoes, I give you a "token" which is worth exactly 0, since you can't exchange anything for it. Someone comes to you and offers you shoes. You are glad that you got rid of that useless token. After "the emerging elite" collect enough wealth to have the incentive to develop an ecosystem around this coin, its value increases rapidly and you begin calling "unfair".

No, they actually provided somebody with things of value for those coins. That's fair - to the guy you gave a free token to. Only communists or greedy entitled people* don't agree with that. What would be unfair is if it turns out that these tokens are actually worthless. Then those "rich" people who accumulated them by providing value to other people have gotten a raw deal. They've been paid in Ponzi scheme stakes.

So it's the ones who provide services and sell real currency for your worthless token that are getting scammed. And because they don't want that kind of unfair treatment, they don't won't buy into your ecosystem. Sure they'll accept free tokens, but drop them like a hot potato.

*: I know, redundant.

[memvola]

Decentralize what can be decentralized. Only centralize what must be centralized, such as internet address space, and maybe approval of new versions of the software. If one were to make an elaborate protocol, it might even include several government- and privately owned identity providers, with strict checks and balances, and ultimately a market based approach to who is trusted and not. (Think ratings agencies and auditors checking the inner workings of the companies, publishing their reports about them, and the market deciding who they consider most trustworthy.)

In my mind, those are exactly the originators of all potential problems. I was already assuming the transactions were decentralized.

Even if you distribute the issuing rights to entities that are unlikely to be influenced, there is no way to guarantee that these rights won't in time consolidate in the States' hands.

This is exactly where the idea of using proof-of-work for both verification and issuing shines.

Well, unfortunately, the reliance on biometry or other unique property means that there must be some tie to the individual. Sure, it could be a one-way hashing function just to check that you're not the same person as somebody else, so you couldn't easily go back from hash to individual, but even so that ability to tie one person to a coin makes it only half-anonymous, like other *coin forks. (Say, somebody forcing you to use the biometry and hash to check if you did a particular transaction that somebody didn't like. Even an unbreakable hash doesn't protect you from that. You could only try to claim that it was a hash collission.)

You could use blind signatures to make untraceable transactions. This, of course, introduces another centralized point, but it's almost instantaneous. OpenTransactions would work just as well for this.

Coins will indeed accumulate to those who provide a useful service/product over time. Isn't that what we want? The slight inflation caused by population growth, an the fact that those who provide services also have expenses, will help prevent excessive hoarding. Saving is fine, but if one guy ends up with 99 percent of the currency, it might as well be his used underwear. Or he could be the king and declare it to be the fiat currency of the land.  

Let's call this currency FairCoin. Are two pizzas an adequate service product for 10,000 FC? Should they cost 2 FC? 2 million?

If the accumulation is rapid, how would it differ from Bitcoin? Much worse actually, since you can't be re-born, but you always have the opportunity to mine.

You have to be able to centrally dictate the price if you want the accumulation be as organic as you wish. That's why I gave Catastroika as an example. Even though those vouchers had value, they rapidly accumulated in mafia's hands. Imagine if they had no initial value.

[RodeoX]

This is how all investments work. Get in early and assume greater risk, if your investment is sound then you benefit more. For example, it's too late to buy microsoft stock.