Thanks for being amicable and also for not lurking. Hope I don't piss off but I must be frank, you have two logic fails here. Hopefully you have a thick skin.
Yea... guess I've been doing the customer service a bit too long
I don't have thick skin, but I do have an open mind, and google for the words I don't understand. And I've decided to give you the chance to convince me, if you can.
You are correct that as the wealth is distributed with a better Gini coefficient, then it will be less skewed to ponzi. One of the key traits of ponzi is the white lie that lets the insiders walk away with a big chunk of the networth of society.
Okay, so that supports the argument that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme, and if anything negative, would best be classed as some kind of con? Not that I really care, I want to address the points you're actually making, not the naming scheme.
And my design is that everyone with a harddisk can mine, so a much better Gini coefficient from the start and forever.
This might actually be more fair in the beginning. I will concede that point.
But over time, after the early adopters have sold out, after the mainstream has picked up on it, the wealth is going to redistribute itself to those who "do more" to earn it (that's a different argument all together though, and I'm not trying to derail the thread).
So at worst, we'd end up with a system similar to what we see now. The result of capitalism where the wealth is more topheavy, the only difference being that we would not allow banks to have control over what we've accumulated (if we didn't want to). This sounds just peachy to me.
In a system, like you propose, where the initial coin is distributed more fairly, those who take more action to earn it are still going to end up with more money, and thus more resources to set up projects that make more money. So in a laissez-faire system, the end result is still going to be same after the shitstorm, so why care if early adopters profit from the risk/work they put into it?
It is a ponzi until they cash out at least. Short-term ponzi, long-term stability would not change what it is for now.
So it's only a con until the early adopters cash out, then everything equalizes? I don't understand how this is even a con to begin with. Just seems like another bubble bursting, which is something we all expect to happen many times during bitcoins ascent to ubiquity, a natural consequence of it's growth, and the uncertainty that people have inside them.
A frozen debasement is not a stable form of money, never has been and never will be. I refer readers again to read more carefully the following two linked posts.
Is bitcoin a frozen debasement though? I will admit, I had to look the word up on wikipedia. Here's what it says:
Debasement is the practice of lowering the value of currency. It is particularly used in connection with commodity money such as gold or silver coins. A coin is said to be debased if the quantity of gold, silver, copper or nickel is reduced. Fiat or paper money is debased when volume of money printed is greater than demand
It seems to me that if the mainstream DOESN'T pick up on it (and those dumb-asses may well not), then debasement is not frozen but thoroughly possible. Not because extra bitcoin is being made, but through lack of demand for what exists.
So... bitcoin debasement is not frozen, just driven by something other than the federal reserve's whim?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this...
And because of this flaw, it can't never stabilize, just as gold and fiat can never stabilize. But at least fiat stabilizes for much longer periods than gold (in some cases), because the better central banks do allow some flexibility. (not saying I like central banks. I don't I want a free market)
Oooohh I think I see what you're saying. Yes it is unstable now. But with mainstream adaptation the price fluctuation would be much less volatile than it is now. Also, we have the technology to compensate instantly for what differences in price would still occur. And only the fringe is arguing that bitcoin will make fiat disappear. So if it didn't completely overtake fiat, we'd still have a way to store wealth that is stable. If it does overtake fiat, then the larger market saturation would ensure that more stability exists.
Once the sheep are jealous of the earlier ones, the gold fever starts. They are all 49ers rushing to California now.
Seems those fortyniners made out pretty good, and the economy survived, did it not?
As long as demand exists, any price drops from early adopters unloading would be corrected for in time. And your argument is that religious delusions will push demand higher over time, until it's mainstream. Right?
I will admit that as Bitcoin crashes, it still has some transactional value, assuming that the merchants don't get so burned that they curse it.
But those merchants won't get burned, unless they intentionally leave their money in BTC for speculative purposes. Instead they will have immediately converted it to fiat, which isn't going away THAT fast...
Regarding the name calling, whether somebody is smart or not, if you're trying to warn them that bitcoin is a con for altruistic reasons, then you might have better luck not pointing their (our) lack of intelligence out to them (us).
If that is not your intent, then what is?
It seems to me that the matter of whose right and wrong in this thread comes down to this:
What happens after the hoarding early adopters have mostly cashed out? Does bitcoin survive and remain popular? If yes, then this is not a ponzi scheme/con/whatever you wanna call it. If no then you might have a point, whatever words you choose.
AnonyMint: I got to go help my friend move, I'll be back, not planning to duck out on this.
Poll
