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).
Not any time soon, when dormancy is not improving it means more and more people are just piling in because they want to profit on others piling in.
They do think they are going to hold until the spenders finally come.
But so far the spenders are not coming in at the same rate as the speculators, i.e.
it is diverging not converging (means can only end up as a blowoff peak and crash)
And the more the price goes up, the more people are going to get jealous and come piling in.
The merchants and spenders economy can't possibly develop as fast.
After the ponzi scheme crashes, then if only the spenders and merchants hang around, then maybe it can stabilize. The lack of debasement will be a negative, but not as much so as now, if there is a larger installed base of spending by then.
So what ever it will be later, for now it is not that. For now, it is a divergent system, with ponzi scheme qualities.
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.
By the time we get to that future, the governments will probably have co-opted it already any way. It really only makes sense to talk about what it is now.
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?
Differences are:
1. My Proof-of-Work is more level playing field, everybody already has a hard disk. They can jump in.
2. The award won't get less fair over time.
Yes capitalism will still be in play. I want meritocracy, not socialism. The difference is I remove the ponzi flaw (#2) and the monopoly miners flaw (#1).
The way we are headed now with ASICs, the users of the currency (the spenders) won't mine. In my system, they earn the debasement.
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.
We can't look into the future and say anything. Futures contracts are inherently socialism (but that is too deep to discuss).
We can look only at what is now.
We have no idea what it will do after it crashes.
We know it will crash, for as long as speculation is diverging from value. We just don't know when. Depends how many fools are coming in.
It is ponzi con because the perpetraitor knows that the fools believe there is value. He knew how to structure it "like gold" so they would believe. But it is nothing like gold (see the OP linked question), and in fact structuring it that way enabled him to get a huge chunk of the greater fool funds that are coming in.
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
Yeah if you don't know these things, you should not be voting.
You just proved my point that Satoshi used asymmetric knowledge to fool you.
Debasement means we increase the quantity of bitcoins. This is currently decreasing at a geometric rate of halving the debasement rate every 4 years. Nothing every used as money has that fast of a declining debasement.
Gold is the most extreme, and it isn't close to Bitcoin. Orders-of-magnitude difference. This is what is causing the frenzy of speculation. The speculators will say it is because they expect future growth of spending, but the fact is they are coming in because of the EXTREME scarcity of the newly generated coins. And this religious delusion I have described in this and prior reply to you.
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...
Please learn about the system.
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.
Roughly agreed.
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?
Ponzi schemes look great until the implode. The key point is the divergence.
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...
Overly simplistic analysis.
There are many ways they can get burned. Once is they lose a revenue source they were projecting as increasing. Another is any value they had in the system could be wiped out. Another is they may not trust the system. Another is the government might come in and shut down the system claiming too many people were harmed. Etc....
Nobody likes to be part of things that fail. Bad outcomes happen when many people are harmed. Wars... New regulation... etc...
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).
I tried but they were trying to drag me into games, so they could get me to hide my points in a 1000 posts of diarrhea. I know how trolls operate. I know how to minimize their effectiveness.
Poll
