Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption

[Severian]

the wider purpose seems to have been lost.

Here's the original purpose:

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Everything else is conflation.

[Richy_T]

No, he's right. So...

Introducing Commie-coin, the egalitarian alternative to Bitcoin. Commie-coin, available to anyone, no hard-core mining equipment (nor even a computer) needed. Commie-coin is simple, each commie coin is denoted by the letters CC followed by a 16 digit hexadecimal number. Just pick one. Here, just to prove how easy it is, I'll mine one right here in this thread

CC0000000000000001

And as a show of good faith and an example of my generosity, I'm going to gift it to revan.

Security? Not needed. If your coins get stolen, you can just create more. Double spending? Not an issue, there are not rules against duplicate commie-coins. For the same reason, deflation is not an issue, commie-coin can simply be inflated by anyone anytime they like. You don't even have to be a fat-cat banger to do so. How's that for egalitarian?

Revan, don't spend it all at once now. I'm sure it's going to be a big success.

[Severian]

And as a show of good faith and an example of my generosity, I'm going to gift it to revan.

Not cool! I should have the first coin. That's not fair.

And you gave away your first coin. lol. luzer to the max.

[John Self]

There is no basis for thinking bitcoins will take wealth away from the rich, that is absurd and there's no need to start a thread about it. If anything, bitcoin will help the very rich avoid taxes, it won't help the average guy with a monthly wage and matching lifestyle who the government can easily check on.

OP: What you really meant to say in the title is that bitcoin replaces one type of plutocrat with another; 'dynastic' is an inappropriate word to use here. I appreciate that you are practising new words, but if you aren't crystal clear on the definition it is best to use a more common expression or word which you are better familiar with- in this case you could have said something like 'established power.'

[revans]

the wider purpose seems to have been lost.

Here's the original purpose:

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Everything else is conflation.

That's a very dry technical paper. The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

[Severian]

That's a very dry technical paper. The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

It was writtten by Bitcoin's creator.

[BTC Books]

That's a very dry technical paper. The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

Ah.  It's a religious debate.  My bad.  Later.

[revans]

There is no basis for thinking bitcoins will take wealth away from the rich, that is absurd and there's no need to start a thread about it. If anything, bitcoin will help the very rich avoid taxes, it won't help the average guy with a monthly wage and matching lifestyle who the government can easily check on.

OP: What you really meant to say in the title is that bitcoin replaces one type of plutocrat with another; 'dynastic' is an inappropriate word to use here. I appreciate that you are practising new words, but if you aren't crystal clear on the definition it is best to use a more common expression or word which you are better familiar with- in this case you could have said something like 'established power.'

You've misunderstood

The dynastic power is the existing setup, with crime families like the Bush's, Rockfeller's and  Rothschild's. Each has wielded great power for generations, thus they can be correctly described as dynasties.

[rpietila]

The thread title promises more than delivers

I read it all but there was not very deep thoughts on the matter. Now just trying to throw some:

- The early adoptership. Which is worse: an early adopter who cashes out, and now has $tuff to play with in his life, or an early adopter who never sells and just hoards his coin? In my opinion, the latter does not steal from the others, on the contrary - his hoarding makes the coin of the others even more valuable. The former, otoh, does benefit financially, but that comes with a risk, and with a cashout mentality there will not be inordinate wealth concentration anyway.

- Plutocracy. I am a plutocrat. I have never mined any coins, just bought with the proceeds of my fiat businesses. Now I am making a transition to serve the bitcoin community with the coin, whose value I know, since I have spent so much of my hard-earned wealth into it. The shakeout this week did not shake any coins from me, actually I gained about BTC1000 during it. And I was playing nice, I did not order anything DDoSed to profit from it, for example. I try to build services to the free market, which people will use for mutual benefit. I intend to grow ever richer in terms of bitcoins. Who exactly am I stealing from?

[myrkul]

The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

I'm curious: what ideals, and how is it diverging?

[revans]

That's a very dry technical paper. The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

It was writtten by Bitcoin's creator.

Yes I know, but you don't generally spout ideology in a technical paper. Have you seem some of the code comments made by the same indivudual? All about corrupt bankers and so on.

[Red]

Should Bitcoin ever achieve the kind of ubiquity its most ardent fans hope for, these people will wield more financial power than any of the Banksters they decry. They will also control such a large amount of the monetary base that they too could end up becoming plutocrats

Far from being a revolution, the future as envisaged by Bitcoin fanboys will be little more than a changing of the cast of villains.

Hey revans, nice post. I generally argue that your conclusion will prevent its own cause. But the point is really the same.

I started a similar thread a couple of years back. I think I got a little more support than you did. It's a shame to see that sort of critical thinking has faded.

If you are interested...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48521.0

[Coincrazy]

Bitcoin is like gold. You can mine gold too. Do you also think the same about gold, that some people thousands of years ago mined it all and now you can only get a few little nuggets out of heavy buckets of dirt from bed rock?

You know what ? Suddenly gold seems more equitable and less volatile after being around here for some time

Damn...

[John Self]

There is no basis for thinking bitcoins will take wealth away from the rich, that is absurd and there's no need to start a thread about it. If anything, bitcoin will help the very rich avoid taxes, it won't help the average guy with a monthly wage and matching lifestyle who the government can easily check on.

OP: What you really meant to say in the title is that bitcoin replaces one type of plutocrat with another; 'dynastic' is an inappropriate word to use here. I appreciate that you are practising new words, but if you aren't crystal clear on the definition it is best to use a more common expression or word which you are better familiar with- in this case you could have said something like 'established power.'

You've misunderstood

The dynastic power is the existing setup, with crime families like the Bush's, Rockfeller's and  Rothschild's. Each has wielded great power for generations, thus they can be correctly described as dynasties.

I have, I see. But it's still unclear to me how bitcoin could target influential families.

[Severian]

Have you seem some of the code comments made by the same indivudual? All about corrupt bankers and so on.

I share his opinions. Many of us came to Bitcoin because we'd reached the same conclusions long before Bitcoin came along.

The best thing about Bitcoin is that unlike the "devil you know", the politics and beliefs of the miners and users of Bitcoin don't matter. If the Federal Reserve becomes aware of your existence and it doesn't like your opinions or the color of your shirt, it will do what it can to take away your ability to use their moldy green paper with extreme prejudice.

If you have a bitcoin, the network doesn't care who or what you are or what you do in this world. Every human being alive, from pondscum banksters to your virgin younger cousin, has the right and the power to use Bitcoin as they see fit or to not use it at all. You can't say that about the moldy green paper signed by the devils you know.

[revans]

Should Bitcoin ever achieve the kind of ubiquity its most ardent fans hope for, these people will wield more financial power than any of the Banksters they decry. They will also control such a large amount of the monetary base that they too could end up becoming plutocrats

Far from being a revolution, the future as envisaged by Bitcoin fanboys will be little more than a changing of the cast of villains.

Hey revans, nice post. I generally argue that your conclusion will prevent its own cause. But the point is really the same.

I started a similar thread a couple of years back. I think I got a little more support than you did. It's a shame to see that sort of critical thinking has faded.

If you are interested...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48521.0

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

[Qoheleth]

The problem with proof-of-work is that in order to make the ledger impeachable, people need to throw real-world value into a hole.

Most folks won't do that unless there was something tangibly "in it for them".

Bitcoin answers this with the block reward - it uses the distribution mechanism to incentivize the busywork that makes the bones of Bitcoin actually function.

The unfortunate result is that a lot of people early on in the project got a lot of coins, and if Bitcoin gets wide adoption those coins will make them about as rich as a Buffet or a Helu, and with an equal capability of screwing up the market if they had cause. (User A in the Shamir paper has 2.8 million BTC -> 28 billion dollars at $10k/coin).

So then... what? If this is a troubling result of the network rules, what rules would have worked better? How do you distribute newly created BTC in a "fair" way, when an anonymous system means that Sybil shenanigans are trivial? How do you incentivize mining, except via block rewards?

I'm sincerely interested in hearing your ideas.

I'm quoting this post because I'm worried you missed it the first time.

[myrkul]

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

[Red]

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

This gave me a big grin!

Well put revans!
Trust me myrkul, most early adopters called it jealous whining the first time around!

[myrkul]

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

This gave me a big grin!

Well put revans!
Trust me myrkul, most early adopters called it jealous whining the first time around!

Here's a hint: if you're here, you're an early adopter.

And if the fact that taking a risk first gets you a bigger reward than taking that risk after it's been proven safe is a "fundamental problem," then I'm afraid it's a fundamental problem with reality, not with Bitcoin.