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

[btcbug]

Just under a thousand at the moment, I have had more but have been steadily giving them away to what I deem good causes. I will ultimately give away my entire holding as my interest in Bitcoin was never to make money for doing nothing of value, and it is clear Bitcoin is now infested with speculators and the wider purpose seems to have been lost.

Send some my way please! I have almost none as I was not fortunate enough to be able to pay for expensive mining equipment and don't have enough wealth to buy my way in. You will be distributing them in a more fair manner this way. Share the wealth my friend. Very much appreciated!

1AXEPvEz1zQYcqoeeeimu2hMH1FNACZ8pZ

Revans, I'm still waiting for my coins here!

In what sense do you qualify as a good cause?

This:

I was not fortunate enough to be able to pay for expensive mining equipment and don't have enough wealth to buy my way in.

Exactly the problem you created this thread to fix.

No, having more people throw more computational power at pointless calculations is the root problem, not something to which I wish to contribute.

Well the way I understood your original post was that miners were essentially a cabal, and that you found the method of distributing coins unfair because a few early miners got to easily generate a stockpile, which would make them ridiculously rich in the future.

Now the way I see it, is that you, as an early adopter have been able to buy in fairly cheaply, which isn't unlike a miner who started mining three years ago. Myself or potential future participants weren't so lucky. We either didn't have the capital to invest early or perhaps didn't even have access to the internet. I view yourself as having an unfair advantage due to your circumstances and if you have 1000 coins you'll likely be quite wealthy in the future because of that.

What qualifies me as a good cause is that I was less fortunate than yourself or the early miners and by sending me a few coins you'd be lessening the inequality in distribution that you were concerned about.

[1715020480]

1715020480

[1715020480]

1715020480

[1715020480]

1715020480

[1715020480]

1715020480

[revans]

Satoshi is a composite identity

I'm sure you have proof for such a claim. If so, you'll scoop every investigative reporter in the world.

Just an observation from the various writing styles I have seen in words attributed to him.

[myrkul]

OK, you've got a point, MTGox is a central point in a supposedly decentralized network. I think that problem has been recognized, however, and is in the process of being remedied.

Good we're on the same page!

But do you realize that the exchanges as a group CANNOT ever be forked from one another?

I'm not sure in what context you're using "forked." Don't we want all the exchanges (into which group I include the people selling bitcoins for other currencies on #bitcoin-otc, SR, and other darknet sites) all using the same blockchain?

[Luckybit]

People complaining about inequality just want free coins and are jealous.

People who have coins can invest in you if you have some bright idea or plan to make Bitcoin better but if you just feel entitled to free coins, no.

And I'm saying that as someone who only has a few coins and who is not rich. It should be that money is a tool to get things done or to save lives.

[revans]

People complaining about inequality just want free coins and are jealous.

People who have coins can invest in you if you have some bright idea or plan to make Bitcoin better but if you just feel entitled to free coins, no.

And I'm saying that as someone who only has a few coins and who is not rich. It should be that money is a tool to get things done or to save lives.

So the masses should come cap-in-hand to the Bitcoin Oligarchs and beg for digital crumbs?

[Richy_T]

OK, you've got a point, MTGox is a central point in a supposedly decentralized network. I think that problem has been recognized, however, and is in the process of being remedied.

Good we're on the same page!

But do you realize that the exchanges as a group CANNOT ever be forked from one another?

I'm not sure in what context you're using "forked." Don't we want all the exchanges (into which group I include the people selling bitcoins for other currencies on #bitcoin-otc, SR, and other darknet sites) all using the same blockchain?

I don't understand this "forked" thing either. An exchange is essentially an independent entity. Some people put BTC in, some USD and others other currencies then they exchange and then cash out or exchange again as desired. They need to be hooked into the Bitcoin protocol and the banking system (the latter appearing to be the "hard" part of being an exchange, an indication that Bitcoin is a superior solution, by the way). But any interaction between them would typically be done by third parties by way of arbitrage.

[Red]

I'm not sure in what context you're using "forked." Don't we want all the exchanges (into which group I include the people selling bitcoins for other currencies on #bitcoin-otc, SR, and other darknet sites) all using the same blockchain?

We are using the same context. And yes, beyond "wanting" everyone to be on the same block chain, it is a socially and economically mandatory. Their can never be a viable second fork.

For example notice again the wizards speaking here.
http://bitcoin.org/may15.html

I'm sure there was discussion among "actual peers" but there was no popular vote on the topic. Your node can't veto the decision. Nor can you decide to continue down the original fork by yourself.

I'm not saying this situation is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying that's the way the bitcoin ecosystem works. You can trust the  "actual peers" or you can avoid bitcoin altogether. But you don't get to be a full peer just for showing up anymore.

[Luckybit]

People complaining about inequality just want free coins and are jealous.

People who have coins can invest in you if you have some bright idea or plan to make Bitcoin better but if you just feel entitled to free coins, no.

And I'm saying that as someone who only has a few coins and who is not rich. It should be that money is a tool to get things done or to save lives.

So the masses should come cap-in-hand to the Bitcoin Oligarchs and beg for digital crumbs?

Or support Litecoin, PPcoin or in your case Freicoin. I have no problem with any of them.

But someone had to be the founding fathers of cryptocurrency. If you have a problem with people being successful and getting rich stop looking for them to give you something and figure out how to get it the same way they did. Go invent a better coin.

Seriously you and several others have the attitude that Bitcoin is about giving free money. Yes it's far better than USD but you still gotta earn your money and either risk your life against extreme odds or work really hard or both.

It's never really a situation where you can just open your hand and expect digital gold to fall into it. Who are you to be entitled to that? Don't get me wrong, everyone should be entitled to enough Bitcoin to live and survive, but the life of having a lot of wealth is a responsibility and a curse. You're jealous because you don't understand what it's about.

If you're all in Bitcoin, willing to give up friendships, family, everything for Bitcoin then maybe I'd say you'd be someone who could be responsible enough. Most people who win the lottery aren't happy and aren't responsible, and don't have much philosophy about what they do or discipline, but some people do have the level of dedication, philosophical background and discipline. The purpose of making a Bitcoin early adopters elite is to protect Bitcoin from attack. The elite of Bitcoin exist as guardians (think Plato), who protect Bitcoin and the miners are protecting the network.

If you want coins get into mining, or buy them. If you can't do that then move onto Litecoin or PPcoin where you can be an early adopter for that. Stop complaining and whining out of jealousy and envy. I imagine if I were an early adopter I would hate seeing that attitude.

[batcoin]

Just under a thousand at the moment, I have had more but have been steadily giving them away to what I deem good causes. I will ultimately give away my entire holding as my interest in Bitcoin was never to make money for doing nothing of value, and it is clear Bitcoin is now infested with speculators and the wider purpose seems to have been lost.

Send some my way please! I have almost none as I was not fortunate enough to be able to pay for expensive mining equipment and don't have enough wealth to buy my way in. You will be distributing them in a more fair manner this way. Share the wealth my friend. Very much appreciated!

1AXEPvEz1zQYcqoeeeimu2hMH1FNACZ8pZ

Revans, I'm still waiting for my coins here!

In what sense do you qualify as a good cause?

This:

I was not fortunate enough to be able to pay for expensive mining equipment and don't have enough wealth to buy my way in.

Exactly the problem you created this thread to fix.

No, having more people throw more computational power at pointless calculations is the root problem, not something to which I wish to contribute.

Well the way I understood your original post was that miners were essentially a cabal, and that you found the method of distributing coins unfair because a few early miners got to easily generate a stockpile, which would make them ridiculously rich in the future.

Now the way I see it, is that you, as an early adopter have been able to buy in fairly cheaply, which isn't unlike a miner who started mining three years ago. Myself or potential future participants weren't so lucky. We either didn't have the capital to invest early or perhaps didn't even have access to the internet. I view yourself as having an unfair advantage due to your circumstances and if you have 1000 coins you'll likely be quite wealthy in the future because of that.

What qualifies me as a good cause is that I was less fortunate than yourself or the early miners and by sending me a few coins you'd be lessening the inequality in distribution that you were concerned about.

Seriously, revans. Don't be a hypocrite. You have a lot of coins and btcbug and I don't have very many. I think it would be in the best interests of all for you to carve up your stake a bit and spread it around so that you don't get tempted to become one of the new elite that you've been talking about. It is only fair.

I also ask others in this thread to quote me and my signature with its respective address so that we can get a time stamp and watch this address. I am curious to see how many donations are sent to that address by those who cry foul with regards to inequality and people not sharing what they have. I have yet to see any donation to that address by anyone. They want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

[myrkul]

I'm not sure in what context you're using "forked." Don't we want all the exchanges (into which group I include the people selling bitcoins for other currencies on #bitcoin-otc, SR, and other darknet sites) all using the same blockchain?

We are using the same context. And yes, beyond "wanting" everyone to be on the same block chain, it is a socially and economically mandatory. Their can never be a viable second fork.

For example notice again the wizards speaking here.
http://bitcoin.org/may15.html

I'm sure there was discussion among "actual peers" but there was no popular vote on the topic. Your node can't veto the decision. Nor can you decide to continue down the original fork by yourself.

I'm not saying this situation is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying that's the way the bitcoin ecosystem works. You can trust the  "actual peers" or you can avoid bitcoin altogether. But you don't get to be a full peer just for showing up anymore.

So, unless you have 51% of the computing power, you can't decide which fork is the valid one.

That's a feature, not a bug.

[revans]

People complaining about inequality just want free coins and are jealous.

People who have coins can invest in you if you have some bright idea or plan to make Bitcoin better but if you just feel entitled to free coins, no.

And I'm saying that as someone who only has a few coins and who is not rich. It should be that money is a tool to get things done or to save lives.

So the masses should come cap-in-hand to the Bitcoin Oligarchs and beg for digital crumbs?

Or support Litecoin, PPcoin or in your case Freicoin. I have no problem with any of them.

But someone had to be the founding fathers of cryptocurrency. If you have a problem with people being successful and getting rich stop looking for them to give you something and figure out how to get it the same way they did. Go invent a better coin.

Seriously you and several others have the attitude that Bitcoin is about giving free money. Yes it's far better than USD but you still gotta earn your money and either risk your life against extreme odds or work really hard or both.

It's never really a situation where you can just open your hand and expect digital gold to fall into it. Who are you to be entitled to that? Don't get me wrong, everyone should be entitled to enough Bitcoin to live and survive, but the life of having a lot of wealth is a responsibility and a curse. You're jealous because you don't understand what it's about.

If you're all in Bitcoin, willing to give up friendships, family, everything for Bitcoin then maybe I'd say you'd be someone who could be responsible enough. Most people who win the lottery aren't happy and aren't responsible, and don't have much philosophy about what they do or discipline, but some people do have the level of dedication, philosophical background and discipline. The purpose of making a Bitcoin early adopters elite is to protect Bitcoin from attack. The elite of Bitcoin exist as guardians (think Plato), who protect Bitcoin and the miners are protecting the network.

If you want coins get into mining, or buy them. If you can't do that then move onto Litecoin or PPcoin where you can be an early adopter for that. Stop complaining and whining out of jealousy and envy. I imagine if I were an early adopter I would hate seeing that attitude.

The very same self serving arguments used by the central banker 'elite'. How typical for a group of idealists to end up becoming the very thing they despise.

[Red]

So, unless you have 51% of the computing power, you can't decide which fork is the valid one.

That's a feature, not a bug.

No, I'm saying that even with 51+% of the computing power, you CAN'T decide which fork is the valid one if the wizards don't agree.

Take for example the current situation.

"If you are using Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind version 0.7.2 or earlier, you must take action before 15 May, 2013. If you do nothing, you are likely to be left behind and will be out of sync with the rest of the Bitcoin network."

Notice it doesn't say that if 51% of the computing power decides not to upgrade... never mind.
It says, we've decided. Come along or not.

[edit]
So the significance of what I'm saying is that, if a handful of people already make these decisions. And the rest to the bitcoin users already trust these people to make these kind of decisions, THEN
there are trivial ways to create a distributed consensus among a handful of known individuals.
It doesn't require an ever growing amount of computing power.

[revans]

So, unless you have 51% of the computing power, you can't decide which fork is the valid one.

That's a feature, not a bug.

No, I'm saying that even with 51+% of the computing power, you CAN'T decide which fork is the valid one if the wizards don't agree.

Take for example the current situation.

"If you are using Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind version 0.7.2 or earlier, you must take action before 15 May, 2013. If you do nothing, you are likely to be left behind and will be out of sync with the rest of the Bitcoin network."

Notice it doesn't say that if 51% of the computing power decides not to upgrade... never mind.
It says, we've decided. Come along or not.

So in other words the client with the largest install base ultimately makes the rules. The  fact that source code is available is utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of users as they would not have the expertise to derive anything from it. So rather than having monetary policy dictated by the Fed, Bitcoin users may ultimately have it dictated by those responsible for the dominant client application.

[Severian]

Just an observation from the various writing styles I have seen in words attributed to him.

So you have no proof. I'm just checking to see how caught up in your own facts you are.

[revans]

Just an observation from the various writing styles I have seen in words attributed to him.

So you have no proof. I'm just checking to see how caught up in your own facts you are.

It's my opinion, your's may differ.

[myrkul]

Notice it doesn't say that if 51% of the computing power decides not to upgrade... never mind.
It says, we've decided. Come along or not.

It also says "likely" If 51% or more of the computing power - would probably only take 3 or four pools - had decided not to upgrade, it wouldn't have happened. But it was in their best interest to do so because it was a bugfix, not a philosophical split.

Also, you forgot that 51% (or more) of the computing power had already decided:
http://bitcoin.org/chainfork.html

Large mining pools running version 0.8.0 were asked to switch back to version 0.7, to create a single block chain compatible with all bitcoin software.

Those same mining pools were then asked to do the upgrade on the 15th.

[myrkul]

So in other words the client with the largest install base ultimately makes the rules. The  fact that source code is available is utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of users as they would not have the expertise to derive anything from it. So rather than having monetary policy dictated by the Fed, Bitcoin users may ultimately have it dictated by those responsible for the dominant client application.

You're looking at it backwards. I'm beginning to think this is habitual with you. Bitcoin users decide (by using it) the dominant client application. If the one they're using implements rules they don't like, hey presto, they change clients, and it's not dominant any more.

[btcbug]

Seriously, revans. Don't be a hypocrite. You have a lot of coins and btcbug and I don't have very many. I think it would be in the best interests of all for you to carve up your stake a bit and spread it around so that you don't get tempted to become one of the new elite that you've been talking about. It is only fair.

I also ask others in this thread to quote me and my signature with its respective address so that we can get a time stamp and watch this address. I am curious to see how many donations are sent to that address by those who cry foul with regards to inequality and people not sharing what they have. I have yet to see any donation to that address by anyone. They want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

Love your new signature!  

I haven't received my share yet, have you?

[revans]

So in other words the client with the largest install base ultimately makes the rules. The  fact that source code is available is utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of users as they would not have the expertise to derive anything from it. So rather than having monetary policy dictated by the Fed, Bitcoin users may ultimately have it dictated by those responsible for the dominant client application.

You're looking at it backwards. I'm beginning to think this is habitual with you. Bitcoin users decide (by using it) the dominant client application. If the one they're using implements rules they don't like, hey presto, they change clients, and it's not dominant any more.

But you're looking at thing as they stand. One assumes the goal is for bitcoin to become sufficiently ubiquitous such that less technically savvy users enter the fray. This type of users will use the client that is most popular, the one that they see first in Google, or the one used by their friends. In fact  there in a nutshell is how to subvert Bitcoin. Hire a whizz bang team of UI designers to make a really slick application for iPhone/Android and Web, throw a marketing budget at it, and watch your client become a de facto standard.

[batcoin]

Seriously, revans. Don't be a hypocrite. You have a lot of coins and btcbug and I don't have very many. I think it would be in the best interests of all for you to carve up your stake a bit and spread it around so that you don't get tempted to become one of the new elite that you've been talking about. It is only fair.

I also ask others in this thread to quote me and my signature with its respective address so that we can get a time stamp and watch this address. I am curious to see how many donations are sent to that address by those who cry foul with regards to inequality and people not sharing what they have. I have yet to see any donation to that address by anyone. They want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

Love your new signature!  

I haven't received my share yet, have you?

No I haven't. I put the sig in there a few days ago when I was participating in a similar thread as this. It's amazing how the commie types start backpedalling and find all sorts of justification not to even out the wealth disparity when it comes time for them to pony up their part.

Still waiting, revans! Copy and paste! Don't be a miser either! You can be the pioneer and a role model for all who demand fairness! 1P11Dz4mhDcJvetHqEJu35KNEVqSRmqo3b