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

[Qoheleth]

If there was an improvement in the technology that eliminated the need for exchanges, would it be enough to eliminate the dictator from the algorithm?

Now you get it!

See, that's the problem I think I have a solution to! :-)
Better yet, it reenforces anonymity!

I've been working out the details of one possible solution for a while. Too slowly, though. May need to push up my vacation, get something working before anything really troublesome happens due to the current state of things.

[1714184815]

1714184815

[1714184815]

1714184815

[1714184815]

1714184815

[1714184815]

1714184815

[rpietila]

So the point of my ramblings is...

1) Given that the exchanges can never operate on different chains. And
2) They can't allow invalidation of confirmed transactions to ever occur. So
3) If the exchanges decide that a particular chain is the only chain they'll all trade on. THEN
4) The mining pools MUST follow their direction. and
5) So MUST everyone else.

So how can "Accumulated Hashing" protect the chain, if the exchanges can throw it out willy nilly and everyone else must accept their decision?

QED.

What exactly is the problem then?

MTGox determining monetary policy, essentially.

There's one problem with that: The miners don't HAVE to use the big exchanges. They don't HAVE to exchange their coins at all, in fact.

I use Mt.Gox very little, and so should you, and everybody. Their engine is good for handling about 2 transactions per second, as is the bitcoin protocol. Buy/sell OTC rather. Friendly service and no risk of "hacks" and stuff.

[revans]

So the point of my ramblings is...

1) Given that the exchanges can never operate on different chains. And
2) They can't allow invalidation of confirmed transactions to ever occur. So
3) If the exchanges decide that a particular chain is the only chain they'll all trade on. THEN
4) The mining pools MUST follow their direction. and
5) So MUST everyone else.

So how can "Accumulated Hashing" protect the chain, if the exchanges can throw it out willy nilly and everyone else must accept their decision?

QED.

What exactly is the problem then?

MTGox determining monetary policy, essentially.

There's one problem with that: The miners don't HAVE to use the big exchanges. They don't HAVE to exchange their coins at all, in fact.

But of course they do to cover the increasingly large cost of mining, and the ever diminishing rewards as the computational power of the network grows. Furthermore, were it not for exchanges manipulating prices I very much doubt Bitcoin would be much more than a couple of dollars tops. The gold rush created by the upward price manipulation means a lot of users bring a lot of processing power into the network chasing rewards in a market bubble. These new users aren't getting involved with Bitcoin because they are interested in it as a medium of exchange, they just want to mine in the hope of profit.

[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.

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.

That is not the case at all. I'm saying you're simply jealous. How are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start? Why can't you just accept that in any system some people will have a head start because no perfect system exists. Elites exist in nature in all systems because that is how order works.

That being said I do not support the central banking elite NOT because there is inequality, but because there isn't any leadership or reason for that inequality. What I'm saying is that you can be a billionaire, be responsible, and distribute the money in a responsible way by providing jobs, investing, starting businesses, inventing new technology. Bitcoin was invented by it's early adopters and rightfully they should receive the majority of the benefit. Rather than being jealous of some who were just lucky, or worrying about that, instead you should join Freicoin where people are designing it from scratch to promote your ideals.

I'm not against there being elites so long as the elites represent something greater than themselves, the Bitcoin community, or whatever community. If we are on a basketball team and you have the star player who scores a lot of points, gets a lot of money and attention, you're the sort of player who would be jealous and complain that you aren't being paid enough. You don't seem to understand that it's not about the individual player but about the objectives of the team. Some players get paid more than others because they have been playing for longer, or just because they are taller or faster or smarter or better looking, but why should you be jealous?

Yes there are some instances where the wrong people have too much money, but why should I believe that the Bitcoin early adopters are the wrong people just because you say so? Some of them will be the right people, and those right people can fund the next technology to free the people. Can you not think outside and beyond yourself? You can't afford enough coins? You can't mine them in time? You're unlucky and so you want to bring the entire Bitcoin down or go on a begging spree?

You have Bitcoins right? So you're more lucky than anyone who doesn't. You have a stake. You're just jealous that the next man has a bit more than you and instead of focusing on yourself and on what you can do to get what you think you deserve, you're trying to beg some other guy for some coins? Is that seriously the argument? Like I said you should trade in your Bitcoin for Freicoins and PPcoins or Litecoins. This way you can stop complaining about the current winners and focus on being a winner.

To whoever was lucky enough to have thousands of Bitcoin, good for you. I hope you're more responsible than the previous elites. Keep supporting the technology, the culture and the community and bring us jobs (not free coins!).  Pay us to help design the next innovations or the next big coin to replace Bitcoin or pay us to make Bitcoin better. Use your Bitcoins to actually protect Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community from DDOS attacks and political attacks which will come.

[Luckybit]

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.

I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?

It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.

So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?

It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?

[Luckybit]

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?

As I said, you don't qualify as a good cause, merely a lost one.

What was that I was saying...? Oh right!

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.

I really can't believe you would say that about someone in his position. It's clear he is just down on his luck and you could help him out. You have the means.

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than ten dollars a day. Begging is one thing, but acting like someone in the first world really deserves that money is absolutely disgusting, both of you make me sick. If I were revans I would invest my fortune in infrastructure for the developing world, not pathetic forum dwellers who feel sorry for themselves because they didn't achieve overnight wealth.

TLDR: you are a greedy waste of oxygen batcoin.

Finally someone speaks the truth ^

It's about building infrastructure, global technological infrastructure which can free the world. The money should be given to people who want to be a part of the process, not to people who want to go on a forum and essentially beg for it because what is that rewarding and how is that improving anything long term?

Invest, create jobs, encourage economic growth in the third and first world. Bitcoin is a good development for both the first and third world and betters lives in both worlds.

[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.

That is not the case at all. I'm saying you're simply jealous. How are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start? Why can't you just accept that in any system some people will have a head start because no perfect system exists. Elites exist in nature in all systems because that is how order works.

That being said I do not support the central banking elite NOT because there is inequality, but because there isn't any leadership or reason for that inequality. What I'm saying is that you can be a billionaire, be responsible, and distribute the money in a responsible way by providing jobs, investing, starting businesses, inventing new technology. Bitcoin was invented by it's early adopters and rightfully they should receive the majority of the benefit. Rather than being jealous of some who were just lucky, or worrying about that, instead you should join Freicoin where people are designing it from scratch to promote your ideals.

I'm not against there being elites so long as the elites represent something greater than themselves, they Bitcoin community, or whatever community. If we are on a basketball team and you have the star player who scores a lot of points, gets a lot of money and attention, you're the sort of player who would be jealous and complain that you aren't being paid enough. You don't seem to understand that it's not about the individual player but about the objectives of the team. Some players get paid more than others because they have been playing for longer, or just because they are taller or faster or smarter or better looking, but why should you be jealous?

Yes there are some instances where the wrong people have too much money, but why should I believe that the Bitcoin early adopters are the wrong people just because you say so? Some of them will be the right people, and those right people can fund the next technology to free the people. Can you not think outside and beyond yourself? You can't afford enough coins? You can't mine them in time? You're unlucky and so you want to bring the entire Bitcoin down or go on a begging spree?

You have Bitcoins right? So you're more lucky than anyone who doesn't. You have a stake. You're just jealous that the next man has a bit more than you and instead of focusing on yourself and on what you can do to get what you think you deserve, you're trying to beg some other guy for some coins? Is that seriously the argument? Like I said you should trade in your Bitcoin for Freicoins and PPcoins or Litecoins. This way you can stop complaining about the current winners and focus on being a winner.

To whoever was lucky enough to have thousands of Bitcoin, good for you. I hope you're more responsible than the previous elites. Keep supporting the technology, the culture and the community and bring us jobs (not free coins!).  Pay us to help design the next innovations or the next big coin to replace Bitcoin or pay us to make Bitcoin better. Use your Bitcoins to actually protect Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community from DDOS attacks and political attacks which will come.

So enslaving other human beings is merely a 'head start'. Enough said I think; I do not converse with racist fascists

[Qoheleth]

LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.

I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?

It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.

So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?

It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?

Are you reading the thread? None of those arguments are arguments that Red has put forward - I haven't seen any posts by them arguing that the current distribution of coins is the problem.

The argument I have seen from him is that the exchanges, by virtue of their necessity in the current economy, already possess a veto power over which chain is the "true" transaction record, which transcends the "longest chain" logic that justifies calling Bitcoin decentralized to begin with. They're arguing that if the exchanges wanted, they could declare some abandoned fork to be "the REAL Bitcoin" and since most users right now (more critically, most miners) need to be able to exchange their coins for money reliably, they will have no choice but to agree. They're arguing that in the current economy, the longest chain and the miners and the decentralized design only matter because the exchanges haven't chosen to flex that power.

That's a problem, and has nothing to do with ideology.

Edit: Added a quote back in to make the context of my post clear.

[myrkul]

So the point of my ramblings is...

1) Given that the exchanges can never operate on different chains. And
2) They can't allow invalidation of confirmed transactions to ever occur. So
3) If the exchanges decide that a particular chain is the only chain they'll all trade on. THEN
4) The mining pools MUST follow their direction. and
5) So MUST everyone else.

So how can "Accumulated Hashing" protect the chain, if the exchanges can throw it out willy nilly and everyone else must accept their decision?

QED.

What exactly is the problem then?

MTGox determining monetary policy, essentially.

There's one problem with that: The miners don't HAVE to use the big exchanges. They don't HAVE to exchange their coins at all, in fact.

But of course they do to cover the increasingly large cost of mining, and the ever diminishing rewards as the computational power of the network grows.

No, they don't. They really don't. In fact, with those "ever-diminishing rewards," It's usually better to hold the coins a while before spending or exchanging them.

The rest of your post is a jumble of conspiracy and jealousy - or worse, the desire to tell others how to live. Quit whining.

[revans]

It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.

So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?

It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?

Are you reading the thread? None of those arguments are arguments that Red has put forward - I haven't seen any posts by them arguing that the current distribution of coins is the problem.

The argument I have seen from him is that the exchanges, by virtue of their necessity in the current economy, already possess a veto power over which chain is the "true" transaction record, which transcends the "longest chain" logic that justifies calling Bitcoin decentralized to begin with. They're arguing that if the exchanges wanted, they could declare some abandoned fork to be "the REAL Bitcoin" and since most users right now (more critically, most miners) need to be able to exchange their coins for money reliably, they will have no choice but to agree. They're arguing that in the current economy, the longest chain and the miners and the decentralized design only matter because the exchanges haven't chosen to flex that power.

That's a problem, and has nothing to do with ideology.

I initially stated that a huge problem is the fact that far too much of the Bitcoin monetary base was mined for trivial effort by a small group of people.

[Qoheleth]

I initially stated that a huge problem is the fact that far too much of the Bitcoin monetary base was mined for trivial effort by a small group of people.

Right. But in that post he was quoting Red, not you.

I'm taking notes about what might make initial distribution more or less "fair", but I'd rather not be a party to that hatchet fight myself.

[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.

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.

That is not the case at all. I'm saying you're simply jealous. How are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start? Why can't you just accept that in any system some people will have a head start because no perfect system exists. Elites exist in nature in all systems because that is how order works.

That being said I do not support the central banking elite NOT because there is inequality, but because there isn't any leadership or reason for that inequality. What I'm saying is that you can be a billionaire, be responsible, and distribute the money in a responsible way by providing jobs, investing, starting businesses, inventing new technology. Bitcoin was invented by it's early adopters and rightfully they should receive the majority of the benefit. Rather than being jealous of some who were just lucky, or worrying about that, instead you should join Freicoin where people are designing it from scratch to promote your ideals.

I'm not against there being elites so long as the elites represent something greater than themselves, they Bitcoin community, or whatever community. If we are on a basketball team and you have the star player who scores a lot of points, gets a lot of money and attention, you're the sort of player who would be jealous and complain that you aren't being paid enough. You don't seem to understand that it's not about the individual player but about the objectives of the team. Some players get paid more than others because they have been playing for longer, or just because they are taller or faster or smarter or better looking, but why should you be jealous?

Yes there are some instances where the wrong people have too much money, but why should I believe that the Bitcoin early adopters are the wrong people just because you say so? Some of them will be the right people, and those right people can fund the next technology to free the people. Can you not think outside and beyond yourself? You can't afford enough coins? You can't mine them in time? You're unlucky and so you want to bring the entire Bitcoin down or go on a begging spree?

You have Bitcoins right? So you're more lucky than anyone who doesn't. You have a stake. You're just jealous that the next man has a bit more than you and instead of focusing on yourself and on what you can do to get what you think you deserve, you're trying to beg some other guy for some coins? Is that seriously the argument? Like I said you should trade in your Bitcoin for Freicoins and PPcoins or Litecoins. This way you can stop complaining about the current winners and focus on being a winner.

To whoever was lucky enough to have thousands of Bitcoin, good for you. I hope you're more responsible than the previous elites. Keep supporting the technology, the culture and the community and bring us jobs (not free coins!).  Pay us to help design the next innovations or the next big coin to replace Bitcoin or pay us to make Bitcoin better. Use your Bitcoins to actually protect Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community from DDOS attacks and political attacks which will come.

So enslaving other human beings is merely a 'head start'. Enough said I think; I do not converse with racist fascists

You assume that a person who has more power and money than you has an agenda to enslave you? What if they want to use the majority of their money and power to free themselves and you? You really think that all the Bitcoin Billionaires will suddenly be free just because they have money? The world is more complex than you think it is. Also do you really believe that once they get the money and ability to actually do something about the problems in the world that 100% of them will do a 180 and turn on their libertarian roots?

When African Americans were enslaved some of them escaped to freedom. When they did that they went back to free their friends and family members too. They formed the underground railroad which I'm sure you know about to accomplish this objective. So no, I don't think having people who have millions or billions is a bad thing necessarily. It's inequality yes, but it costs money to protect people in the private sector, unless you want to have a centralized government do it and pay taxes?

[Qoheleth]

So enslaving other human beings is merely a 'head start'. Enough said I think; I do not converse with racist fascists

You assume that a person who has more power and money than you has an agenda to enslave you? What if they want to use the majority of their money and power to free themselves and you? You really think that all the Bitcoin Billionaires will suddenly be free just because they have money? The world is more complex than you think it is. Also do you really believe that once they get the money and ability to actually do something about the problems in the world that 100% of them will do a 180 and turn on their libertarian roots?

When African Americans were enslaved some of them escaped to freedom. When they did that they went back to free their friends and family members too. They formed the underground railroad which I'm sure you know about to accomplish this objective. So no, I don't think having people who have millions or billions is a bad thing necessarily. It's inequality yes, but it costs money to protect people in the private sector, unless you want to have a centralized government do it and pay taxes?

I think the above comment was in response to your questionable "how are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start" analogy, not some wider insinuation about capital being enslavement.

[Luckybit]

LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.

I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?

It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.

So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?

It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?

Are you reading the thread? None of those arguments are arguments that Red has put forward - I haven't seen any posts by them arguing that the current distribution of coins is the problem.

The argument I have seen from him is that the exchanges, by virtue of their necessity in the current economy, already possess a veto power over which chain is the "true" transaction record, which transcends the "longest chain" logic that justifies calling Bitcoin decentralized to begin with. They're arguing that if the exchanges wanted, they could declare some abandoned fork to be "the REAL Bitcoin" and since most users right now (more critically, most miners) need to be able to exchange their coins for money reliably, they will have no choice but to agree. They're arguing that in the current economy, the longest chain and the miners and the decentralized design only matter because the exchanges haven't chosen to flex that power.

That's a problem, and has nothing to do with ideology.

Edit: Added a quote back in to make the context of my post clear.

I agree with him that the exchanges need to be decentralized. I don't agree that early adopters are a problem or that inequality by itself is a problem. I think inequality can be a problem depending on how extreme it is and depending on who is at the top. If the top is responsible then they'll invest in people on the bottom and inequality has social mobility. If we look at the current top which is irresponsible then social mobility is limited.

I'm for promoting social mobility but to do that we have to allow people to start at the bottom and get to the top even if it means by luck of being early adopters just so long as we agree on the rules of the game and don't change the rules for any player. The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.

[Luckybit]

I initially stated that a huge problem is the fact that far too much of the Bitcoin monetary base was mined for trivial effort by a small group of people.

Right. But in that post he was quoting Red, not you.

I'm taking notes about what might make initial distribution more or less "fair", but I'd rather not be a party to that hatchet fight myself.

I think I may have misattributed my post. But my argument remains the same. I do think miners have too much power and are becoming a bit too elite, but I think there is a such thing as a responsible elite. Meaning even if they are elite they are still part of the community and weren't elite prior to Bitcoin. The point here is that if the miners being elite strengthens Bitcoin then it's +1 but if it hurts Bitcoin then it's -1.

[Qoheleth]

The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.

How does Bitcoin solve this, though? If your early-adoptorship gives you more money than you will reasonably spend on yourself in your lifetime, then your children inherit it - they gain the initial advantage according to family.

Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem.

[Luckybit]

So enslaving other human beings is merely a 'head start'. Enough said I think; I do not converse with racist fascists

You assume that a person who has more power and money than you has an agenda to enslave you? What if they want to use the majority of their money and power to free themselves and you? You really think that all the Bitcoin Billionaires will suddenly be free just because they have money? The world is more complex than you think it is. Also do you really believe that once they get the money and ability to actually do something about the problems in the world that 100% of them will do a 180 and turn on their libertarian roots?

When African Americans were enslaved some of them escaped to freedom. When they did that they went back to free their friends and family members too. They formed the underground railroad which I'm sure you know about to accomplish this objective. So no, I don't think having people who have millions or billions is a bad thing necessarily. It's inequality yes, but it costs money to protect people in the private sector, unless you want to have a centralized government do it and pay taxes?

I think the above comment was in response to your questionable "how are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start" analogy, not some wider insinuation about capital being enslavement.

I also went on about the underground railroad. Race has nothing to do with it anymore, it's class at this point. So the actual argument I'm making is that certain families always had a head start, it does not matter if you're black or something else, if you aren't from a royal or noble or blue blood family then some other family has had a head start historically speaking and still probably has the social connections and property head start.

Instead of fighting with all those families that had a head start, or fighting with individuals who have more, it's better to pull them onto the side of promoting liberty. They can have more, they can keep their wealth, I just would like for them to invest a certain percentage of it so that society can progress and new generations of people can be socially mobile and generate wealth. Some people are always going to be lucky in any system.

[Luckybit]

The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.

How does Bitcoin solve this, though? If your early-adoptorship gives you more money than you will reasonably spend on yourself in your lifetime, then your children inherit it - they gain the initial advantage according to family.

Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem.

Okay let me explain. If you're part of a community that makes people rich, when that community comes under attack by people from other communities then the rich people from the community that you're part of can invest in the infrastructure or initiatives to protect that community. We all rely on the Internet so we'd all protect that, and we'd all protect Bitcoin since we all rely on that. If you're an early adopter and Bitcoin made you rich then you'd be wise to protect whatever fluke in the system or cheat code you found which allowed you to hack your way to getting rich. The only responsibility you would have is to keep the door open or perhaps open new doors so the successor to Bitcoin can be even better.

Google for instance has given great support to Open Source projects. What makes you think the Bitcoin Billionaires wont fund stuff or invest in stuff which is in the interest of Bitcoin or a free Internet? A free Internet benefits Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

I do agree with one thing you said, some of it is a human problem. Nepotism is a human problem and family currency or family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though.

[Red]

I initially stated that a huge problem is the fact that far too much of the Bitcoin monetary base was mined for trivial effort by a small group of people.

See it is your fault not mine! :-)

A smart man once wrote:

"If there is something that will make Bitcoin succeed, it is growth of utility - greater quantity and variety of goods and services offered for BTC. If there is something that will make Bitcoin fail, it is the culture of naive fools and conmen, the former convinced that BTC is a magic box that will turn them into millionaires, and the latter arriving by the busload to devour them."

I never said that. I said the problem with the initial distribution of a fixed set of coins was:

"Because to potential new adopters, after that point Bitcoin is going to look like a new a 21,000,000 coin currency with a 10,500,000 coin pre-generation that went to the creator and his "friends". Certainly people will stop caring about Bitcoin long before they show up on our doorsteps with signs saying,

"We are the 99.9932%!""
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48521.0

LuckyBits, Please keep us straight! :-)

[myrkul]

The difference between Bitcoin and existing systems is that everyone using Bitcoin must play by the same rules. That's as fair as you are going to get in this world.

Those who first take advantage of the available tools will always have an edge. Such is life. I suggest you embrace it.

How are they playing by the same rules when the founders mined millions of Bitcoins when it was computationally trivial to do so? Bitcoin mining will soon become so hard that massive investment in equipment will be required.

Because, that's what the rules say. It's right there in the protocol.

Yup. If you don't like those rules, there are plenty of other games in town.