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

[Luckybit]

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.

And nothing stops us from creating a better newer protocol if this protocol does produce corrupt EVIL elites who are as bad or worse than the current central power structure. The point is as long as there is social mobility at least musical chairs is better than to have the same group of people in power for a lifetime. It's like would you rather have a monarchy with all it's flaws of lifetime leadership or a Republic where leaders can change?

If Bitcoin really does produce bad leadership then the next time it will be refined by scientific method. This is better than what we can say about most of society where the rules aren't even fair (different rules for different people) and where it's impossible or difficult to change anything or fix what is broken because changing the code in government is harder than changing it in Bitcoin. The US government can't even pass a budget to pay for itself without having a Civil War between it's elites.

[1715387515]

1715387515

[1715387515]

1715387515

[1715387515]

1715387515

[revans]

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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

[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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

You also won't hear them complaining.

[Qoheleth]

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 and family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though.

It's not like the oil barons of yesteryear were burying their money in a hole in the ground or anything. They were reinvesting. They were doing what they could to maintain the infrastructure that was keeping them wealthy - which included both the stuff that society needed, and the stuff that kept society down.

And sure, let's say for a moment that the guys who come out of this thing as billionaires are actually good people - better than the Rockefellers, better than Larry Ellison. Let's say Shamir User A was just shuffling their money around out of paranoia that the Men in Black would kick down their door and take it all.

That's an optimistic assumption, and it buys us, what? Sixty years? Eighty, if they're young and strong and get the expensive medicine early? Whoever they leave their money to, whether family or friends or foundations, we can't attest to their moral character.

If you say that some people will always have an advantage, then you have to accept the consequence of that creed: no matter how the advantage was initially created, there's no statistical reason to believe that the people who have the advantage a generation later will be good. If you want a Pareto-efficient wealth curve, there's a good argument for designing the system such that it tries to initially distribute the wealth no less lopsidedly than that - if you "trust nobody", you can't trust the new money to create that curve for you.

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

[revans]

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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

Huh? These things were worthless for a long time after the start. Would you consider reimbursing Lazlo for his pizza purchase today? No? Then what the fuck are you on about?

And yet they were still mined diligently by a small group. The reason for this is that doing so cost basically nothing and the potential upside was practically limitless. New entrants can expect the reverse, an increasingly steep downside in terms of hardware cost and a shrinking upside in terms of coins earned.

[Luckybit]

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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

The rule is first come first served. The math of that rule produces fairness. Think about it like game theory, if you make it clear the first people who pick the gold up get to keep it then it's fair. If you don't discover it in time it's partly your own fault if you had the Internet and could have been researching cryptocurrencies. If you discovered it in time like me but thought it was a ponzi scheme or bound to fail like E-gold then what? And what if you just didn't rush to buy coins when they were cheap? I made those mistakes but I'm not complaining that I didn't do something that someone else was fortunate enough to do. And had I been fortunate I would hope that people would congratulate me not diss me and call me the 1% illuminati. I would probably be furious and very insulted by that notion.

Your arguments are divisive and bad for the community.

[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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

Huh? These things were worthless for a long time after the start. Would you consider reimbursing Lazlo for his pizza purchase today? No? Then what the fuck are you on about?

And yet they were still mined diligently by a small group. The reason for this is that doing so cost basically nothing and the potential upside was practically limitless. New entrants can expect the reverse, an increasingly steep downside in terms of hardware cost and a shrinking upside in terms of coins earned.

You know, it might just be my twins, but when I read that, I hear babies crying.

[Luckybit]

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 and family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though.

It's not like the oil barons of yesteryear were burying their money in a hole in the ground or anything. They were reinvesting. They were doing what they could to maintain the infrastructure that was keeping them wealthy - which included both the stuff that society needed, and the stuff that kept society down.

And sure, let's say for a moment that the guys who come out of this thing as billionaires are actually good people - better than the Rockefellers, better than Larry Ellison. Let's say Shamir User A was just shuffling their money around out of paranoia that the Men in Black would kick down their door and take it all.

That's an optimistic assumption, and it buys us, what? Sixty years? Eighty, if they're young and strong and get the expensive medicine early? Whoever they leave their money to, whether family or friends or foundations, we can't attest to their moral character.

If you say that some people will always have an advantage, then you have to accept the consequence of that creed: no matter how the advantage was initially created, there's no statistical reason to believe that the people who have the advantage a generation later will be good. If you want a Pareto-efficient wealth curve, there's a good argument for designing the system such that it tries to initially distribute the wealth no less lopsidedly than that - if you "trust nobody", you can't trust the new money to create that curve for you.

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

According to game theory and mathematics some people always have the advantage in any competitive game. But there is the state of equillibrium. We can create an environment where all of our lives collectively get better even if the people at the top get the medicine and advances first. Honestly I don't care who gets it first just so long as the overall trajectory and trend is better. Our current trend is unsustainable and can't work.

Bitcoin is not going to last for 60 years. Capitalism probably wont last for 60 years. Once we get artificial intelligence, the singularity, and super intelligence, all this will be pointless. The only thing to invest in at that point would be better AI as humans wont even be required to work anymore.  But getting from point A to point B is the challenge and I think Bitcoin actually helps get us from point A to point B but it's not the final destination.

Read IJ Good's paper http://www.stat.vt.edu/tech_reports/2005/GoodTechReport.pdf

All this arguing about who will be the elite wont matter once we enter the age of ultraintelligent machines and I don't think that is 60 years away. I think Bitcoin and money itself is just a means to an end.

[Luckybit]

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Anyway I think the future is intelligent cryptocurrencies or smart currencies. These currencies would be able to adapt to our flaws and inflate or deflate or self destruct or decay etc. There is a lot of room for innovation once AI becomes smart enough.

[revans]

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.

But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab.

Huh? These things were worthless for a long time after the start. Would you consider reimbursing Lazlo for his pizza purchase today? No? Then what the fuck are you on about?

And yet they were still mined diligently by a small group. The reason for this is that doing so cost basically nothing and the potential upside was practically limitless. New entrants can expect the reverse, an increasingly steep downside in terms of hardware cost and a shrinking upside in terms of coins earned.

You know, it might just be my twins, but when I read that, I hear babies crying.

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

[Elwar]

I plan on making the CommieCoin (tm).

Basically all CommieCoins will be equally divided to all addresses. Any spend results in an immediate redistribution. Any new address results in immediate redistribution.

It will not require computer power either. Just men in brown coats going anywhere CommieCoins are spent (even in your basement) to verify that everyone has the same amount of CommieCoins.

I think it will catch on well.

[Qoheleth]

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

[Elwar]

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself.

Nothing needs to be added to the protocol for this.

Coming soon...

[Luckybit]

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

It's not ideal but it could be worked out. Like I said my idea which I've been thinking about is a type of smart currency with autonomous functionality. This would mean it wouldn't necessarily be completely hard coded but in some instances there would be democratic functions, in other cases the coin would decide that there isn't enough coins or that there are too many, but in order to have something like that every "miner" would have to still be part of the AI grid. Either way as of 2013 it's not possible and after 2030 when it might be possible it would still probably be overly centralized because super computers will probably still be centralized.

Here is the #1 issue politically of our time. Closed source artificial intelligence has to be banned.

[myrkul]

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

No, my ears are just fine. It's your posting. You could just copy and paste "q.q" over and over again, and it would read pretty much the same.

[revans]

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

No, my ears are just fine. It's your posting. You could just copy and paste "q.q" over and over again, and it would read pretty much the same.

This forum is equipped with an ignore feature, might I suggest you use it.

[Coincrazy]

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.

Well said about amazing riches, lifetime and inheritance.

Just add the following to what you said
".......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...." AND the initial distribution graph was kept absolutely steep at the start and soon after start so that the early on guys old be really really mega rich in the process. So the graph was built that way on purpose and not by any accident ....

If you add that  you will come closer to revans original point !!! Probably look almost similar

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Where is their peer reviewed paper published in a respectable journal refuting these claims?

Moving the goalposts is a dishonest debating tactic. Don't do it if you wish to be taken seriously.

revans seems to be a master at this. Classic evader, and bears all the marks of the reasoning errors that leads to. Not worth debating, from what I've seen so far (haven't trawled this whole thread). But how much do you need to see to get the pattern?

[Kazu]

I think you all are missing the point.

The point of Bitcoin isn't to undermine capitalism or stop the rich from being rich. If anything it has the opposite effect. What it IS supposed to do is prevent the rich (or more likely, powerful) from messing with the money that everyone else uses.

[Coincrazy]

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

It's not ideal but it could be worked out. Like I said my idea which I've been thinking about is a type of smart currency with autonomous functionality. This would mean it wouldn't necessarily be completely hard coded but in some instances there would be democratic functions, in other cases the coin would decide that there isn't enough coins or that there are too many, but in order to have something like that every "miner" would have to still be part of the AI grid. Either way as of 2013 it's not possible and after 2030 when it might be possible it would still probably be overly centralized because super computers will probably still be centralized.

Here is the #1 issue politically of our time. Closed source artificial intelligence has to be banned.

There are lots of people here who want to start currencies... Please try and pool your efforts ...that would add up a lot of potential, time, manpower etc etc