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

[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.

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

Good idea. I think I will.

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.

This.

[Coincrazy]

.

. 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.

Your intentions are noble

But is that the ground reality ?

Well.... evidence so far suggests that the early rich have practically gone unground

No early guy / girl  who is also a rich guy / girl because of bit coin  has come out and said that he was early, he is a millionaire holding BTC and now he is donating heavily

I can't figure out how they will become responsible elite

In fact I think the honest early elite will really have a problem. How could it come out into the open and say ...hey I started with libertarian purposes and he is my 20 million bucks ? Which I plan to use for myself ? And so I have been hiding for three years ?

Some how that doesn't seems to gel

[Red]

So I was completely convinced revans was right and bitcoin would never reach widespread adoption. Then I read this.

http://qz.com/74137/six-reasons-why-chinese-people-will-drive-the-next-bull-market-in-bitcoin/

The third point was my favorite:

3. Insane speculation schemes aren’t so crazy to many Chinese people.

Who knows, bitcoin may have a couple of years left before its final crash! :-)

[bb113]

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

(# of Blocks with reward  /reward) * satoshi client transaction fee = 42

[Elwar]

Of course, to even out the classes you were buying early right?

Or even now...you continue to buy while it is cheap?

I recall people complaining about early adopters when the price was $8/BTC. If instead of complaining they were buying they would also be early adopters.

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

[Qoheleth]

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

Yeah. Discovered BTC by coincidence back in late 2011, got 150 coins, and if it gains widespread adoption all of a sudden compared to most people on earth I'll be Jacob Flippin' Marley.

I'm not saying things have to change, or even that they can at this point. But isn't there something weird about that? And isn't it going to look weird to the folks who might otherwise adopt it going forward?

[Red]

When I discovered bitcoin it was 5 BTC for $1. I thought it was overpriced because the previous week it was 200 BTC for $1. That was the difference one slashdot article made.

I ran the original client for about 20 minutes but it made my laptop hot enough to be uncomfortable on my lap. Never bothered to generate a block. Instead I got a bit nickel from the bitcoin fountain. A week before the fountain was giving out 5 BTC to anyone who asked. The slashdotting emptied the fountain so they reduced it to nickels.

Lost the nickel somewhere. Still think BTC is overpriced.

[myrkul]

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

Yeah. Discovered BTC by coincidence back in late 2011, got 150 coins, and if it gains widespread adoption all of a sudden compared to most people on earth I'll be Jacob Flippin' Marley.

I'm not saying things have to change, or even that they can at this point. But isn't there something weird about that? And isn't it going to look weird to the folks who might otherwise adopt it going forward?

Nope. If you're good with money, that amount will increase. If you're poor with money, or take bad risks, that amount will decrease. Capital flows to the hands that can best use it. If Bitcoins were randomly assigned to every person on the planet, 10 years down the line the distribution would look no different than a first-come, first serve.

[Richy_T]

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.
[/quote

Name's already taken, comrade.

[Richy_T]

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.

+ bleedin' 1, my friend.

[Coincrazy]

So I was completely convinced revans was right and bitcoin would never reach widespread adoption. Then I read this.

http://qz.com/74137/six-reasons-why-chinese-people-will-drive-the-next-bull-market-in-bitcoin/

The third point was my favorite:

3. Insane speculation schemes aren’t so crazy to many Chinese people.

Who knows, bitcoin may have a couple of years left before its final crash! :-)

Lol !!

So I was completely convinced revans was right and bitcoin would never reach widespread adoption.

Widespread adoption in gambling = yes !

Widespread adoption to buy bread  = may be !! :-)

[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?

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.

Interesting you say that. I like your sig too btw:

The John Self post-mtgoxalypse poverty fund: 14GXJ3Q16PJNNF6v4iyxhvuhacuhvckMym All donations appreciated.

I hope you can say that you are not located in the first world. I am curious though... What makes you think I am located in the first world?

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?

Agreed.

For the record to others in this thread and on the forum in general, my posts and signature were meant to be read as a statement to the proponents of BTC redistribution and not intended to be viewed as begging. Unfortunately, the intended recipients of my statement seem to miss the point entirely. I should have used the sarcasm tags. My most humble apologies.

[Xiaoma]

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

[batcoin]

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

[myrkul]

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

The earlier you get on the bus, the better seat you get. This is not new information to most people.

[revans]

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

Even the language used is that of speculation, with talk of people failing to 'get in'. Bitcoin isn't a currency it's a stock.

[Xiaoma]

So, one of the main arguments I encounter when discussing Bitcoin with its promulgators is that it can potentially free the financial system from the cabal of plutocrats that currently run the show, and who have lavished enormous  wealth on themselves and their cronies. This argument seems to entirely dismiss the actions of the shady cabal who mined huge numbers of Bitcoins when doing so was trivial (and prior to any public availability), and to a lesser extent the early adopters.

When central bankers throw money like confetti at themselves and their friends whilst most others must struggle to earn small amounts of it this is deemed a moral evil. Yet when the progenitors of Bitcoin and their acolytes do much the same; capture the low hanging fruit and leave everyone else fighting over increasingly complex computational scraps this is hailed as a brave new world of financial freedom.

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.

I'd rather have early adoption. At least if you take risks and have the knowledge you get rewarded. It's more fair than just having to be born at the right time, place, family.

Actually this is EXACTLY the biggest problem people are complaining about. It woud be nice if it was as you say, but is the opposite.

You had to be in the right place at the right time to have a huge advantage above everybody else, without the need of any risk or skills. Just knowing that bitcoin exist 2 years ago and playing with it for fun. How many people ever heard about it before the Cyprus crysis? Just a tiny minority of people. This doesn't make the remaining 99.9999% of the world guilty of lacking skills or afraid to take risks.

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me. Which is the reason why I feel offensive to be labeled as less capable or less enterprising, when the only reason I didn't invest in Bitcoins earlier is because I never heard of it. I agree with you if people took a conscious decision of rejecting Bitcoin a couple years ago, and now they cry injustice. They have only themselves to blame. But people that were not in the "secret society" of the father founders... what exactly is their fault?

[Xiaoma]

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

[revans]

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

[myrkul]

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.