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

[Xiaoma]

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.

I don't think there is an evil masterplan for world domination here. Bitcoin could disappear in a few months if is never going mainstream.
But is true that in the hypothetical case that coin value goes over $75000, somebody with 1M coins will exceed the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim, $73 billions). And there is no proof that nobody has more than a million coins.  

[1713873433]

1713873433

[1713873433]

1713873433

[1713873433]

1713873433

[revans]

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.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

[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.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

[Luckybit]

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?

I was studying cryptocurrencies before there was a Bitcoin, and I knew about it when first hearing about it during the bailout crisis. I heard again during the Occupy Wallstreet. I would be one of those early adopters except I got side tracked not thinking it would recover so fast from $2.

[revans]

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.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

Who's to say Bitcoin isn't a Goldman Sachs project, or maybe GS infiltrated it and now own millions of Bitcoins.

[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.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

Who's to say Bitcoin isn't a Goldman Sachs project, or maybe GS infiltrated it and now own millions of Bitcoins.

And I thought I was paranoid.

[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.

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.

It was speculation 1 or 2 years ago too.

From 2 years ago: http://youtu.be/PgR8jacv9FQ?t=4m23s

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"?

First we start doing our homework on Bitcoin, politics, free markets and sound money.

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.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Feel free to design and use your own system if Bitcoin frightens you.

[Luckybit]

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.

I don't think there is an evil masterplan for world domination here. Bitcoin could disappear in a few months if is never going mainstream.
But is true that in the hypothetical case that coin value goes over $75000, somebody with 1M coins will exceed the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim, $73 billions). And there is no proof that nobody has more than a million coins.  

So what? If that happens then we'd all be better off because we'd all have more money too. Money doesn't buy political influence though, it just means you'll be the one funding the elections and paying for infrastructure.

[liberty90]

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me.

BTC was quite well known in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles, even then.

It's not a bug, it's a feature This will be very pretty transfer of wealth to libertarians, anarchists, agorists...

[Red]

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.

Xiaoma hit on what I think is the fundamental reason bitcoin will never go mainstream. Some 6 Billion people in the world are much like him. They've never heard of bitcoin, or they've never heard of bitcoin until today. When they show up here they are all going to ask this question over and over again.

"Why should I waste my time and money making you guys really rich? I've got that problem already."


@Xiamo, I can answer your question directly if you'd like, but it would cause a flame war. Probably better to do it in a new thread.

Hint: Bitcoin is not a currency. It is the first commodity ever created by mathematical fiat!

[Xiaoma]

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me.

BTC was quite well known in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles, even then.

It's not a bug, it's a feature This will be very pretty transfer of wealth to libertarians, anarchists, agorists...

OK if you say that was on purpose then is fine I was just worried it was an accident.

I don't usually frequent political circles. yawn. I'm too busy doing stuff than talking about stuff, how silly.
Now I know that was a huge mistake

EDIT - the original message was not looking ironic enough don't take me too seriously when I'm kidding

[Richy_T]

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

I'm going long on Hot Pockets...

[Gordonium]

It's not a bug, it's a feature This will be very pretty transfer of wealth to libertarians, anarchists, agorists...

+1

And its is also pretty funny to see people here crying that they didnt know about Bitcoins couple of years ago. If Bitcoin will succeed everyone buying Bitcoins now will still be early adopter.

[Luckybit]

It's not a bug, it's a feature This will be very pretty transfer of wealth to libertarians, anarchists, agorists...

+1

And its is also pretty funny to see people here crying that they didnt know about Bitcoins couple of years ago. If Bitcoin will succeed everyone buying Bitcoins now will still be early adopter.

Yeah but you got greedy people in here who are jealous of people who will be billionaires even though they will probably have hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves if that happens.

So what if I'm never a billionaire or millionaire? That isn't what attracted me to Bitcoin in the first place nor most people on this site. Most people were attracted to Bitcoin because it's an interesting technology or because they want to save their money in it. Most of us aren't going to be rich and Bitcoin probably aren't going to be worth millions each. But if Bitcoins are worth $10,000 each or $50,000 each then ALL of us are going to be pretty damn happy except for the guy thinking it's a plot by Goldman Sachs to make us richer.

Honestly if that is the plot then for once the right people are having a chance to make money in society. Just because you make a few thousand or a few million it doesn't mean you'll suddenly be running things. And I don't understand the arguments against being an early adopter or the arguments that Bitcoin is somehow unethical. It's only unethical if people get rich from it but it was ethical when each Bitcoin were worth a fraction of a cent?

Satoshi deserves to be a billionaire. He invented something of great value to the world. The early adopters (that would include us), are risk takers but also lucky. Look at my name and you'll understand my attitude on it. That being said I don't think being rich and successful is a bad thing and if libertarian computer nerds are successful then whats wrong with that? It beats prison doesn't it? It beats the alternatives of whatever life the current oligarchs have charted out. I'll take my chances with Satoshi.

[Xiaoma]

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.

Xiaoma hit on what I think is the fundamental reason bitcoin will never go mainstream. Some 6 Billion people in the world are much like him. They've never heard of bitcoin, or they've never heard of bitcoin until today. When they show up here they are all going to ask this question over and over again.

"Why should I waste my time and money making you guys really rich? I've got that problem already."


@Xiamo, I can answer your question directly if you'd like, but it would cause a flame war. Probably better to do it in a new thread.

Hint: Bitcoin is not a currency. It is the first commodity ever created by mathematical fiat!

Well.. I think Bitcoin will have a very hard time going mainstream because most people are NOT like me

I only got so late into this because I only found out recently. If I wasn't away from crypto forums for so many years I would be an early adopter too. The only thing I can do now, at the current prices, is to get a dozen coins a month, not more than that. Still, even if I have a net loss so far, I still try to buy more coins because I believe the world needs it. I don't care much about the "getting rich" hype. It is the freedom from central entities control that I value most. Even if I was to lose all my investment on Bitcoin, another crypto-currency will be created that hopefully will have better luck than this one.

Most of the remaining 6 billions don't give a damn about it, to be blunt. They would happily give up all freedom if they were feeling safe and protected. It is the way governments work, and the way humans work.

[Luckybit]

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.

Xiaoma hit on what I think is the fundamental reason bitcoin will never go mainstream. Some 6 Billion people in the world are much like him. They've never heard of bitcoin, or they've never heard of bitcoin until today. When they show up here they are all going to ask this question over and over again.

"Why should I waste my time and money making you guys really rich? I've got that problem already."


@Xiamo, I can answer your question directly if you'd like, but it would cause a flame war. Probably better to do it in a new thread.

Hint: Bitcoin is not a currency. It is the first commodity ever created by mathematical fiat!

Well.. I think Bitcoin will have a very hard time going mainstream because most people are NOT like me

I only got so late into this because I only found out recently. If I wasn't away from crypto forums for so many years I would be an early adopter too. The only thing I can do now, at the current prices, is to get a dozen coins a month, not more than that. Still, even if I have a net loss so far, I still try to buy more coins because I believe the world needs it. I don't care much about the "getting rich" hype. It is the freedom from central entities control that I value most. Even if I was to lose all my investment on Bitcoin, another crypto-currency will be created that hopefully will have better luck than this one.

Most of the remaining 6 billions don't give a damn about it, to be blunt. They would happily give up all freedom if they were feeling safe and protected. It is the way governments work, and the way humans work.

It's also the way mafias work. That is a protection racket. That kind of political fiat currency is backed by the bullet. People are forced to accept USD or get beat up or killed?  That is what we prefer over Bitcoin? We want to go back to that thug mafia style system based around fear, threats and intimidation?

Bitcoin doesn't have the coercion and intimidation. Maybe some hackers will dox you or put a virus on your computer but that is nothing compared to getting bombed and shot at by snipers because you didn't want to spend the USD. The world needs a global alternative and I'm not even considering myself a globalist, but the world needs a global currency done right and Bitcoin is the first global currency to ever exist. It might not be done right, but it's done first, and the people who are early adopters are taking the risk because WE KNOW.

[Luckybit]

And to anyone who doesn't like Bitcoin, nothing is stopping any of you from taking the code and forking it and coming up with something better. To diss Bitcoin but not to want to do the work to support ANY alternative cryptocurrency is really saying you just support fiat currencies no matter what the result.

And that is just plain stupid. The results matter and the results should determine what you support. If the results of the US dollar and Euro were so great then why are all of us in debt right now? Why are so many of us educated but unemployed? Whether you go to college and receive debt or just the fact that you live in the USA and accept USD, you are in debt. In debt to what and why? How are you supposed to pay that debt back? Be a slave?

If that is the only alternative, which is basically to work for free to pay off some debt which we don't even know where it came from to people we don't even know, or we can deal in Bitcoins and pay off the debt in our own way, on our own terms, with our speculation bubbles and cryptocurrencies and other technologies so be it. We have nothing to lose.

[Xiaoma]

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.

Xiaoma hit on what I think is the fundamental reason bitcoin will never go mainstream. Some 6 Billion people in the world are much like him. They've never heard of bitcoin, or they've never heard of bitcoin until today. When they show up here they are all going to ask this question over and over again.

"Why should I waste my time and money making you guys really rich? I've got that problem already."


@Xiamo, I can answer your question directly if you'd like, but it would cause a flame war. Probably better to do it in a new thread.

Hint: Bitcoin is not a currency. It is the first commodity ever created by mathematical fiat!

Well.. I think Bitcoin will have a very hard time going mainstream because most people are NOT like me

I only got so late into this because I only found out recently. If I wasn't away from crypto forums for so many years I would be an early adopter too. The only thing I can do now, at the current prices, is to get a dozen coins a month, not more than that. Still, even if I have a net loss so far, I still try to buy more coins because I believe the world needs it. I don't care much about the "getting rich" hype. It is the freedom from central entities control that I value most. Even if I was to lose all my investment on Bitcoin, another crypto-currency will be created that hopefully will have better luck than this one.

Most of the remaining 6 billions don't give a damn about it, to be blunt. They would happily give up all freedom if they were feeling safe and protected. It is the way governments work, and the way humans work.

It's also the way mafias work. That is a protection racket. That kind of political fiat currency is backed by the bullet. People are forced to accept USD or get beat up or killed?  That is what we prefer over Bitcoin? We want to go back to that thug mafia style system based around fear, threats and intimidation?

Bitcoin doesn't have the coercion and intimidation. Maybe some hackers will dox you or put a virus on your computer but that is nothing compared to getting bombed and shot at by snipers because you didn't want to spend the USD. The world needs a global alternative and I'm not even considering myself a globalist, but the world needs a global currency done right and Bitcoin is the first global currency to ever exist. It might not be done right, but it's done first, and the people who are early adopters are taking the risk because WE KNOW.

And how you plan to explain that to "common" people? Don't take it personally, but it seem to me you are only trying to preach to the believers...

[myrkul]

And how you plan to explain that to "common" people? Don't take it personally, but it seem to me you are only trying to preach to the believers...

Your average "average Joe" is waking up pretty quickly. You'd have to be pretty deeply buried in football and beer (the modern age's bread and circuses) to miss the writing on the wall.

[Xiaoma]

And how you plan to explain that to "common" people? Don't take it personally, but it seem to me you are only trying to preach to the believers...

Your average "average Joe" is waking up pretty quickly. You'd have to be pretty deeply buried in football and beer (the modern age's bread and circuses) to miss the writing on the wall.

Maybe I'm more pessimistic than you are, but I see most people are still in denial. The Euro collapse will be a brutal wake up call.
Then will be USA, where most people think "Euro is fckd but this will never happen here".