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

[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.

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".

Don't get me wrong, most people are. These things tend to start slow, and then suddenly gain momentum after they hit a "critical mass."
Things will likely get much darker before the dawn.

[Coincrazy]

So what? If that happens then we'd all be better off because we'd all have more money too.

If bitcoin proponents say bitcoin will bring in equity and the above happens ...ie super concentration of wealth, I am not sure we could just say so what ?... But we'll... Each one to his opinion

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

In a lot of places it will create a power structure

 

it  just means you'll be the one funding the elections and paying for infrastructure.

In many so called democratic  countries the bottom  99% pay more taxes than the top 1% . It is bottom 1% that face street crime, housing problems, transport problems and so on ....

[myrkul]

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

Sure, it's like that in pretty much every country. But here's the thing:

If Bitcoin is as successful as everyone hopes it is, everyone will have a store of money that the government cannot touch. They can't freeze it, they can't seize it, they can't tax it, they cant trace it.

Imagine what that will mean to governments.

[Coincrazy]

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.

Sad that you didn't jump in

Still I think you were NOT part of the early Creators or the early elite

You were outside

That made a big difference

[Coincrazy]

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

Sure, it's like that in pretty much every country. But here's the thing:

If Bitcoin is as successful as everyone hopes it is, everyone will have a store of money that the government cannot touch. They can't freeze it, they can't seize it, they can't tax it, they cant trace it.

Imagine what that will mean to governments.

The honest part of the government that collects taxes will suffer

The dishonest part that splurges favors on friends and cronies will already be in the take .......just that it will be far more difficult to prove that they took bribes !!! This will be parallel economy of un comparable ....un imaginable proportions

[myrkul]

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

Sure, it's like that in pretty much every country. But here's the thing:

If Bitcoin is as successful as everyone hopes it is, everyone will have a store of money that the government cannot touch. They can't freeze it, they can't seize it, they can't tax it, they cant trace it.

Imagine what that will mean to governments.

The honest part of the government that collects taxes will suffer

The dishonest part that splurges favors on friends and cronies will already be in the take .......just that it will be far more difficult to prove that they took bribes !!! This will be parallel economy of un comparable ....un imaginable proportions

Yes, but where does that dishonest part of the government get the money to splurge?

From the honest part. Which will be collapsing under it's own - and especially the dishonest part's - weight.

[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.

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...

You don't have to explain anything. You make an offer to the common people which is better than the offer that centralized banking is making. Bitcoin is just the first offer, some people will accept and some will think it's a ponzi scheme or part of the illuminati. The trick is to keep making additional offers until the people figure out it's in their own self interest to diversify. I think the majority of the people claiming Bitcoins and cryptocurrencies are a ponzi scheme are only saying it because of politics. They cannot accept the fact that anarchists can invent something which actually helps the world, or helps the economy, or which could be useful.

If it took anarchists to invent a global currency or to solve a crisis why should we let politics get in the way of the solution? But for people who aren't rational, they'd rather accept failure than accept a libertarian or "anarchist" solution. The fact is, centralized banking doesn't work very well for the middle class.

So anyone middle class can look at their bank accounts and their retirement(or lack of), or their unemployment check or lack of unemployment, or their loan debt, or any other punishing consequence they have received from centralized banking and decide on their own when they get tired of being punished for politically supporting the status quo.

A person like you or me, we don't have to be punished until our graves to figure out that centralized banking isn't really offering us anything worth a damn besides credit and debt. This isn't even about government, there are parts of the government which I agree with or find important. We need an EPA, we need a USDA and the government to provide national security. We need some government regulations. But I don't see how centralized banks or big banks benefit any one of us. The way to convince the common man to be rational is to ask them what the centralized bank and the status quo is doing for them? Tell them to take a hard long look at their life and their prospects and if they don't think Bitcoin is a good alternative then what are they doing to provide the alternative?

It's easy to bash Bitcoin when you're rich and have stocks in big banks but when you're not benefiting but are being punished from the current system then it's really hard not to like Bitcoin. In fact, since when did it make sense to want taxes, debt, and reduced profit over the long term?

[Luckybit]

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.

Sad that you didn't jump in

Still I think you were NOT part of the early Creators or the early elite

You were outside

That made a big difference

I was outside because I was too much of a coward to put myself at that kind of risk. I thought the insiders were gonna be harassed by the feds and shut down like E-gold. I'm actually shocked it didn't happen but my guess is because of the Arab spring, the new Presidency, and the budget politics, I think Obama simply doesn't mind Bitcoin or doesn't care. In a way Bitcoin just happened to exist at just the right time, with just the right President, and just the right environment to gain support and not get shut down.

I think at this point the economy is so bad and the budget is so locked up that shutting down Bitcoin would not be politically correct to do right after bailing out the banks. I admit because I did not have the balls to get involved with Bitcoin earlier that I do not deserve the status that those who had the balls should receive.

[Luckybit]

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

Sure, it's like that in pretty much every country. But here's the thing:

If Bitcoin is as successful as everyone hopes it is, everyone will have a store of money that the government cannot touch. They can't freeze it, they can't seize it, they can't tax it, they cant trace it.

Imagine what that will mean to governments.

The honest part of the government that collects taxes will suffer

The dishonest part that splurges favors on friends and cronies will already be in the take .......just that it will be far more difficult to prove that they took bribes !!! This will be parallel economy of un comparable ....un imaginable proportions

Yes, but where does that dishonest part of the government get the money to splurge?

From the honest part. Which will be collapsing under it's own - and especially the dishonest part's - weight.

Exactly. And to think that the dishonest part of government didn't already have the ability to hide money? Bitcoin didn't invent hiding money. Trillions of dollars were seized just recently in the range of 30+ trillion which is 3 times the size of the US GDP. They are already hiding money and it's always been like that since the start. Billionaires don't have to worry about taxes and honestly I don't think anyone should be taxed for saving, that is bullshit.

If you save money in Bitcoin you shouldn't get taxed. If you cash out then you should get taxed. It's that simple. The elites already have their saved money so why can't the masses save money too?

[Luckybit]

Money doesn't buy political influence though,

In my country it can buy a lot of things including buying politicians, buying political influence, buying this ...buying that ...

Sure, it's like that in pretty much every country. But here's the thing:

If Bitcoin is as successful as everyone hopes it is, everyone will have a store of money that the government cannot touch. They can't freeze it, they can't seize it, they can't tax it, they cant trace it.

Imagine what that will mean to governments.

The honest part of the government that collects taxes will suffer

The dishonest part that splurges favors on friends and cronies will already be in the take .......just that it will be far more difficult to prove that they took bribes !!! This will be parallel economy of un comparable ....un imaginable proportions

Do you realize that if bribes don't work blackmail was used instead? Politicians don't get a choice to be corrupt or not! They either take bribes or get blackmailed or they aren't allowed to get elected. You get rid of the bribes and the political influence will be distributed based on who has the most dirt on who and who can generate the most blackmail on this or that politician. Since everyone has nudes somewhere floating around on the Internet or has done something regrettable, they'll just control the political atmosphere by making threats and fear if bribes didn't exist.

So to worry about Bitcoin being used to bribe people is a minor threat compared to what goes on right now without Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just another currency, but if people want to bribe they can offer favors and don't need Bitcoin. If people want control they can use fear and threats as they always do. This is why it's naive to think Bitcoin billionaires will suddenly rule the earth, those billionaires will not be able to go up against orgnanized crime and honestly I'm glad we don't know their names.

[Adrian-x]

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.

This is true, and the most practical reason Bitcoin may be superseded by a crypto currency that has an adoption curve similar to this. 

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.

This is unlikely in the long run, in contrast to gold it is not as practical to plundered through physical force and war and alternatives can emerge.

Moreover the people who partake will partake voluntarily and will be able to erode the top down wealth by saving, an attribute that has been removed from the inflation fiat central bank model.

[myrkul]

Moreover the people who partake will partake voluntarily and will be able to erode the top down wealth by saving, an attribute that has been removed from the inflation fiat central bank model.

This.

[crazy_rabbit]

Early adoption isn't inequity. Our original 'investment' was more expensive if you calculate the risk and our opportunity cost at the time. People who just start buying in are still getting a great deal, however because there is no (relatively) so much less risk, it's so expensive for them.

[myrkul]

Early adoption isn't inequity. Our original 'investment' was more expensive if you calculate the risk and our opportunity cost at the time. People who just start buying in are still getting a great deal, however because there is no (relatively) so much less risk, it's so expensive for them.

Exactly. At the time, the reward was a bunch of digital "money" that could turn out to be just as popular as Beenz or Flooz. If you don't know what those are, that's my point. The risk was that if the Fed took them seriously, their homes and offices could have been raided, their computers seized, and their dogs shot. Remember, this was right around the time the Liberty Dollar was being cracked down on, and the federal government is not known for being discriminate in it's raiding practices.

[crazy_rabbit]

Early adoption isn't inequity. Our original 'investment' was more expensive if you calculate the risk and our opportunity cost at the time. People who just start buying in are still getting a great deal, however because there is no (relatively) so much less risk, it's so expensive for them.

Exactly. At the time, the reward was a bunch of digital "money" that could turn out to be just as popular as Beenz or Flooz. If you don't know what those are, that's my point. The risk was that if the Fed took them seriously, their homes and offices could have been raided, their computers seized, and their dogs shot. Remember, this was right around the time the Liberty Dollar was being cracked down on, and the federal government is not known for being discriminate in it's raiding practices.

Not to mention the whole "e-gold" debacle.

[rpietila]

This is true, and the most practical reason Bitcoin may be superseded by a crypto currency that has an adoption curve similar to this.

What mechanisms exactly would appeal to enough people, so that they would trade the guaranteed-less-than-100%-ever-more inflation of bitcoin, for something which cannot markedly appreciate in value over time, due to new creation tied to increase in userbase?

No trolling, but I can't currently see why anyone with a capitalist mindset would go after that with anything more than peanuts.. 

Those with a capitalist mindset tend to be those with the most money and power to make things succeed.

[batcoin]

This is true, and the most practical reason Bitcoin may be superseded by a crypto currency that has an adoption curve similar to this.

What mechanisms exactly would appeal to enough people, so that they would trade the guaranteed-less-than-100%-ever-more inflation of bitcoin, for something which cannot markedly appreciate in value over time, due to new creation tied to increase in userbase?

No trolling, but I can't currently see why anyone with a capitalist mindset would go after that with anything more than peanuts.. 

Those with a capitalist mindset tend to be those with the most money and power to make things succeed.

Be careful rpietila, I think the "C" word is a very dirty one to certain members in this thread.

[Red]

What mechanisms exactly would appeal to enough people, so that they would trade the guaranteed-less-than-100%-ever-more inflation of bitcoin, for something which cannot markedly appreciate in value over time, due to new creation tied to increase in userbase?

That's what I've been pondering for longer than I care to mention. But I think I have an answer now.

Clearly there is no way to convince the crypto anarchist, libertarian, gold lover, "saver" of the fixed coin bitcoin model that a variable coin/fixed value coin is BETTER than bitcoin.

However, clearly, there is a need for a COMPLEMENTARY fixed value currency in addition bitcoin. What for? The other half of speculation. When bitcoin is going up, speculators want to own bitcoins. When bitcoin is crashing they want to own anything but bitcoins. However, all the stable alternatives are currently fiat "accounts" within currency exchanges. These are subject to all the non-anonymity, seizure, hacking, fraud risks that regular (cyprus style) bank accounts are subject too.

How might you make a value stable non-fiat currency? This is one potential way.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47628.0
All the cool bits you love about bitcoin. None of the price instability.

[Xiaoma]

What mechanisms exactly would appeal to enough people, so that they would trade the guaranteed-less-than-100%-ever-more inflation of bitcoin, for something which cannot markedly appreciate in value over time, due to new creation tied to increase in userbase?

That's what I've been pondering for longer than I care to mention. But I think I have an answer now.

Clearly there is no way to convince the crypto anarchist, libertarian, gold lover, "saver" of the fixed coin bitcoin model that a variable coin/fixed value coin is BETTER than bitcoin.

However, clearly, there is a need for a COMPLEMENTARY fixed value currency in addition bitcoin. What for? The other half of speculation. When bitcoin is going up, speculators want to own bitcoins. When bitcoin is crashing they want to own anything but bitcoins. However, all the stable alternatives are currently fiat "accounts" within currency exchanges. These are subject to all the non-anonymity, seizure, hacking, fraud risks that regular (cyprus style) bank accounts are subject too.

How might you make a value stable non-fiat currency? This is one potential way.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47628.0
All the cool bits you love about bitcoin. None of the price instability.

The idea of 2 complementary currencies with a focused design is very interesting. One could be optimised as a pure transactional with a stable exchange, and the other as a deflationary store of value. And still have the benefits of a decentralised, near-anonymous and non seizable.
Let speculators speculate with bitcoins, and merchants deal with the other one. And let people choose a mix of both according to mood.

[RodeoX]

Not more "early adopter" ranting. 

The people who railed endlessly about this last year turned out themselves to be early adopters. We are still in the early adoption phase.