Just had to get this off my chest:

[spndr7]

Posts outside of this forum, and even here, are full of comments talking about early adopter unfairness...

How can people on the one hand call investors "suckers taking crazy risk with a nerdy fantasy currency" and in the same breath call them "unfair beneficiaries of an early adopter scheme" when their risk actually pays off?

No one stopped you from investing in bitcoins or getting in early (and no one is stopping you now, either). You didn't do it because you were averse to the risk. So, stop complaining about how it's "unfair."

This is like a bailout in reverse: Take the risk that goes with speculation, but Lose you lose, and win you get accused of unfairness.

It was not early adopters,it was early experimenters or volunteers who were driven by its curiosity rather than greed and contributed to this p2p cryptographic technology.

[Lethn]

Whilst I don't begrudge the people who have a dick load of coins, when compared to the rest of the world, I don't believe it's "fair" (but I also can't propose and alternative)

I was going to have that whole philosophical argument about taking other peoples money without asking and so on but then I noticed that most of your post seems to be variations of "It's not fair I wanted it first" lol every one of the people listed could have put some of their money in Bitcoins and saved up like other people have. I'm sorry but people like you may not begrudge people for having lots of Bitcoins but you certainly do begrudge them passively aggressively.

[MGUK]

Whilst I don't begrudge the people who have a dick load of coins, when compared to the rest of the world, I don't believe it's "fair" (but I also can't propose and alternative)

I was going to have that whole philosophical argument about taking other peoples money without asking and so on but then I noticed that most of your post seems to be variations of "It's not fair I wanted it first" lol every one of the people listed could have put some of their money in Bitcoins and saved up like other people have. I'm sorry but people like you may not begrudge people for having lots of Bitcoins but you certainly do begrudge them passively aggressively.

Ha, you're not the first person to call me passive aggressive. Also, I never said I didn't have any coins, I never implied that I considered myself late getting in;)

I think you missed the point I was making though. I don't think the returns for those that did invest is proportional to the returns others within society receive. Personally, I consider that not to be fair - that someone can work their ass off all day and get paid peanuts yet someone that happened to have their computer on running the miner in 2009 could easily have made millions from it.

But that's not the fault of Bitcoin, or the people that invested earlier, that's why I don't begrudge either of those. The system is not fair, but Bitcoin is only a tiny part of the system I'm referring to.

[Lethn]

The problem is you're using the word fair what is fair for you isn't going to be fair for other people, at least in this system everyone is going to have a chance of earning the same amount of Bitcoins in the future because the limit is supposed to not change. I'm pretty sure if you or anyone else bitching about this sort of thing were in the exact same situation you'd be pretty pissed if someone just decided to take millions from you it's just because people don't have the amount they somehow think it's okay to do it.

[Herodes]

A story from real life.


Once when I was a kid, I arranged something called a weekly soccer-pool. Everyone involved paid a very small symbolic sum to participate, I took bets from everyone,and delivered a cupon every week using the symbolic money I got off the participants. I did this for nearly a year, many students in my class, and teachers alike participated and thought it was a great idea. Some other classes tried to duplicate my idea, but failed, since they didn't have anyone executing the idea with enough enthusiasm, and thus their attempt at duplicating my effort was shattered in pieces.

Every Friday or early Saturday, the cupon was sent in, and every Sunday evening I prepared the overview with total right games, averages and some other stats and every Monday I brought this with me and put it in the classroom, I made a list of who had the most right matches and put it on the wall in the class-rom. As it happened, we sometimes won some real money, and as out betting-pool was really small, the few wins outweighed the steady costs of delivering the cupon.

By the end of the year, we had built up a nice little bank, not much, but enough to do something with it. So, I decided that we buy cakes for all the money, and sit in the school yard along with one of the participating teachers to eat these cakes. I invited everyone that had participated in the betting pool. Naturally, and I was very strict about this: Everyone else was excluded.

The idea was executed by me for an entire year, and basically everyone at the school knew about it. But only one other class tried to copy it, and they failed, because there wasn't someone that was willing to do 'all this work' for free.

But over to the cake party. As we sat there, eating delicious cakes, we got surronded by other kids, wondering why we had cackes, and they had not. I calmly explained to them that we'd been running this betting pool for an entire year, and everyone was free to get involved or copy the concept, but nobody did. Some cried that this was unfair, but that they wanted some cake too. I explained to them that - no work and no involvement equals no cake.

The moral of the story could be: You can't expect something for free, if you're not willing to get involved or risk something, then why should you get a free ride ? Most successes happens by people working really hard for it to happen. You may have some occasional rags to riches stories about people winning in the lottery, but most often the ones reaping success are the ones that took the opportunity and got 'lucky'. As the wise man sad: "The harder I work, the luckier I get".

Full disclosure: I'm not an early adaptor, and I don't envy those who are. It's well deserved in my opinion.

[MGUK]

The problem is you're using the word fair what is fair for you isn't going to be fair for other people, at least in this system everyone is going to have a chance of earning the same amount of Bitcoins in the future because the limit is supposed to not change. I'm pretty sure if you or anyone else bitching about this sort of thing were in the exact same situation you'd be pretty pissed if someone just decided to take millions from you it's just because people don't have the amount they somehow think it's okay to do it.

I agree with you entirely on the subjective nature of "fair."

I also guess in reality, if I was in that situation I'd probably be a bit pissed off. But I'd like to think I'd accept they're fully justified to feel that way, particularly if they've worked their ass off all their life and all I'd done was buy £50 worth of Bitcoin 3 years ago. Who knows though - I'd probably be pissed off.

It's not so much "I want what they've got" but more "I don't think they deserve what they've got." Same way I don't personally think some celebrities who are just celebrities for being idiots should have a lot of money. But that's just my opinion - I don't think it's fair some people have so many bitcoins for so little effort. It's nice to think that hopefully these people put their new found riches to good use and helped the world out a bit though maybe:)




"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - I don't consider taking a small risk in the early days of Bitcoin "hard" or "work".

[myrkul]

A story from real life.

Nice story. Proved the point rather nicely, I think.

[MGUK]

I also guess in reality, if I was in that situation I'd probably be a bit pissed off. But I'd like to think I'd accept they're fully justified to feel that way, particularly if they've worked their ass off all their life and all I'd done was buy £50 worth of Bitcoin 3 years ago. Who knows though - I'd probably be pissed off.
.
.
.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - I don't consider taking a small risk in the early days of Bitcoin "hard" or "work".

Agreed. But, this is about risk. You took a risk whereas the teacher didn't. Risk can go both ways, and the teacher can't complain about unfairness when the risk actually pays off for you.  What if you lost money in your bitcoin-investment? Would the same teacher regard it as reverse-unfair that /he/ was the one that didn't lose the money? Hell no, the teacher would say: "That's what happens to those who chase fool's gold."

I understand what you're saying about risk: you feel a persons returns should be based on the risk they take. But you're failing to acknowledge my underlying point that morally, return should be linked to contribution - investment and risk taken with Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, at all. By your logic, rogue traders deserve a boat load of money because they're risking all of the banks money in dodgy trades. Or lone gunman that risks his own life by going into a school and slaughtering a load of children should get money if he survives because he took a risk. I think you need to differentiate between someone taking a good, worthwhile risk that puts society in a better position, and someone taking a bad, selfish risk that costs others and puts bad or irresponsible people in bad positions for the rest of the world...

I think risk should get  a proportional pay off, if it's a risk tied to something that betters the world or society. E.g. a person risking their life for the better of society, such as a fireman, deserves good returns, because it helps society. But risking £10 in Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, and that £10 hasn't helped society, and in a portion of cases, the person that made millions from that £10 isn't necessarily going to contribute any of it back to society and in some cases, they even end up on a power trip and do ridiculously over dramatic stuff in their new found position of power.
If, fundamentally, Bitcoin is such a sound safe and valuable idea, it would have succeeded without early investors hoarding. In fact, it would have succeeded and be cheaper for everyone because early investors aren't hoarding a massive portion of the coins pushing the price up for others.

If we agree the standard system should be such that a persons returns are based on their contribution to society, and we accept the definition of fair as 'In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate' - then I struggle to believe anyone can consider a system "fair" where some sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche who just so happened to be mining a few years ago can now be a millionaire when  doctors, teachers, police, firefighters who give so much to society and risk so much get so little. (I don't think anyone in this thread is a sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche, but I'm sure we've all met one or two around these forums...) As I said though, Bitcoin is just a part of this system.

I feel like we're both sort of missing each others points. I'm willing to agree to disagree though, unless you'd like to debate this further?

edit: I maybe labouring the point a bit here

[Lethn]

That's why I consider these people to be passive-aggressive jealous types usually Deego because rather than complaining about the idea of trading in general they're just complaining about the wins they make, I could empathise if they thought trading in general was a waste of time but they usually don't and I don't think it's right to judge people for what they do in the first place and I try my best not to.

[Rassah]

Perhaps some people just hold the moral value that a persons worth and holdings should be based on their contribution to society.

There are two ways to increase one's worth and holdings: Take it from someone else OR Earn it by providing a good or service. Unless they're a politician, those people who have enormous worth and holdings only managed to get there through "their contribution to society." For some reason a lot of people out there completely ignore that fact, and keep thinking that 'contribution to society" only refers to charity.

Whilst I don't begrudge the people who have a dick load of coins, when compared to the rest of the world, I don't believe it's "fair" (but I also can't propose and alternative)

For someone to earn literally millions of dollars, for buying and hoarding some virtual currency is not "fair" when you consider how little teachers, nurses, civil servents and generally the rest of the world get paid for working their asses off day in day out.

Oh, it'c completely fair, for one simple reason: Risk has a very real price/cost. All risk. Riskier lifestyle? Higher insurance payments. Riskier investment? Higher possible return. Those people who earned a lot of money from bitcoin investments simply bought a whole hell of a lot more risk than anyone else did. If those teachers, nurses, civil servants, and the rest of the world wants to be as wealthy, all they ave to do is buy a hell of a lot more risk, too. Though with risk also comes the possibility that they'll end up with nothing, too.

It doesn't take skill, and it doesn't contribute anything towards society buying and sitting on a boat load of Bitcoins, although actively trading is a slightly different matter.

Doesn't take skill? People are STILL complaining that Bitcoin is hard to use and harder to get, and it was way way worse two or three years ago. It took a lot of skill to set it up, get it working, and start mining, and even more skill and knowledge (and hours of reading) just to learn how to even begin doing all that (not everyone takes time to learn how to use computers for example.
As for not contributing to society, it's because people bought and hoarded bitcoin, and had so much invested interest in it, that Bitcoin is where it is to begin with. Without people hoarding, there would be almost no rise in price, and barely anyone with any interest to see their "hoard" (aka investment) grow in value. So, if you believe that Bitcoin is a huge contribution to society, then all those people who bought and sat that you're talking about have done an enormous service just getting bitcoin out of obscurity.

But risking £10 in Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, and that £10 hasn't helped society, and in a portion of cases, the person that made millions from that £10 isn't necessarily going to contribute any of it back to society.

The only way they wouldn't use it to contribute back to society is if they sent it to a fake bitcoin address, making it disappear for ever (even in that case, their "sacrifice" would make every other bitcoin holder a bit wealthier). If they do actually use their millions on things like buying goods and services, then that means that someone else who provided that good or service god paid for their job, and are able to have money to buy the things they need. Spending money, even if it's "unfairly" gained millions, in itself helps society. There's also a pretty good chance that this early Bitcoin adopter isn't some wealthy guy from a wealthy neighborhood, but some poor nerd in some obscure part of the world. To suddenly have someone willing to spend millions within an otherwise not-very-rich community is a huge boon for their location's economy, and may end up helping a whole lot of other business owners in the area besides just that lucky bitcoiner, too.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - I don't consider taking a small risk in the early days of Bitcoin "hard" or "work".

Well, my risk was previous years of learning about computers, hundreds of USD on hardware, days of my time on reading and learning to understand the technology, and five figure amount of USD that was invested, with the knowledge that it may all be worthless. With all that, I'm still no where near as wealthy as I hoped I'd be. So how much risk do you consider to be "small"?

[BitshireHashaway]

Great point. I don't think early adopters had the unfair advantage, because BTC could have just as easily crashed and they lost everything. However, I disagree with you where you said sometimes people didn't adopt because they were against the risk, the other reason which you didn't mention [and is true for me] is that some people didn't adopt because they had never heard of bitcoins. But great points!

[Gareth Nelson]

Posts outside of this forum, and even here, are full of comments talking about early adopter unfairness...

In general, too many people are jealous of what other people have that they don't have themselves. This is an indication of being a 'small' person. Typically the same persons would look at some rich dude depicted in a magazine and think he's repulsive. His crime: Being rich.

I think it's part of human nature, most of us want everything, but we don't want to do much for it. Those taking the risk of investing early on, or using the system in the very beginning was visionaries, or risk-takers or high stake gamblers. The definition is for you to decide.

The point is that wherever and whenever somebody has gained something that's outside that of the norm, someone somehow is bound to complain.

The same people complaining about early adopter unfariness would've not complained if they were an early adopter themselves (then they would be happy...), and if somebody had told them: Invest now, and reap the benefits later, they would've probably not've invested anyway. What - internet play money ? Ponzi - pyramid scheme - hell no!

Full disclosure: Not an early adaptor, and not jealous of anyone with a lot of money. 

There does exist a form of jealousy which doesn't result in thinking the person you're jealous of is somehow in the wrong.

Am I jealous of those who get in on bitcoin way at the beginning? Yes, you bet I am

Do I think they're in the wrong? No, they deserve everything they got and have done nothing wrong - I just wish i'd had their foresight.

[Gareth Nelson]

Here's a consideration:

Perhaps some people just hold the moral value that a persons worth and holdings should be based on their contribution to society.

Whilst I don't begrudge the people who have a dick load of coins, when compared to the rest of the world, I don't believe it's "fair" (but I also can't propose and alternative)

For someone to earn literally millions of dollars, for buying and hoarding some virtual currency is not "fair" when you consider how little teachers, nurses, civil servents and generally the rest of the world get paid for working their asses off day in day out.

If all the Mr Binmen and and all the Mrs Midwife who gets paid £50 a day were to stop turning up to work, we'd be up the creek without a metaphorical paddle. The world keeps spinning if people don't buy bitcoins.

It doesn't take skill, and it doesn't contribute anything towards society buying and sitting on a boat load of Bitcoins, although actively trading is a slightly different matter.

"but footballers get paid more" or "but <insert retarded celebrity> gets paid more" is not a valid counter argument.

The solution to this is not "punish those who did well through taking a risk" but "reward those who contribute".

Bringing down the rich does NOT help the poor.

[Gareth Nelson]

The moral of the story could be: You can't expect something for free, if you're not willing to get involved or risk something, then why should you get a free ride ? Most successes happens by people working really hard for it to happen. You may have some occasional rags to riches stories about people winning in the lottery, but most often the ones reaping success are the ones that took the opportunity and got 'lucky'. As the wise man sad: "The harder I work, the luckier I get".

The best advice I ever heard about starting a business is that it's a combination of luck and hard work - put in the hard work and your first attempt will fail, so try again and keep trying until by the pure weight of probability you win.

[gogxmagog]

+1

Life aint fair. deal with it.

I think one of the problems with this community is a large percentage of the members are < 18 years of age. not that being young implies stupidity, but ideas like "How come YOU got more BTC than me?" are more suited to my 7 year old daughter, than an adult who has worked for what he has and understands the way the world works. we cant all be first in line.

[bighecks]

Some people are just stupid

[Rassah]

ideas like "How come YOU got more BTC than me?" are more suited to my 7 year old daughter, than an adult who has worked for what he has and understands the way the world works. we cant all be first in line.

We can if we just change our perspective 90°, and look at the line from the side instead of head-on

[MGUK]

I accept the people that risk large amount of money, time and effort deserve a payoff. If you've spent time learning, and invested a large wad of money that you've earned and it pays off, then fair play to you. I hadn't really considered the scale that some did invest and risk. Providing the resources and time and effort you invested were yours that you earned through some good old fashioned contributin' to society, then it's only fair you get a rewards proportional to the effort, resources and risk you put in.
But there are definitely people that didn't put that much effort in and were just "right place at the right time." These people who put in literally next to nothing (buy £10 worth a few years ago, or ran the mining software for a few days in 2009) and are now millionaires. Personally, if you think that such people deserve to be millionaires for so little effort, then I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with the point made about it being good that it maybe some geek in a bedroom that gets the money, not some typical rich corporate type. Although that may fuel the bedroom geeks local economy, it's not good for Bitcoin. Whilst I'm not saying the corporate type should get the money, there's a reason the bedroom geek doesn't in the real world. I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money.
You must have seen all the ridiculous amount of scandal related to childish, immature and unworthy people being in power that goes on around Bitcoin (BFL + Josh and their childish behaviour, Luke-Jr and his childish abuse of pool power for his own personal agendas, MtGox being totally incompetent, Amir, Bitcoinica, Pirate etc. etc. etc.) IMO, these sort of scandals are typically the result of someone having a lot of power or money who shouldn't, and this is typically bought on by people becoming stupidly rich stupidly quick from Bitcoin.

Another thing to consider to those that have made lots off this - where does that money come from? It comes from other people. These "other people" are paying you literally millions. I think these people have every right to expect you to sit there and take a complaint or 2 because they've just paid you millions:
Most people I speak to agree that it's ridiculous when a highly successful footballer refuses to play or gets in a strop because a fan shouts a nasty name to him. I'm very much of the mindset "that player is earning $millions of 'our' money, based on how much we're effectively paying him, the least he could do is stand there and take an insult or 2."


Also, it's human nature to want more for yourself which some here have suggested is the underlying cause of "it's not fair" claims. You can act all high and mighty and "I don't want what they have" but the truth is, you probably do on some level. You probably wouldn't be in this forum if you didn't have at least a passing desire to increase your wealth. Sure, you can say "oh, but I want to see Bitcoin succeed, I don't want any extra money, I'm just supporting the coin" and that maybe true. But wanting more and the best for yourself is a feature of evolution. If you don't want more for yourself or those that you care about, then, to put it bluntly, you are an evolutionary dead end (I wouldn't be surprised to see someone chime in: "or a communist.") Although some might argue an adult learns to accept and deal with theses 'primitive urges' and quits his whiney bitchin'!

[MGUK]

But there are definitely people that didn't put that much effort in and were just "right place at the right time."

MGUK, I think we keep failing to highlight this point to you:

You have no right to call those "in the right place at the right time" as having done something unfair, unless you correspondingly go out of your way to compensate the unlucky ones that were in the "wrong place at the wrong time."  

(I personally think that even then you have no standing to call it unfair, but that's another point.)
 

And I think you missed a point I made earlier: I don't think the person is unfair, or even Bitcoin is unfair, but more the larger system of which the people and Bitcoin are part of (maybe I'm thinking about life) does not evenly reward everyone for the work they put in - which falls within the remit of my personal understanding of the concept of unfairness.

I agree entirely I have no right to objectively proclaim it's unfair, its just my opinion, since fair can be a pretty subjective term, and I believe I'm perfectly entitled to that.

One quote I like to try and live by:
"whilst I may disagree with your opinion, I'll defend to the death your right to say it!" Some might loosely paraphrase it to "lets agree to disagree"

[Rassah]

But there are definitely people that didn't put that much effort in and were just "right place at the right time." These people who put in literally next to nothing (buy £10 worth a few years ago, or ran the mining software for a few days in 2009) and are now millionaires. Personally, if you think that such people deserve to be millionaires for so little effort, then I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

You need to check your numbers. Buying £10 a few years ago, or mining for a few days in 2009, would not get you anywhere near $1,000,000. Maybe if you mined and managed to get every single block every time, it would take a week or two, but that wasn't the case for almost anyone at the beginning. For those for whom that was the case, they deserve the money, because those specific people were Stoshi and first developers. Otherwise we're talking about people getting maybe a few £100k from doing what you said. I suspect all other Bitcoin millionaires are such because they either built Bitcoin businesses that earned them that $1mil, or bought way way more than just £10 worth.

I disagree with the point made about it being good that it maybe some geek in a bedroom that gets the money, not some typical rich corporate type. Although that may fuel the bedroom geeks local economy, it's not good for Bitcoin. Whilst I'm not saying the corporate type should get the money, there's a reason the bedroom geek doesn't in the real world.

If the bedroom geek managed to make that money, I think there's a reason he made that money. And it's actually money "in the real world." It's no different from someone who wasn't wealthy before, doing something other than Bitcoin to become wealthy (such as the bedroom geek named Bill Gates). As for whether it's good for Bit oin or not, Bitcoin doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks is good or bad. It just is. And no one can change it, no matter how good or bad you think it is.

I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money.

And that's your choice to not be wealthy. Again, neither Bitcoin, nor anyone else, cares, since no one can do anything about it.

You must have seen all the ridiculous amount of scandal related to childish, immature and unworthy people being in power that goes on around Bitcoin (BFL + Josh and their childish behaviour, Luke-Jr and his childish abuse of pool power for his own personal agendas, MtGox being totally incompetent, Amir, Bitcoinica, Pirate etc. etc. etc.) IMO, these sort of scandals are typically the result of someone having a lot of power or money who shouldn't, and this is typically bought on by people becoming stupidly rich stupidly quick from Bitcoin.

Stupid people usually lose money very quickly. Or they become smarter, and fix their problems. IMO these sort of scandals are typically the result of a bunch of people getting into something totally new that no one has even dealt with before, and into things they themselves have never learned about before. They are learning on the job, and screwing up in the process. If that were not allowed, no one would ever do anything.

Another thing to consider to those that have made lots off this - where does that money come from? It comes from other people. These "other people" are paying you literally millions. I think these people have every right to expect you to sit there and take a complaint or 2 because they've just paid you millions:

They paid me, and then they want to complain about paying me? Why not just NOT pay me?

Most people I speak to agree that it's ridiculous when a highly successful footballer refuses to play or gets in a strop because a fan shouts a nasty name to him. I'm very much of the mindset "that player is earning $millions of 'our' money, based on how much we're effectively paying him, the least he could do is stand there and take an insult or 2."

Or you can, you know, not pay him.

Also, it's human nature to want more for yourself which some here have suggested is the underlying cause of "it's not fair" claims. You can act all high and mighty and "I don't want what they have" but the truth is, you probably do on some level. You probably wouldn't be in this forum if you didn't have at least a passing desire to increase your wealth. Sure, you can say "oh, but I want to see Bitcoin succeed, I don't want any extra money, I'm just supporting the coin" and that maybe true. But wanting more and the best for yourself is a feature of evolution. If you don't want more for yourself or those that you care about, then, to put it bluntly, you are an evolutionary dead end (I wouldn't be surprised to see someone chime in: "or a communist.")

Quoting you, "I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money"

Does this make you an evolutionary dead end?