The ultimate bitcoin taboo topic

[xxjs]

It is an amusing aspect of the human psyche, when confronted with equally probable alternatives, to dismiss the unliked option as unlikely. All the people saying something like: "what damage can possibly a socially inept geek with billions dollars do?". He would not have connection or influence.

Problem is, it is equally possible that our next plutocrat is a smart business mind, with government or other connections. And most people seem to forget one simple fact. Money can buy political support, media support, business support... this is exactly why wealth IS power.

Also, why assume that the entity behind Satoshi name is a selfless charity, and doesn't have any power agenda? It is equally probable.

If you consider early adopters in bitcoin lucky, not smart, he will probably lose most of it after a few escapades into investing. Coins distributed.

In the current USD regime, value is continuously picked from the serfs and stuffed into the pockets of the elite. This can not happen with bitcoin. It is only an initial distribution problem.

[1715064718]

1715064718

[1715064718]

1715064718

[1715064718]

1715064718

[xxjs]

As for the power that comes with money, most people here could use those money just as wisely as the current politicians and banksters. They are, after all, kleptocrats and sociopaths, you know.

[xxjs]

I think the real solution might be something much more uncomfortable to us early and relatively early adopters and investors:

At some point in the future we might see that bitcoin's growth (price, adoption, whatever) will slow down, possibly because too many coins are in the hands of too little people. Another cryptocurrency (sure, call them "altcoins" if you wish) might start to rise, with less resistance than the original.

At this point, it is at least conceivable that redistribution of old coins will be discussed among us. Not a second earlier (after all, what do I care about the social aspects of distribution of wealth, as long as I'm at the upper end of the distribution). And it would be considered not for moral reasons, but because not redistributing might negatively affect the wealth of the old holders. But by that time, it might also be too late already.

That could be a very good reason why it's not priced in yet. There is more than a shade of doubt re: the amount of risk.

Absolutely. There is still risk.

[ElectricMucus]

As for the power that comes with money, most people here could use those money just as wisely as the current politicians and banksters. They are, after all, kleptocrats and sociopaths, you know.

There are shades of grey when it comes to that. We're pitch black.
I genuinely think that if the people present in this forum were to be on top humanity would be extinct within a month.

[niko]

I didn't bother reading through the responses, just answering to the OP directly. I'll put my communist hat for a moment. Seriously. Distribution of bitcoins is as democratic and as communist and as fair as it gets. Everyone was free to join in, except those choosing to live under the few extremely oppresive regimes, like North Korea, or those living in the countries that have recently been raped by the imperialists, and were thus too busy or too distracted to think about mining. Sorry for them. We'll try to help out.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.

[odolvlobo]

Conclusion: If bitcoin would ever act as the world's primary monetary basis (and assuming of course the large bitcoin holdings mentioned above are not abandoned/sold in the meantime) we would have an unprecedented concentration of wealth.

You are confusing money and wealth. There is an incredibly huge difference between the global money supply and the global wealth. The person that owns 2.1% of all the bitcoins will never own a significant fraction of the global wealth regardless of the value of a bitcoin.

I am working from exactly the scenario that many in here on some level seem to believe, if allowed to dream: that bitcoin could one day replace both fiat currencies *and* the current illiqid assets that act as store of value, like gold.
And in that case, "2.1% of bitcoin" does in fact come close to "2.1% of overall wealth"

Hang on. That is not true. That is the fallacy I am trying to point out. If someone owned 100% of the money in the world, all the bitcoins, dollars, gold, and whatever anyone might consider money, they would still own only a tiny fraction of the wealth in the world. Don't you consider the value of your car or house to be part of your wealth? What about land and businesses? There are a lot of things that represent wealth other than money.

[Jhantor]

Satoshi has more than a million bitcoin last I checked. That's almost 10%.

[Draino]

Without inflation, who cares?  Isn't it likely that the ultra-rich's wealth will slowly decay, while the masses's buying power actually has the ability to increase?

[ElectricMucus]

What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.

I said extinct and I mean it.

[oda.krell]

Conclusion: If bitcoin would ever act as the world's primary monetary basis (and assuming of course the large bitcoin holdings mentioned above are not abandoned/sold in the meantime) we would have an unprecedented concentration of wealth.

You are confusing money and wealth. There is an incredibly huge difference between the global money supply and the global wealth. The person that owns 2.1% of all the bitcoins will never own a significant fraction of the global wealth regardless of the value of a bitcoin.

I am working from exactly the scenario that many in here on some level seem to believe, if allowed to dream: that bitcoin could one day replace both fiat currencies *and* the current illiqid assets that act as store of value, like gold.
And in that case, "2.1% of bitcoin" does in fact come close to "2.1% of overall wealth"

Hang on. That is not true. That is the fallacy I am trying to point out. If someone owned 100% of the money in the world, all the bitcoins, dollars, gold, and whatever anyone might consider money, they would still own only a tiny fraction of the wealth in the world. Don't you consider the value of your car or house to be part of your wealth? What about land and businesses? There are a lot of things that represent wealth other than money.

I really think you misunderstand my argument, or possibly, I'm not explaining it very well. Here's the condensed version:

The richest person now holds 0.1% of M2 money supply - that's money and "near money". Let's call it M2+ when we add common stores of value like gold. So the richest person now holds less than 0.1% of M2+.

The richest person in the bitcoin future holds 2.1% of all bitcoin value. Since bitcoin could function as a replacement for money, near-money and common stores of value like gold, this person would, in the best case, hold 2.1% of M2+ wealth.

So in this - hypothetical - future, we might see someone more than 20 times wealthier than the richest person now. That's not just a gradual shift, that's a rather substantial difference.

[Carlton Banks]

Not very taboo. First super-assumption.

Those figures garnered from Forbes rich-list are highly dubious. Second super-assumption.

M2 figures also pretty dubious. Third super-assumption.

I refer to them as super-assumptions because the potential percentage variance in the "real" figures is very, very large. Very large.

[xxjs]

I didn't bother reading through the responses, just answering to the OP directly. I'll put my communist hat for a moment. Seriously. Distribution of bitcoins is as democratic and as communist and as fair as it gets. Everyone was free to join in, except those choosing to live under the few extremely oppresive regimes, like North Korea, or those living in the countries that have recently been raped by the imperialists, and were thus too busy or too distracted to think about mining. Sorry for them. We'll try to help out.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.

Communist hat? I think not.

[oda.krell]

re: trillionaires. I'd like to see some source on that.

re: "super assumptions". #1 seems confirmed by the attention this thread got within hours. #2 and #3: I think you like to play a bit hard to get here. It's not exactly a big secret what the highest ranked people on the Forbes list owe their money to. I mean, in some cases they owe most of their wealth to publicly traded assets. And about estimating the money supply: it's basically a crude summing up of the reported money supply figures of the respective central banks. And I mean, no matter how tinfoily anti-fiat some here might be, it's not as if the central banks make a big secret out of their continous pumping out of new money. I'd say, I trust their figures on that one. Kind of like they're boasting with it, so maybe the figure is too low, actually :D

[Anon136]

"The largest "traditional" holder of assets of any form holds at most about 0.1% of the entire world's money supply"

in some sense the federal reserves capacity to print money means that at any given time they are in possession of infinity dollars. now they arnt controlled by any single person but i bet the number of people that collectively have the influence to command this institution could be counted on my fingers. whats infinity divided by 10 anyway? well im not sure but i bet its more than 0.1%

i know i know. you added traditional and put it in quotes. but still its a relevant point i think.

[NewLiberty]

I am happy with the hope that the wisdom and bravery that allowed this bitcoin wealth concentration will guide them, I feel no need to do so myself.

[nrd525]

There are an infinite number of possible crypto currencies.   Bitcoin's share of the market is already shrinking.  With an infinite supply, I'm not sure why people expect crypto currencies to be deflationary for the long run.

[Carlton Banks]

There seems to be an infinite supply of n00bs with an infinite supply of trollish threads and comments. Somebody is getting butthurt by the direction of the discourse round these parts 

[Xiaoma]

I still shiver at the idea that most people don't give a damn if somebody will have a nearly unprecedented level of power, as long as they can have a little slice of the riches. That let me think to those disgusting orks doing all they can to let lord Sauron have the world, as long as they are in the winning side. No matter if the world is going to hell.

[Anon136]

I still shiver at the idea that most people don't give a damn if somebody will have a nearly unprecedented level of power, as long as they can have a little slice of the riches. That let me think to those disgusting orks doing all they can to let lord Sauron have the world, as long as they are in the winning side. No matter if the world is going to hell.

satoshi may have 10% of the currency supply but it will only become as valuable as you are making out if bitcoin manages to break the current monetary cartel. so we would be replacing a group of people with the ability to print an infinate amount of money with someone who has 10%. clearly an improvement and the 10% is his reward for so dramatically improving the situation.

[xxjs]

I still shiver at the idea that most people don't give a damn if somebody will have a nearly unprecedented level of power, as long as they can have a little slice of the riches. That let me think to those disgusting orks doing all they can to let lord Sauron have the world, as long as they are in the winning side. No matter if the world is going to hell.

Cool down. If you have a coin or more, in a few years you might be on the other side of this envy divide.