[Hypothetical] What if Bitcoin were to restart tomorrow?

[CurbsideProphet]

Let me start off by saying this is not a thread about "early-adopter" envy.  They took the risks and had the foresight.  High risk should reap high reward.

Now, I don't have exact numbers so I'll have to use hypothetical ones in my example.  Lets assume that there are currently 100 early adopters and the Bitcoin community is roughly 5,000 to date.

Would Bitcoin be better off, in the long-term, if it were to restart tomorrow?  The reason I ask is because the MtGox hack essentially showed that a small (~8%) portion of outstanding Bitcoins can unstabilize the market so greatly to the point where it reduced the price to $0.01.

5,000 people is not very much should Bitcoin ever become widely accepted.  But the distribution of BTC's would be significantly greater with 5,000 early adopters compared to 100.  Essentially with a greater distribution, it would take more people going rogue to cause a massive disruption to the Bitcoin economy.  If Bitcoin truly is not a ponzi scheme or pure speculation, wouldn't it's ability to surive be improved by having the outstanding BTC's more evenly distributed?

Also, if you think about it, to a certain degree early adopters are only "paper rich."  Lets say for example that early adopters in aggregate hold 2 million of the outstanding Bitcoins (again hypothetical #).  This would give them a current worth of roughly $28 million USD.  However, as we have already seen, 500,000BTC's can bring the price down to zero.  So really, there's no current market to sell those $2 million coins.  The price would drop substantially before you are able to liquidate so your true wealth is actually much lower.

Again, I'm not really advocating taking away anything from the early adopters (as if I had that ability anyway), I just have to wonder, if we're really talking about Bitcoin as a greater good, wouldn't it be better off with a wider distribution?

[1714908264]

1714908264

[1714908264]

1714908264

[1714908264]

1714908264

[Anonymous]

I wish the world economy would restart and everyone could be issued one million dollars 

[error]

You could start your own block chain anytime you wanted. The question is, would anyone join you?

As for wider distribution, that's easy enough; there's plenty of BTC available for anyone who wants it. You just have to convince people to buy it.

[TraderTimm]

Executive Summary:

1.) This isn't about early adopters profiting. (Nice setup, nearly believed you.)

2.) The market can't absorb all of their bitcoins at once and not decline precipitously. (I'll file this under 'no kidding'.)

3.) Hey guys, can't we just reset it and redistribute everything? (Awww, and you nearly went the whole post without whipping this out.)

Always with the redistribution. May this thread die in a fire.

[FreeMoney]

Would you actually invest resources in Bitcoin after that kind of precedent? Any system where that is possible is not going to hold any value.

The "paper rich" issue isn't any different for "late adopters" either. In aggregate they cannot all cash out to the some other currency at the current rate either. All exchange rates are a reflection of marginal value comparisons.

The people who are hurt by not being able to sell lots of coins at the same price as a few coins are the people who have a lot so the incentives are right for individuals acting in their own self interest to distribute coins more evenly over time.  

[CurbsideProphet]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

[DamienBlack]

If bitcoin goes mainstream, then we might all be early adopters. Maybe in 5 years people will be saying, "there are people out there who have 100,000 mBTC just because they got on board early, would things be better if we just restarted?"

Bitcoin is only here because people before us carried the banner. I know this is a hypothetical, to getting into the nitty gritty details is pointless, but surely you have to see that the reason why bitcoin is growing and has lasted this long is because of early adopters. They took a gamble, and it is paying off. We, the midterm adopters, are also taking a gamble. But the odds have changes, and success is more likely then it was a year ago, so you have to put more in to get a share of the pie.

This is pretty much the same as investing in a company. Early investors might get millions of shares cheap. But no later investor would say, "man, two years ago I could have bought 100 times the shares for the same amount, this is something that should be addressed." That is because they understand that investing earlier was more of a risk. Sure it was cheaper, but payout was way more uncertain. Why can't bitcoin enthusiasts understand the same thing?

[Leon]

Time machine.... 

[BillX]

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

The op sounds like he was reading back last nights notes from the "People's Central Economic Planning Committee".

[DamienBlack]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

Early adopters can't bring the bitcoin system to its knees. They can only bring the price down. But doing that will distribute the bitcoins in question and solve the problem of concentration you are complaining about. So the price crashes. So what? No big deal. After the hackcrash, before the reset, there was about 10 minutes of trading, and it was still around $14. I would love a chance to get cheap bitcoins. Please lord, let some early adopter try to 'bring bitcoin to its knees'. I'll jump at the opportunity.

[CurbsideProphet]

If bitcoin goes mainstream, then we might all be early adopters. Maybe in 5 years people will be saying, "there are people out there who have 100,000 mBTC just because they got on board early, would things be better if we just restarted?"

Bitcoin is only here because people before us carried the banner. I know this is a hypothetical, to getting into the nitty gritty details is pointless, but surely you have to see that the reason why bitcoin is growing and has lasted this long is because of early adopters. They took a gamble, and it is paying off. We, the midterm adopters, are also taking a gamble. But the odds have changes, and success is more likely then it was a year ago, so you have to put more in to get a share of the pie.

This is pretty much the same as investing in a company. Early investors might get millions of shares cheap. But no later investor would say, "man, two years ago I could have bought 100 times the shares for the same amount, this is something that should be addressed." That is because they understand that investing earlier was more of a risk. Sure it was cheaper, but payout was way more uncertain. Why can't bitcoin enthusiasts understand the same thing?

You make a lot of good points, I appreciate the response Damien.  I suppose my view was a little short sighted and quite hoenstly whether people believe me or not it wasn't a post out of greed or envy.  It was simply out of concern. 

[JoelKatz]

This would be a horrible awful thing to do to bitcoins. People would be a fool to invest in or rely on bitcoins with this precedent. Two years from now, the same thing could repeat with an even larger group trying to get in early.

It's still early. If you are reading this, you are an early adopter.

[amincd]

I'm not an early adopter, but I think it would be very bad for the bitcoin community if any major effort got under way to re-start it. The point of a currency is to store value, and eliminating people's holdings would reduce confidence in it being able to do that.

I also think it's difficult for any currency to not have a concentrated initial seeding, since all new things necessarily start with a small number of adopters and grow from there.

The early adopters having more currency might also have positive effects on the growth in adoption, in giving them greater incentive to create support software, and promote it to others.

In the long run, the current distribution of ownership will change, as money by its nature changes hands a lot, so it's not that relevant. Price instability from a large sell-off by an early adopter can only happen a few times before the distribution is spread more thinly.

[DamienBlack]

If bitcoin goes mainstream, then we might all be early adopters. Maybe in 5 years people will be saying, "there are people out there who have 100,000 mBTC just because they got on board early, would things be better if we just restarted?"

Bitcoin is only here because people before us carried the banner. I know this is a hypothetical, to getting into the nitty gritty details is pointless, but surely you have to see that the reason why bitcoin is growing and has lasted this long is because of early adopters. They took a gamble, and it is paying off. We, the midterm adopters, are also taking a gamble. But the odds have changes, and success is more likely then it was a year ago, so you have to put more in to get a share of the pie.

This is pretty much the same as investing in a company. Early investors might get millions of shares cheap. But no later investor would say, "man, two years ago I could have bought 100 times the shares for the same amount, this is something that should be addressed." That is because they understand that investing earlier was more of a risk. Sure it was cheaper, but payout was way more uncertain. Why can't bitcoin enthusiasts understand the same thing?

You make a lot of good points, I appreciate the response Damien.  I suppose my view was a little short sighted and quite hoenstly whether people believe me or not it wasn't a post out of greed or envy.  It was simply out of concern.  

Don't worry about other people's descriptions of your motives. We get a lot of people hashing the same ideas over and over again. I think this is a good thing. The fact that the system is so open and transparent that people can participate in discussions like this can only be good for bitcoin. And sometimes someone will come forward with ideas and solutions that really do help. I don't even begin to understand how the USD works. And I can't articulate any ideas, even ignorant ones, on how to improve it. The system is to opaque, I don't have the inside information, everything is closed from view. That is why I like bitcoin.

But as I said, we get a lot of people hashing the same ideas, people get impatient.

[error]

Besides all of the above, it's simply not possible to distribute wealth evenly without violence. There will always be people who have a larger proportion of X than others, and a small number who have a whole lot of X. To change this requires sticking guns in their faces and taking away their X by threat of violence. I'm well aware that many people around here have absolutely no problem with this and cheer every time it happens.

See also Harrison Bergeron.

[DamienBlack]

Besides all of the above, it's simply not possible to distribute wealth evenly without violence. There will always be people who have a larger proportion of X than others, and a small number who have a whole lot of X. To change this requires sticking guns in their faces and taking away their X by threat of violence. I'm well aware that many people around here have absolutely no problem with this and cheer every time it happens.

See also Harrison Bergeron.

While this is true, there is a big difference between a wide spread between the poor and the rich, and a smaller one. Upward mobility is one of the most important thing for a government to provide. Yet providing upward mobility is often perceived as 'distributing wealth'. People must understand, that even in first world nations like the US, we are not a meritocracy. The number one correlative of your wealth is not ability, intelligence or work ethic -- it is your parent's wealth. I think we can all support the goal of a true meritocracy, and that simply requires us to provide lower class citizens with more opportunities to attain upward mobility.

[error]

While this is true, there is a big difference between a wide spread between the poor and the rich, and a smaller one. Upward mobility is one of the most important thing for a government to provide. Yet providing upward mobility is often perceived as 'distributing wealth'. People must understand, that even in first world nations like the US, we are not a meritocracy. The number one correlative of your wealth is not ability, intelligence or work ethic -- it is your parent's wealth. I think we can all support the goal of a true meritocracy, and that simply requires us to provide lower class citizens with more opportunities to attain upward mobility.

What does this mean? You've said several things which are apparently well-formed sentences, but which I find completely incomprehensible.

First: "Upward mobility is one of the most important thing for a government to provide." What do you mean by upward mobility? Why would a government provide it? Why should providing it be reserved to the government?

Second: "I think we can all support the goal of a true meritocracy, and that simply requires us to provide lower class citizens with more opportunities to attain upward mobility." First, what is an opportunity to provide upward mobility? Who are the "us" who are required to provide it? How are those people going to be compelled to do so? (Or, who shoots "us" if "we" don't?)

Hopefully with some clear answers to these questions, I can decipher the rest of this message.

[Anonymous]

Someone created 500 000 fake bitcoins at mt gox and tried to redistribute them. Even then the price went back to $13 a few minutes later. The point is it will take a LOT of real bitcoins to do something like that. There arent many people with 500 000 btc imo.

[RandyFolds]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

[error]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

Some guy spent 10,000 BTC on two pizzas. He (and his counterparty) took more of a risk than any of us.

[DamienBlack]

First: "Upward mobility is one of the most important thing for a government to provide." What do you mean by upward mobility? Why would a government provide it? Why should providing it be reserved to the government?

I don't think providing it should be reserved to the government, just that it is an important government role. Providing means of upward mobility -- education, training, healthcare and support -- is often not well suited for the free market. The free market often caters to those who can pay. People that need the most help attaining upward mobility are often people who cannot pay.

Second: "I think we can all support the goal of a true meritocracy, and that simply requires us to provide lower class citizens with more opportunities to attain upward mobility." First, what is an opportunity to provide upward mobility? Who are the "us" who are required to provide it? How are those people going to be compelled to do so? (Or, who shoots "us" if "we" don't?)

A meritocracy is a theoretical concept where everyone gets exactly what they deserve, based on merit alone. Currently, many do not get what they deserve because they find themselves in situations outside their control that limit their ability to move up the social ladder. Someone could be a genius music composer, but have a costly sickness that has him stuck in a few low paying jobs just to pay the med bills. Someone else might be very intelligent and mathematically inclined, but coming from a poor family does not have the opportunity to go to college. Most people would consider these situations a failure of a true meritocracy. On the other hand, many people have inherited wealth, or just come from wealthy families that can pay for a fancy diploma, and so find themselves in lucrative jobs despite not being all that skilled.

I think that providing upward mobility, and limiting the consolidation of wealth is a useful task for a government. I can see you have some anarchist/libertarian leaning beliefs, and I respect that. But I think that large governments can accomplish things that smaller groups can't. In my perfect world, taxes would be heavy, and they would fund social programs in education, healthcare and other social nets. I know some people find taxes distasteful, but I often find that that is because they believe things already are, more or less, already a meritocracy. I don't subscribe to this point of view. It seems clear to me that a persons social status is mostly inherited. I find that more distasteful than taxes.

So the 'us' is the general public, through taxes. And I believe it would be the government that shoots you if you fail to comply (or more likely imprison you). I will always trust the government long before I trust corporations. But I admit, is isn't a good idea to trust either very far.

[DamienBlack]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

Pennies of electricity is a risk. A very small one, but a risk nonetheless. Many people may have quit in the early days because it was 'raising their electricity bill for no good reason'. And in those early days, the chance of bitcoin becoming big was miniscule. Very tiny investment, very tiny chance of success.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin community is roughly 5,000 to date.

i think its much higher than this.

The reason I ask is because the MtGox hack essentially showed that a small (~8%) portion of outstanding Bitcoins can unstabilize the market so greatly to the point where it reduced the price to $0.01.

this is not even close to being correct.  there was no market during those 30 min. i witnessed the entire crash firsthand and all new buyers, except for Kevin Day, could not log on which would have blunted the fall.  i believe the hacker blocked all access to prevent this.  and how does the creation of 500K fake BTC represent a market event?

[opticbit]

I believe a few thousand years ago there was a monitary reset every 50 years, and we're over do for one.

and for a BTC reset, done, its called Testnet.

[CurbsideProphet]

i think its much higher than this.

It was just an arbitrary number to use in the example.  You could be right.

this is not even close to being correct.  there was no market during those 30 min. i witnessed the entire crash firsthand and all new buyers, except for Kevin Day, could not log on which would have blunted the fall.  i believe the hacker blocked all access to prevent this.  and how does the creation of 500K fake BTC represent a market event?

I was not aware that the hackers prevented all access.  The 500k, fake or not, would be a market event in that it quantifies the amount of coin that it would take to move the price substantially.  However, if buyers were blocked by the hackers then obviously the data is corrupt.  But as I said, I wasn't aware of this, my understanding was they just flooded the market and ate up all the bids.

[amincd]

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble.

I don't think it's just the risk they took that entitles them to the gains, but the contribution that early-adopters make to the economy.

As I've mentioned before, there is no easy way to KNOW what the market will demand, and contributing to something that eventually does become valuable is a valuable contribution to the economy and should be rewarded.

Being in a position to discover a project early-on that turns out to be immensely valuable means having access to information that is generally valuable for society. It encourages people to spend more time reading up on new technology, for example, rather than following sports news.

Likewise, taking the initiative to get involved in something that ends up becoming very valuable, that most people did not bother to get involved in when it first came to their attention, is also a valuable contribution to society.

Investment gains reward the skills, insights and initiatives that people have in direct proportion to how valuable they are to society.

A meritocracy is a theoretical concept where everyone gets exactly what they deserve, based on merit alone. Currently, many do not get what they deserve because they find themselves in situations outside their control that limit their ability to move up the social ladder.

Government is not omniscient and is not able to know what role irresponsibility played in a person's poor circumstances rather than bad luck. Providing for the unlucky also means providing for the irresponsible, and this reduces the incentive to behave responsibly, leading to less prosperity overall.

[cypherdoc]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

Some guy spent 10,000 BTC on two pizzas. He (and his counterparty) took more of a risk than any of us.

and its not even about risk.  Satoshi had a great idea that he released into the wild; early adopters saw the potential and jumped on it.  they had a "vision". 

i'm not an early adopter per se.   i read about btc about a year and a half ago and it just didn't click at the time.  only this year did i jump onboard and i don't begrudge early adopters at all b/c they were the ones who advanced the concept to its current point.

[cypherdoc]

Providing for the unlucky also means providing for the irresponsible, and this reduces the incentive to behave responsibly, leading to less prosperity overall.

and oh have we had way too much of that the last 3 yrs (thinking of Wall St)

[error]

and its not even about risk.  Satoshi had a great idea that he released into the wild; early adopters saw the potential and jumped on it.  they had a "vision".  

i'm not an early adopter per se.   i read about btc about a year and a half ago and it just didn't click at the time.  only this year did i jump onboard and i don't begrudge early adopters at all b/c they were the ones who advanced the concept to its current point.

All of us here are early adopters. If we weren't, there wouldn't be any discussion about how to get merchants on board, why Bitcoin is stuck at $14, etc. We'd all be permanently retired and living on the beach in Fiji on the proceeds from 15 or 20 BTC while the latecomers fight over why the µBTC is stuck at $14. Yes, I'm taking a long view.

[casascius]

If you want to experiment with what it would look like with a new block chain, consider buying Namecoins and treating them like money.

In my mind, the namecoin DNS idea is flawed.  But on the other hand, namecoins work just like bitcoins, in that they can be traded, bought, and sold, but instead of 6M coins gone to early adopters, there has only been a total of just over 100 days worth of mining done on Namecoins, a total circulation of well under 1M, and a far higher percentage of the total NMC circulation are for sale on the market right now in the form of open orders (about 9%, vs about 1%).  Namecoin already has a working block explorer, trading website, and application.  Why reinvent the wheel?

The way I see it, new Bitcoin clients are inevitable, and it is very possible that someone could make a combo Bitcoin / Namecoin client in the future, that allows the trading of both from the same program.  From a technical perspective, it is very easy.  Since people value their Bitcoins in USD or whatever anyway, who wouldn't accept Namecoins?  The only reason is because nobody wants to run 2 clients for 2x the hassle, or manage 2 wallets, or to do 2x the programming to integrate it into their website.

If later it becomes just as easy to accept Namecoins as payment as Bitcoins, I can't see why someone wouldn't be willing to do it, at the current Namecoin exchange rate.  If I owed you $10, and I could pay you $10 worth of BTC or $10 worth of NMC and they would both appear the same way in your same wallet, wouldn't you take it?  Especially if NMC's value had a reputation for not crashing all of the time each time a BTC early adopter feels like liquidating 1-2% of his stake?

If this scenario happens, Namecoins will likely multiply in value instantly, just like Bitcoins basically did.  Because of that possibility, I have regularly been buying up Namecoins, even as the price continues to fall.

[pointbiz]

remember the gox sell off ? 5 minutes later the price was back at $12

[cypherdoc]

i think its much higher than this.

It was just an arbitrary number to use in the example.  You could be right.

this is not even close to being correct.  there was no market during those 30 min and set the chart on 1 min. i witnessed the entire crash firsthand and all new buyers, except for Kevin Day, could not log on which would have blunted the fall.  i believe the hacker blocked all access to prevent this.  and how does the creation of 500K fake BTC represent a market event?

I was not aware that the hackers prevented all access.  The 500k, fake or not, would be a market event in that it quantifies the amount of coin that it would take to move the price substantially.  However, if buyers were blocked by the hackers then obviously the data is corrupt.  But as I said, I wasn't aware of this, my understanding was they just flooded the market and ate up all the bids.

if you use Sierra Charts like i do, go back to that 30 min timespan of the crash and set the chart on 1 min.  i knew it was a hack 10 minutes into it just by the appearance of the trading bars (or lack thereof).  instead of bars or candlesticks representing a range of trades going off during each minute, you'll see a continuous series of dashes (-) all the way down to 0.01.  the dashes (-) meant that all pre-existing bids at a particular price were just being wiped out one by one on the way down.  no new buyers were being allowed in.  it looks very strange on the chart and was obvious price manipulation by someone, or some entity, wanting price destruction.

[RandyFolds]

Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically?  What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity.  Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?

I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them."  As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

Some guy spent 10,000 BTC on two pizzas. He (and his counterparty) took more of a risk than any of us.

What risk? At the time of the transaction, they were essentially worthless... The guy that paid USD for the pizzas took a risk, but only for the value of the pizzas. Neither party had a clue as to the future value. They were placing faith in the currencies ability to grow, and through their (and a ton of others') actions, built bitcoin to what it is today.


EDIT: Whoa, there was another page of replies there...

I am wholly with cypherdoc in not begrudging the early adopters anything. They built this to what it is, I hopped on board and am having a blast. I have immense respect for everyone who preceded (and followed) me into this, and I hope those early adopters that drove the construction of this incredible community do get paid for their efforts...not so much their risks.

[markm]

A whole series of early-adoption opportunities are flowing.

Get in on the ground floor. Find out what new blockchains are starting up and get in at the startup.

If namecoins are too high in difficulty already for your taste, or have too many earlier-adopters thatn you for your taste, pick something even newer. I think there are still a couple of miner bounties outstanding for the GRouPcoin->DEVcoin project, you could still be able to get yourself a genuine original BiTCoin just by setting up a groupcoind with some nominal amount of hashing turned on - even just a CPU or two.

There are plenty more in the wings, albeit quite a few of them are wanting to "back" their coins in some way and thus are waitign for the "licensed miners" capability the GRouPcoin->DEVcoin project is working on.

Or be the very earliest adopter of your own new blockchain: pick up a copy of Multicoin and roll your own!

-MarkM-

[DamienBlack]

A meritocracy is a theoretical concept where everyone gets exactly what they deserve, based on merit alone. Currently, many do not get what they deserve because they find themselves in situations outside their control that limit their ability to move up the social ladder.

Government is not omniscient and is not able to know what role irresponsibility played in a person's poor circumstances rather than bad luck. Providing for the unlucky also means providing for the irresponsible, and this reduces the incentive to behave responsibly, leading to less prosperity overall.

That is a common argument that crops up in many different discussions. We cannot do 'X' perfectly, we make mistakes, those mistakes have negative consequences, so we should not do 'X' at all. Yes, it is true, we cannot do it perfectly. A true meritocracy is unachievable. But we can move closer to one. We can weigh the good and the bad and decide which path to take. The discussion is much deeper than you pretend.

And as to the 'irresponsible' you speak of. I have never met anyone I would call irresponsible. I have certainly never met anyone so irresponsible that I believe they deserve abject poverty. Have you? I've only seen people trying to get by, whatever way they can. I've only seen people that were not equipped with the skills and education needed to make the right choices in life. If these irredeemably 'irresponsible' people exist, they must be few and far between. And what of the rich 'irresponsible'? They can go their whole lives without want, all the while the poor 'irresponsible' live on the streets. How is that fair?

Or are you one of those that believe that the poor 'earned' their position. That is a great story to tell kids -- to hide the awful truth of our unfair world. But surely you can see through such fairytales. It isn't usually 'bad luck' that hold people back, but rather systematic class discrimination. The rich get rich, and the poor get poor, because the rich use their power to arrange it that way. I know the stories, the fairytales, about how poor people that work hard can rise up. But these are just stories. The poor aren't going very far, middle class at best, and it is usually luck and happenstance that helps them rise, not hard work. And even if the stories are true, why do the poor have to work so hard when the rich get it handed to them?

My apologies, I'll get off my soapbox now. Class discrepancy is my issue, my cause. In our society, even the poor believe they've earned their position somehow. It is simply sickeningly unjust.

[koin]

the alarm bells aren't ringing because bitcoin is at a $100 million valuation with a few who were early and hold 25% or some number like that.  the alarm bells are ringing because for a number of reasons:  anyone holding bitcoins is doing so against the advice of economists (e.g., http://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea 534 votes can't be wrong! ), against the advice of investors (e.g., http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-bitcoin-and-currencies ) and against the advice of security pros ( http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/bitcoin-a-matter-of-trust-going-bad ).

essentially, consider anyone who buys or holds here at this time deserving of any rewards that come later simply because instead of heeding the prudent advice of the experts, bitcoiners instead took on the risks and did not liquidate their holdings.

[Timo Y]

A restart would not result in a more equal distribution of wealth. We would see the same approximate Pareto distribution.

Except that this time, the richest bitcoiners would not be geeky early adopters but City Boys from Wall Street and Canary Wharf who can afford to lose $1 M on a high risk investment.

What difference does it make?

[DamienBlack]

A restart would not result in a more equal distribution of wealth. We would see the same approximate Pareto distribution.

Except that this time, the richest bitcoiners would not be geeky early adopters but City Boys from Wall Street and Canary Wharf who can afford to lose $1 M on a high risk investment.

What difference does it make?

I agree. Restarting the block chain wouldn't help with distribution (if that is even a problem). Assuming not many people left, the difficulty would start up at the same rate as now. 7200 coins made a day, and a majority to the people that have sunk a lot of money into mining. In a year, some people will still have a huge share.

[N12]

I. Many early adopters neither took risk or had foresight. Running a CPU consuming app for a few days or weeks is something that anyone would do for a project he likes (Now please don’t nitpick me on the bit of electricity consumed or heat or strain on CPU). Then, stumbling upon Bitcoin one year after and finding your wallet.dat also requires neither risk or foresight. All of this just needed a series of coincidences usually called "luck".

The people who indeed took risks and are taking risks are the speculators and the miners who invested money in GPUs.

II. I agree the current distribution is making it difficult to find an equilibrium price, and theoretically the free market would take care of it in the long term, but Bitcoin is a special case, as it is moving with Internet speed. A year ago, one Bitcoin was worth a few cents. Major disturbances become more and more likely as there are individuals with hundreds of thousands of coins, and Satoshi is suspected to own more than a million.

III. I don’t think there will ever be a real solution, to quote Satoshi:

Yes, [we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography,] but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

The "problem" will just be postponed and the effect reduced for a while. Meanwhile, trust in Bitcoin as an investment would of course vanish.

IV. In hindsight, the solution would be to alter the distribution curve of Bitcoin into an S-curve, adapting more to the increase of demand. It’s pretty much impossible to time the curve right though, as one can’t predict the future.

Bitcoin does (did) not behave like a precious metal would. Satoshi was the first miner and he received 100% of the reward a few tens of thousands now do. I’m pretty certain that this wouldn’t translate into an analagous situation with the first gold miner, who doesn’t even have a pickaxe.

The supply is totally unelastic because it is unaltered, no matter how much effort is put in. The algorithm rules.

[amincd]

That is a common argument that crops up in many different discussions. We cannot do 'X' perfectly, we make mistakes, those mistakes have negative consequences, so we should not do 'X' at all. Yes, it is true, we cannot do it perfectly. A true meritocracy is unachievable. But we can move closer to one. We can weigh the good and the bad and decide which path to take. The discussion is much deeper than you pretend.

I would argue that any government effort to determine who is at their current predicament "through no fault of their own" versus through their own irresponsibility is bound for complete failure.

Government works through bureaucracy; sets of procedures and rules. Human beings easily adjust their behavior to escape the controls those rules are supposed to impose. It's not hard to game a government bureaucracy. There are hundred billion dollar industries built around this (e.g. tax planning).

In the one case where we know someone is not at fault, with children who are born into poverty, subsidizing them has the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to have children that they are not in a position to support. In fact, studies have shown a marked increase in children born out of wedlock with increases in welfare.

If you want to fix the injustices of fate, charity is the way to do that. Personal relationships where the giver and the receiver are in direct communication, or at least have fewer intermediaries between them, creates accountability for those receiving aid, and they appreciate what they're given rather than taking it for granted the way many welfare recipients do.

And as to the 'irresponsible' you speak of. I have never met anyone I would call irresponsible.

I have met scores of people who make no effort to fix their life, indulge in the most self-destructive behavior, and live off of government.

This kind of irresponsibility, as far as I've seen, is rampant, and is a direct result of welfare and other forms of government aid.

I have certainly never met anyone so irresponsible that I believe they deserve abject poverty. Have you?

No one deserves to suffer, but no one deserves to be forcibly made to give up their wealth to fix someone's problem. The government shouldn't directly cause the latter to try to alleviate the former.

I've only seen people trying to get by, whatever way they can. I've only seen people that were not equipped with the skills and education needed to make the right choices in life. If these irredeemably 'irresponsible' people exist, they must be few and far between. And what of the rich 'irresponsible'? They can go their whole lives without want, all the while the poor 'irresponsible' live on the streets. How is that fair?

Government can't start interfering in people's lives based on what the majority considers is 'fair'. Is it fair someone was born more intelligent than another? Should we tax him at a higher rate to make life more fair?

The way I see it, you can either go down of the road of trying to use government as a tool to make the world fair, which has no ends to how much it will interfere in innocent people's lives to get the funds for this type of 'social justice', or you can have a government that we know maximizes wealth generation: a limited government that enforces contract law and doesn't interfere with people trying to create and expand businesses, or interfere with the incentives (e.g. through a progressive income tax) that motivate people to do so.

The more prosperity there is in society, the more opportunities every one has. The opportunity that someone in the lowest decile of income has this century is orders of magnitude greater than the opportunity that someone in the same decile had 200 years ago, and the cause of this change is the increase in overall economic prosperity.

essentially, consider anyone who buys or holds here at this time deserving of any reward that comes due simply because instead of heeding the prudent advice of the economists, investors and security professionals bitcoiners assumed the risks and did not liquidating their holdings.

Well put.

[error]

I will say that I grew up poor. So I've seen much of this firsthand.

For the purpose of this discussion, I want to note that the only thing which has stood in the way of my own "upward mobility" has been the government.

[terroh8er]

I agree with the OP. Also, Apple should liquidate all of their shares and redistribute them evenly because it isn't fair that early adopters in 1980 were able to buy their shares so cheap. If Steve Jobs sold all of his stock within 5 minutes, he could make the price go down a lot and it wouldn't be fair to the people who got in after.  

[DamienBlack]

I will say that I grew up poor. So I've seen much of this firsthand.

For the purpose of this discussion, I want to note that the only thing which has stood in the way of my own "upward mobility" has been the government.

I understand that sentiment. As a small business owner, it seems like rule and regulations hamper me ever step of the way. I can't put signs up without a permit, and when I do get a permit they can only be so large. I can't drop off ads in peoples mailboxes so I have to run ads to people's doors which takes much longer. I can't pass out flyers on the streets without paying a vendors fee. I can't put flyers on windshields parked in public places. It seems that every cheap and easy way for me to advertize is prohibited to me. This allows companies with higher advertizing budgets to outdo me even though I'm willing to put in more time and effort. So I really do understand what you are saying. And then, of course, there is self-income tax.

But, on the other hand, did you get a public education? If you were raised poor in a third-world country, you may not have had any education, permanently limiting your upward mobility. Did your parents receive any public assistance? Foodstamps, welfare, ext? This may have helped them get by at a slightly higher standard of living, providing you with more opportunities. Did you use public libraries? Access to information, even if it is just fiction, helps broaden your horizons and integrate you with mainstream society. Did you go to a public college or receive public scholarships or get publicly backed loans? I myself, would not have been able to go to college if i had needed to pay the cost of private tuition out of pocket, and I think many would be in the same boat.

So perhaps the government has stood in your way, and perhaps the issues and items you are concerned about do need to be addressed. I'm not saying government should be given a free pass to do whatever. But failure to acknowledge where the government has succeeded is shortsighted. Lets figure out what the government does right and reinforce that, and figure out what the government does wrong and eliminate that. I simply will not accept the over simplistic answer, 'they do everything wrong'.

PS - I'll try not to hijack the thread anymore.

[CurbsideProphet]

I agree with the OP. Also, Apple should liquidate all of their shares and redistribute them evenly because it isn't fair that early adopters in 1980 were able to buy their shares so cheap. If Steve Jobs sold all of his stock within 5 minutes, he could make the price go down a lot and it wouldn't be fair to the people who got in after.  

You're twisting my words and adding no value.  I never once said the current situation is not fair.  In fact, this is what I said:

Let me start off by saying this is not a thread about "early-adopter" envy.  They took the risks and had the foresight.  High risk should reap high reward.

Obviously a lot of what I said in that original post was based on mistaken information (ie. the MtGox situation).  I've subsequently come out and said I was mistaken.  

[SmokeAndMirrors]

If bitcoin restarted tomorrow, nothing would be too much different. Assuming the user-base was the same in this hypothetical situation, there would be instant payouts for the first 2016 blocks, then the difficulty would jump up similar to what it is now.

[sunyag]

I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.

The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...

This is quite correct. The early adopters had skill and foresight, and that is admirable - but very modest risk, and enormous payoff potential.

The current wave of adopters have far higher risk factors to consider and far higher barriers to entry.

There is nothing more important that the early adopters can do than donate and invest in startups. Even only 10% of the early bitcoin wealth would catapult this next leg of the economy. And, by extension, make their remaining 90% stockpile far more valuable.

[Hook^]

Anyone that wants to reset simply has to start their own blockchain.  If you can get a bunch of people over to your chain, then you can distribute however you want.

I admit I'm a bit annoyed that I didn't buy in when I first found out about bitcoins 2 years ago.  I was going to download the client, but since it was peer-to-peer I thought it would clog up my network like BearShare.  Now that I know more about it (too late) I realize that it takes almost no bandwidth at all.  I was going to buy some bitcoins on the market at 1/4 of a cent each instead, but I never got around to it.

That being said, I would be against resetting the bitcoins.  It would be the ultimate moral hazard, and would make you no better than Mr. Bernanke and Co.

[Hook^]

All of us here are early adopters. If we weren't, there wouldn't be any discussion about how to get merchants on board, why Bitcoin is stuck at $14, etc. We'd all be permanently retired and living on the beach in Fiji on the proceeds from 15 or 20 BTC while the latecomers fight over why the µBTC is stuck at $14. Yes, I'm taking a long view.

Very long view indeed.  You may be correct that we are still early adopters, but I very much doubt that Bitcoin will ever see the kind of proportional increase that it has already seen.  Just for some numbers to put in perspective:

The total US M2 money supply this year is around 2 trillion dollars.  There is some controversy over M3, which is much higher but no longer used.  So let's just double M2 and say 4 trillion dollars.  The US is about 1/4 of the world economy so multiply by 4.  That gives a worldwide money base of around 16 trillion dollars.

Now divide that by the total market capitalization of bitcoin at around 90 million dollars, and you get a ratio of around 200,000.  In other words, even if bitcoin replaced every currency in every country in the world and was used for every single transaction, a uBTC would still only be worth around $2.80.  I realize that you can't just derive value from the money supply.  But this is useful for a rough estimate.

For a more realistic number assume bitcoin is used for around 5% of all transactions eventually (which is about the size of the underground drug economy).  That means that the ratio is now around 10,000.  Which just happens to be the original ratio of increase (from 1/4 cent per bitcoin to $25 around the peak)

The time it took the original ratio of 10,000 to take place was around one year.  I find it difficult to believe that bitcoin can take over 5% of the world economy in one year.


So basically, the original early adopters have it better than anyone now can ever hope to get.  Not that we can't do well, but the gravy train has already pulled way out of the station.

[error]

All of us here are early adopters. If we weren't, there wouldn't be any discussion about how to get merchants on board, why Bitcoin is stuck at $14, etc. We'd all be permanently retired and living on the beach in Fiji on the proceeds from 15 or 20 BTC while the latecomers fight over why the µBTC is stuck at $14. Yes, I'm taking a long view.

Very long view indeed.  You may be correct that we are still early adopters, but I very much doubt that Bitcoin will ever see the kind of proportional increase that it has already seen.  Just for some numbers to put in perspective:

The total US M2 money supply this year is around 2 trillion dollars.  There is some controversy over M3, which is much higher but no longer used.  So let's just double M2 and say 4 trillion dollars.  The US is about 1/4 of the world economy so multiply by 4.  That gives a worldwide money base of around 16 trillion dollars.

Now divide that by the total market capitalization of bitcoin at around 90 million dollars, and you get a ratio of around 200,000.  In other words, even if bitcoin replaced every currency in every country in the world and was used for every single transaction, a uBTC would still only be worth around $2.80.  I realize that you can't just derive value from the money supply.  But this is useful for a rough estimate.

For a more realistic number assume bitcoin is used for around 5% of all transactions eventually (which is about the size of the underground drug economy).  That means that the ratio is now around 10,000.  Which just happens to be the original ratio of increase (from 1/4 cent per bitcoin to $25 around the peak)

The time it took the original ratio of 10,000 to take place was around one year.  I find it difficult to believe that bitcoin can take over 5% of the world economy in one year.


So basically, the original early adopters have it better than anyone now can ever hope to get.  Not that we can't do well, but the gravy train has already pulled way out of the station.

Oh, sure, I would have loved to get in on this a year before I did.

As for the $2.80 number, you haven't taken into account inflation (both of the money supply and of prices).

[Hook^]

as for the $2.80 number, you haven't taken into account inflation (both of the money supply and of prices).

I didn't take it into account because it is so small compared to the very rough order-of-magnitude estimates.  Bitcoin can't inflate to more than 2x more than what is currently in circulation since 1/3 of it has already been mined.  Mr. Bernanke can inflate to infinity, but I am comparing in terms of current dollar value.

Anyway, I hope that someday Bitcoin takes over a large part of the economy and not just the underground part.  It would be great to see the central bankers neutered by something like this.  And the economy would benefit as well since wealth would no longer get redistributed to politically connected businesses.

Of course, my main reason for hoping the bitcoin economy takes off is for simple greed

[RandyFolds]

So basically, the original early adopters have it better than anyone now can ever hope to get.  Not that we can't do well, but the gravy train has already pulled way out of the station.

No one can read the future. I like to envision a post-apocalyptic steampunk wasteland where holding a whole bitcoin is equivalent to being a millionaire. Let's meet back here in twenty years.

On a side note, how can draw any conjecture on the size of the 'underground drug economy'? Any number you come up with is complete BS speculation. I have never answered a poll about how much weed I sold last fiscal year, nor can I imagine that many other black market operators did so honestly. Any number that LE of governments throw about are extrapolations based on what they caught, which is impossible to calculate because they have no idea what percentage they missed...

I had a business partner with whom I designed and set up legal (usually) grow spaces in Los Angeles and the surrounding vicinity. Before embarking upon that venture, I had no idea how many lofts and warehouses in downtown were housing 20,000 square foot flowering spaces...and that is just what I have seen and worked on...only in LA. The real numbers have got to be exponentially higher. Only one garden I set up got raided out of dozens. Narcs seized about $50,000 worth of wet product out of a 600 square foot canopy space...and they thought they had made a find. 600<<<<<20,000. The proprietor walked after testimony from cannabis expert witnesses and 16 members of his collective.

I am no economist, but I know your model is oversimplified to the point of irrelevance. The vast majority of the world's wealth is not tied up in paper. I doubt that there will be explosive growth like the month of June again, but I do not doubt a steady stream of takers lining up until some confidence-shattering catastrophe.

[markm]

So basically, the original early adopters have it better than anyone now can ever hope to get.  Not that we can't do well, but the gravy train has already pulled way out of the station.

You are simply being negative, maybe out of sheer laziness.

You don't need as vast a jump in value of the next few blockchains you get into early because you can instead get into more of them, get a larger piece of them, and work harder, with more experience under your belt of what works, to ensure they do acquire value.

You seem to just be trying to make excuses for not getting into new launches and helping them too to grow.

You probably had plenty of reasons not to become an early adopter of bitcoin too, even if people had made sure you were one of the first to know about it.

Seems likely to be more a case of not going to the station until you are sure the train has left than the train leaving too soon.

-MarkM-

[Hook^]

So basically, the original early adopters have it better than anyone now can ever hope to get.  Not that we can't do well, but the gravy train has already pulled way out of the station.

You are simply being negative, maybe out of sheer laziness.

You don't need as vast a jump in value of the next few blockchains you get into early because you can instead get into more of them, get a larger piece of them, and work herder, with more experience under your belt of what works, to ensure they do aquire value.

You seem to just be trying to make excuses for not getting into new launches and helping them too to grow.

You probably had plenty of reasons not to become an early adopter of bitcoin too, even if people had made sure you were one of the first to know about it.

Seems likely to be more a case of not going to the station until you are sure the train has left than the train leaving too soon.

-MarkM-

I'm not being negative, I'm just saying that it isn't going to be like the beginning.  I bought a bunch of bitcoins over the last month, so I do believe that they have a bright future.  But this is tempered with a knowledge on the limits of growth and the size of the whole economy.

[Hook^]

On a side note, how can draw any conjecture on the size of the 'underground drug economy'? Any number you come up with is complete BS speculation. I have never answered a poll about how much weed I sold last fiscal year, nor can I imagine that many other black market operators did so honestly. Any number that LE of governments throw about are extrapolations based on what they caught, which is impossible to calculate because they have no idea what percentage they missed...

I am no economist, but I know your model is oversimplified to the point of irrelevance. The vast majority of the world's wealth is not tied up in paper. I doubt that there will be explosive growth like the month of June again, but I do not doubt a steady stream of takers lining up until some confidence-shattering catastrophe.

I am using the estimates of governments.  They use educated estimates based on things like how much they bust, the size of grow fields in South America, spies in the drug cartels, etc.  Even if they are off by a factor of 4 and the drug economy is 20% of the world economy (A very high number), it still won't allow for increases like the ones we have seen since the beginning of Bitcoin.

You are correct that most of the wealth is not tied up in paper.  But that isn't relevant to the discussion.  What matters is the amount of economic activity measured in existing currency and extrapolating that to bitcoins.  The results are very unlikely to be off by more than a factor of 10, so they are still relevant to fact that bitcoins will  almost certainly never grow larger than 10,000 times their current value.

[Rassah]

I'll just add in reply to te OP that, when everyone is rich, no one is.

[cypherdoc]

On a side note, how can draw any conjecture on the size of the 'underground drug economy'? Any number you come up with is complete BS speculation. I have never answered a poll about how much weed I sold last fiscal year, nor can I imagine that many other black market operators did so honestly. Any number that LE of governments throw about are extrapolations based on what they caught, which is impossible to calculate because they have no idea what percentage they missed...

I am no economist, but I know your model is oversimplified to the point of irrelevance. The vast majority of the world's wealth is not tied up in paper. I doubt that there will be explosive growth like the month of June again, but I do not doubt a steady stream of takers lining up until some confidence-shattering catastrophe.

I am using the estimates of governments.  They use educated estimates based on things like how much they bust, the size of grow fields in South America, spies in the drug cartels, etc.  Even if they are off by a factor of 4 and the drug economy is 20% of the world economy (A very high number), it still won't allow for increases like the ones we have seen since the beginning of Bitcoin.

You are correct that most of the wealth is not tied up in paper.  But that isn't relevant to the discussion.  What matters is the amount of economic activity measured in existing currency and extrapolating that to bitcoins.  The results are very unlikely to be off by more than a factor of 10, so they are still relevant to fact that bitcoins will  almost certainly never grow larger than 10,000 times their current value.

just accounting for currency completely ignores leverage.  i know of several folks who've bought btc on credit.

it would take just a small fraction of the worlds leverage to drive btc much much higher.

[N12]

If you want to experiment with what it would look like with a new block chain, consider buying Namecoins and treating them like money.

Why would that be an experiment? It wouldn’t be any different than the current blockchain in hindsight, as the generation curve is identical. In fact, it would even be worse, as Namecoins are consumed and destroyed by registering domains.

Also, it looks like people like you are already buying them up en masse to hoard, probably much more fierce than Bitcoins were bought at the beginning. The only thing that changed is that the mining window for obscene amounts with little computing power got much smaller.

The situation with Namecoin will probably look the same as Bitcoin now in two years, if it makes it that far.