Bitcoin distribution vs Bitcoin adoption

[Kouye]

I keep reading very optimistic posts here about bitcoin reaching a value equivalent to today's 1000, 10000 and even millions of dollars in a pretty near future (like < 50 years).
Everyone seem to enjoy that, which I can understand, but that would generate a big issue, wouldn't it?

How will people who still are ignorant about bitcoins today get their share, when early adopters hoarded thousands of them?
How can bitcoin be widely adopted when TF owns half the wealth of Australia after BTC reaches the expected heigths?

I can see a fierce resistance coming, even from very well educated people, that just consider unfair that 50% of the coins are already owned by 0.001% individuals, once they realise it's the exchange token of tomorrow.

Should we reset the blockchain when BTC becomes the official world currency, all join a single, worldwide, non-proportional pool?

[1715653465]

1715653465

[1715653465]

1715653465

[1715653465]

1715653465

[rayfloyd]

We are the 1%, deal with it.

[franky1]

I keep reading very optimistic posts here about bitcoin reaching a value equivalent to today's 1000, 10000 and even millions of dollars in a pretty near future (like < 50 years).
Everyone seem to enjoy that, which I can understand, but that would generate a big issue, wouldn't it?

How will people who still are ignorant about bitcoins today get their share, when early adopters hoarded thousands of them?
How can bitcoin be widely adopted when TF owns half the wealth of Australia after BTC reaches the expected heigths?

I can see a fierce resistance coming, even from very well educated people, that just consider unfair that 50% of the coins are already owned by 0.001% individuals, once they realise it's the exchange token of tomorrow.

Should we reset the blockchain when BTC becomes the official world currency, all join a single, worldwide, non-proportional pool?

reset it?
nah

but there are plenty of alt coins.. just pick a date in lets say 5 years get everyone supporting an alt coin you chose and in 5 years you can reset your alt coin..

[Etlase2]

Should we reset the blockchain when BTC becomes the official world currency, all join a single, worldwide, non-proportional pool?

Stop speaking nonsense, the world will gladly want to become slaves to new masters, it's the only way of life they know.

[Rluner]

We are the 1%, deal with it.

Lmao

+1

[Kouye]

Stop speaking nonsense, the world will gladly want to become slaves to new masters, it's the only way of life they know.

Doesn't that seem like a serious issue in your plans to take over the world?

If I was to discover tomorrow that FIAT just died and the new exchange token, limited in quantity, was already shared among a tiny amount of people, I'd probably look into any other fairer alternative, and would naturally be followed by 99% of the population.

And even though I do know a few private keys with unspent outputs, I'm not sure I'd like to live in world led by early adopters, even less if you're one of them.

[revans]

I keep reading very optimistic posts here about bitcoin reaching a value equivalent to today's 1000, 10000 and even millions of dollars in a pretty near future (like < 50 years).
Everyone seem to enjoy that, which I can understand, but that would generate a big issue, wouldn't it?

How will people who still are ignorant about bitcoins today get their share, when early adopters hoarded thousands of them?
How can bitcoin be widely adopted when TF owns half the wealth of Australia after BTC reaches the expected heigths?

I can see a fierce resistance coming, even from very well educated people, that just consider unfair that 50% of the coins are already owned by 0.001% individuals, once they realise it's the exchange token of tomorrow.

Should we reset the blockchain when BTC becomes the official world currency, all join a single, worldwide, non-proportional pool?

You won't get any sensible discussion of this issue here because it is nothing but a den of rampers and speculators. I have raised this here , and it was this very issue which resulted in me walking away from Bitcoin and handing my Bitcoin winnings (anyone that says earnings is kidding themselves) over to charitable causes. I was interested in an alternative currency, not an alternative FOREX market, and that is what Bitcoin is, just another avenue for currency speculators with no interest in engendering any real economic change to make some easy money.


One of the reasons the early days of mining Bitcoins when it was trivial is not discussed is because the fanboys know this issue is poison for mass adoption. Same goes for the massive haul of coins mined when Bitcoin was still very much sub rosa. The proposition for the masses seems to be

'Abandon state fiat currency and the inequity of a sytem which sees the vast majority of wealth controlled by a small cabal and use Bitcoin which.....er hang on'


Not going to wash I'm afraid, which is another reason this stupid experiment is doomed. Was a nice idea, but alas it was corrupted by greed, hubris and polluted by the kind of rhetoric I thought it was trying to move away from (as in this forum sounds like a Wall St. dinner party).

[IsaacGoldbourne]

Stop speaking nonsense, the world will gladly want to become slaves to new masters, it's the only way of life they know.

Doesn't that seem like a serious issue in your plans to take over the world?

If I was to discover tomorrow that FIAT just died and the new exchange token, limited in quantity, was already shared among a tiny amount of people, I'd probably look into any other fairer alternative, and would naturally be followed by 99% of the population.

And even though I do know a few private keys with unspent outputs, I'm not sure I'd like to live in world led by early adopters, even less if you're one of them.

It wouldn't be that sudden, people would start coming in hoping to beat others. It wouldn't be till 75% of people were in that people would seriously go elsewhere

[revans]

Stop speaking nonsense, the world will gladly want to become slaves to new masters, it's the only way of life they know.

Doesn't that seem like a serious issue in your plans to take over the world?

If I was to discover tomorrow that FIAT just died and the new exchange token, limited in quantity, was already shared among a tiny amount of people, I'd probably look into any other fairer alternative, and would naturally be followed by 99% of the population.

And even though I do know a few private keys with unspent outputs, I'm not sure I'd like to live in world led by early adopters, even less if you're one of them.

Amazing isn't it, the fundamental human flaw: we are doomed to become that which we despise.

If you read the archives here you'll see the early days (pre speculative boom) were marked by people talking about their disgust with the fundamental inequalities of the existing financial order, and how Bitcoin could provide a model for a more sustainable society. Of course that was before the speculators started the bubble and all of a sudden when there was serious money involved idealism was defenestrated in favour of Gordon Gekko style hubris

These phonies don't want to end plutocracy, they just dream of replacing the existing plutocrats.

[Etlase2]

And even though I do know a few private keys with unspent outputs, I'm not sure I'd like to live in world led by early adopters, even less if you're one of them.

Well, you didn't get that my post was dripping with sarcasm, and in addition to that, I am designing something completely different that might just tickle the fancy of the 99%. See sig.

PS - Out of principle, I do not own any bitcoins.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You pretend like there are only two finite states a) now and b) entire world uses Bitcoin.

The reality is the end state of Bitcoin is completely unknown and the time until that end state is also unknown.  Lots of early miners sold thousands of coins when Bitcoin hit $1 because it was "easy money". 

Distribution and adoption is a gradual process.  For every person who puts their coins in a paper wallet and refuses to look at the ticker out of fear of selling them another one sells off convinced Bitcoin will go lower.  I sold lots of BTC to lots of people and the overwhelming majority never mined a single coin, some of them would have no idea even how to setup a mining rig.   The largest of orders were on the order of 10,000 BTC. 

The idea that all the coins are held by some early CPU miners is laughable.

[Kouye]

Well, you didn't get that my post was dripping with sarcasm

Doesn't that seem like a serious issue in your plans to take over the world?

I was hoping you'd get I wasn't too serious about your post either.
And I haven't clicked on your sig link, sorry, I never do.

But I might give it a try, for once, since it's concise and not too colorful.

[Kouye]

The idea that all the coins are held by some early CPU miners is laughable.

I'm not talking about the CPU miners, I'm talking about the guys you sold 10k BTC to.

I'm talking about current distribution, which already looks very, very akward, with most of us having 0.5 to 20 BTC, and most of the BTC being held by people having 10k+.

I do understand this won't be a switch-like process, but:

- It was much easier/cheaper to get 100BTC 2 years ago
- Is is probably much easier/cheaper to get 100BTC now than it will be in 2 years.
- The more it becomes evident BTC is the future way to exchange, the more people with no prior knowledge of BTC will find it unfair that their neighbours managed to hoard thousands of those because they got lucky and were sent an news paper by their geek nephew.

And this looks like a concern to me, as I still consider at least 90% of the people on earth never heard of bitcoin (though I swear I'm doing my share to spread it around me).

[AndrewWilliams]

What is the alternative??

The current USD is controlled by 0.02% of the wealthy elite.

Since 2006, the top 2% of the wealthy in the USA have made an absolute killing scooping up homes for pennies on the dollar.

Only the very wealthy are getting richer with the USD. Everyone else is just getting deeper in debt, thanks to rising food and fuel costs.



But don't worry about the rich. They will get invested into Bitcoin one way or another. That's why they hire Financial Planners, to spot investment opportunities like this.

Hopefully, they will only catch on when it hits the $500-$1000 range, when all of us have already bought in at a lucrative time.



Another thing: the easier it becomes to get Bitcoin (i.e. ATMs and other devices of widespread adoption), the higher the price of Bitcoin.
We are getting Bitcoin now relatively cheap because it's not that easy to obtain it.

[DeathAndTaxes]

m talking about current distribution, which already looks very, very akward, with most of us having 0.5 to 20 BTC, and most of the BTC being held by people having 10k+.

Kinda like the real world?

I do understand this won't be a switch-like process, but:
[scenario snipped]

That assumes the neighbor was smart enough to hang on to 1,000 BTC through bubbles and crashes.  Most wont they will transfer those coins to someone else when the risk vs reward makes it worth it.   However do you honestly think your 1,000 BTC neighbor is never going to spend them?  He is going to be real world poor living in a cardboard box, starving do death but clutching his paper wallet.  No it is highly likely he will do what most rapidly wealth people do.  They spend it. When he does guess was what .... MORE DISTRIBUTION.

We are talking about adoption on a lifetime scale.  If nobody every spends/sells/trades BTC then it likely isn't going anywhere and thus holding 1% of nothing is still nothing.   If it does go somewhere big on a lifetime (30, 40, 60 years) scale then coins will have changed hands many times.

Not sure if you are just worried there will be Bitcoin rich.  Bitcoin was never designed to eliminate wealth disparity.   There will be Bitcoin rich and poor just like there are Dollar rich and poor.

[AndrewWilliams]

That assumes the neighbor was smart enough to hang on to 1,000 BTC through bubbles and crashes.  Most wont they will transfer those coins to someone else when the risk vs reward makes it worth it.   However do you honestly think your 1,000 BTC neighbor is never going to spend them? He is going to be real world poor living in a cardboard box, starving do death but clutching his paper wallet.  No it is highly likely he will do what most rapidly wealth people do.  They spend it. When he does guess was what .... MORE DISTRIBUTION.

We are talking about adoption on a lifetime scale.  If nobody every spends/sells/trades BTC then it likely isn't going anywhere and thus holding 1% of nothing is still nothing.   If it does go somewhere big on a lifetime (30, 40, 60 years) scale then coins will have changed hands many times.

Not sure if you are just worried there will be Bitcoin rich.  Bitcoin was never designed to eliminate wealth disparity.   There will be Bitcoin rich and poor just like there are Dollar rich and poor.

The fallacy in your argument is that everyone puts every dollar they have into Bitcoin, or needs Bitcoin to pay for day to day necessities.

Most people put whatever spare cash they have into Bitcoin. They can "afford" to hang onto to it through thick and thin.

It would be interesting how many Bitcoiners buy and hold, and how many are active buyers and sellers doing it on a weekly or monthly basis.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So hang on forever and die with the most Bitcoins = win.

People sell Bitcoins every day.  Money isn't wealth.  Money is what you trade for wealth.  Simply holding money forever is illogical and it doesn't happen.

How can you buy Gold.  Why don't gold miners just never sell it.  Put every disposable dollar into gold reserves?   There is no point holding gold or Bitcoins forever.   People do spend/sell/trade Bitcoins they will continue to do so.

[IsaacGoldbourne]

What is the alternative??

The current USD is controlled by 0.02% of the wealthy elite.

Since 2006, the top 2% of the wealthy in the USA have made an absolute killing scooping up homes for pennies on the dollar.

Only the very wealthy are getting richer with the USD. Everyone else is just getting deeper in debt, thanks to rising food and fuel costs.



But don't worry about the rich. They will get invested into Bitcoin one way or another. That's why they hire Financial Planners, to spot investment opportunities like this.

Hopefully, they will only catch on when it hits the $500-$1000 range, when all of us have already bought in at a lucrative time.



Another thing: the easier it becomes to get Bitcoin (i.e. ATMs and other devices of widespread adoption), the higher the price of Bitcoin.
We are getting Bitcoin now relatively cheap because it's not that easy to obtain it.

No please, I need more time to hoard. Only have 5 coins atm! I won't be elite enough!

[Kouye]

Not sure if you are just worried there will be Bitcoin rich.  Bitcoin was never designed to eliminate wealth disparity.   There will be Bitcoin rich and poor just like there are Dollar rich and poor.

I'm actually worried because I want bitcoin to be adopted worldwide. In that sense (and many others), I find Zuckerberg position about connecting everyone to internet much more profitable on the long run than Gates position with his focus on paludism.

Imagine people coming in 2 years from now.
Nearly 60% of the bitcoins will have already been distributed.
Doesn't sound that sexy to share the 40% left with the other 90% unaware people, does it?

Then they will come with alternatives. And they will be the majority.
Hopefully their alternative don't involve banks, nor central authorities.
Guess that's all I'm asking for.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If adoption slows the price will fall some holders will be willing to sell because their current needs outweigh the (now reduced) potential gain over the next month, year, decade.   That lower price will draw in new adoptees and the circle widens.  Each crash, each boom creations a distribution effect. 

I mean lets imagine a hypothetical 10,000 BTC early miner.  Its worth $2M today you don't think he/she is considering liquidating at least a portion of that 10,000 BTC.  Even if he/she isn't in dire financial strait I am sure they have wants and desires, a vacation, start a business, buy a boat, etc.   Lets say they hold Bitcoin goes up to $1K ea they are now holding $10M.  That is more money that 99% of the planet will make in a lifetime.  Don't you think a "lets sell 10% (or 20%, or 50%)" and hedge our bets seems likely.   No?  Ok BTC goes to $25,000 ea.  They are now (on paper a quarter billionaire) still no need/desire to sell of some of their stake?  Of course they would.  If nobody did the liquidity on MtGox would be zero right now with only bids at $50,000+.


Simple version:  you either believe in free markets and voluntary association or you don't. 

[Kouye]

Simple version:  you either believe in free markets and voluntary association or you don't. 

I got an even simplier version. I wanna see fiat die and be wiped out by BTC, and am trying to forsee the issues getting there.

Yesterday, with 1000$, you could get 10k BTC
Today, with 1000$, you can get 4BTC
Tomorrow, with 1000$, you'll get 0.01BTC
The day after tomorrow, with 1000$, you'll just be a laughing stock.

See my point for the 90% of people that will come tomorrow or the day after?

Or did you actually just admit bitcoin is and always will be just a speculation tool to earn fiat and keep the whole banking fuckfest on?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Your timeline is silly short.  I don't think Bitcoin will end all fiats.  Nations have too much of a vested interest to keep that shell game going.  My guess is the day we both die there will be plenty of national fiat currencies.  The power of Bitcoin is that it (possibly for the first time) gives people the OPTION to choose an alternative system.   The reality is many won't, many never will, and for many it will take decades before they are convinced in the utility of an alternative.    Neither Bitcoin's price growth nor its adoption curve will be that short.  The 90% aren't going to suddenly all show up one day (all one the same day) and the price isn't going to be 10x what is was yesterday.  Mainstream adoption is measured in decades and will be gradual with setbacks in adoption, technology, and legislation.

Still if you are right then all cryptocurrencies are doomed to failure (as they all need a decentralized mechanism to bootstrap) so sell now while you still can or pick the point you think it can get before it fails.

[d'aniel]

There will always be a strong tendency for early adopters to diversify out of bitcoins as they grow to dominate the portfolio.  People tend not to be comfortable putting all their eggs in one basket.  Even Gavin mentioned doing this during the last run up.

But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US).  Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell.  As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T.  So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.

Meh.  With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.

Note that this rough analysis ignores the fact that this rise of Bitcoin would probably bump some billionaires like Charlie Munger off the list

[Kouye]

Thanks for the input, D&T and others, I'm still unsure if my concern was fully grasped, but I got your point.
I'm being too impatient, and bitcoin will remain a toy for rich people to get richer long before it becomes a real alternative for people to quit using fiat.
I'll just do my best to prove you wrong.

[Etlase2]

But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US).  Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell.  As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T.  So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.

Meh.  With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.

Argument appears to be thus:

1) Create a new monetary/banking system
2) Give a small group of people vast amounts of control
3)
4) World is saved by innovative idea completely unlike FRB/fiat.

(I know you did not make the point 4 implication, but it is certainly a common theme.)

[d'aniel]

But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US).  Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell.  As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T.  So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.

Meh.  With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.

Argument appears to be thus:

1) Create a new monetary/banking system
2) Give a small group of people vast amounts of control
3)
4) World is saved by innovative idea completely unlike FRB/fiat.

(I know you did not make the point 4 implication, but it is certainly a common theme.)

The reason I introduced some numbers was to show that (2) is hyperbole.

[Etlase2]

The reason I introduced some numbers was to show that (2) is hyperbole.

I don't know if we're from different planets or if you have the blinders on for the sake bitcoin argument, but you stated under your own presumptions that 500 people now control value equal to a quarter of the world's gold supply--and you call "a small group of people having vast amounts of control" a hyperbole under this scenario? Is based on the caveat you added that they "refuse to ever sell"? Because that is pretty meaningless. Wall Street doesn't "sell" their dollars, they use them to make more dollars.

Does the dramatic draw to bitcoin essentially boil down to "you save visa/mc/forex fees"? It's fine if that is enough for you, but it most definitely does not address the topic--I would almost say it is a red herring.

[N12]

The problem with the distribution is that the block generation curve started out at 100% speed in the beginning even though there were hardly any miners at all. Compare it to gold. You don't get to search for gold without a pickaxe and carry home 1% of all the gold reserves on earth. What would have been more natural is a sigmoid curve. First, the production rate is curbed, and as new people come, it is increased until it's 100% and begins to decrease again.

[DeathAndTaxes]

One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters.  So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.

[N12]

One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters.  So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.

I know of that argument, but consider for a moment the profile of people who were here in 2009-2010 and why they were interested. They would've come anyway and built stuff just because it's awesome tech.

But yes, who knows what it would have been like. I do wonder about Satoshi's motives to not introduce a curve of natural resource depletion.

[DeathAndTaxes]

One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters.  So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.

I know of that argument, but consider for a moment the profile of people who were here in 2009-2010 and why they were interested. They would've come anyway and built stuff just because it's awesome tech.

But yes, who knows what it would have been like. I do wonder about Satoshi's motives to not introduce a curve of natural resource depletion.

Bitcoin was a proof of concept.  It had never been done and the subsidy was only one tiny part.  My guess was simplicity.  One school of thinking is that the initial distribution matters very little.  Miners sell coins, trade them, lose them to thieves, buy goods with them.  All of that is secondary distribution.   

Bitcoin =/= Mining

Hell even with a perfect distribution, give every single human on the planet 1 BTC (as if this could be done decentralized) you would see disparity of Bitcoin wealth within a decade.   It just is human nature.  Some people can't hold only to money, others have a talent (either honestly or dishonestly) of aggregating fortunes in a small period of time.

[N12]

I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.

Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.

[d'aniel]

I don't know if we're from different planets or if you have the blinders on for the sake bitcoin argument, but you stated under your own presumptions that 500 people now control value equal to a quarter of the world's gold supply--and you call "a small group of people having vast amounts of control" a hyperbole under this scenario? Is based on the caveat you added that they "refuse to ever sell"? Because that is pretty meaningless. Wall Street doesn't "sell" their dollars, they use them to make more dollars.

If you reread my post you'll notice that my comparison was with our very own world and its current pool of billionaires.  As I said, wealth is already centralized to the extent that wild success of Bitcoin would just be a perturbation of the existing paradigm.  That Bitcoin might spawn a few more billionaires just doesn't keep me up at night.

[BitchicksHusband]

I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.

Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.

I'm OK with becoming the new elite.  I'd like to retire in 2 years, pay for college for my kids, some nice weddings, travel the world, have the freedom to try some ideas that I've been thinking of without the pressure of having to "make money" for somebody else, etc.

[N12]

I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.

Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.

I'm OK with becoming the new elite.  I'd like to retire in 2 years, pay for college for my kids, some nice weddings, travel the world, have the freedom to try some ideas that I've been thinking of without the pressure of having to "make money" for somebody else, etc.

I am glad you are frank about it.

[revans]

One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters.  So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.

In the early stages Bitcoins were worth so little I don't see how it would have been an issue.

[KawalGrover]

I have a feeling that if you look at the entire ecosystem, then its not so much about the 'BitCoin' itself, but the BlockChain, then slowly the beauty reveals itself.

First is the confusion of the fungibility of BitCoin, and although for most transactions right now a BitCoin is a BitCoin is a BitCoin (Just like an oz of gold). That is about to change soon. Look at ColoredCoin, BitShares, MasterCoin.

When you couple this with the idea of a Distributed Identity (like KeyHoteeID, NameCoin) etc and all the other services being developed on top of it, you soon realize... its not so much about the Bit"Coin".

[knight22]

Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).

[Kouye]

Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).

I agree with this. Now try to put yourself in a different character, that would hear about bitcoin for the first time tomorrow
That is 99% of the population.
Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"

[knight22]

Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).

I agree with this. Now try to put yourself in a different character, that would hear about bitcoin for the first time tomorrow
That is 99% of the population.
Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"

Bitcoins need to be distributed somehow and it comes with a lot of risk for the early adopers just like all new technologies. High risk / High reward. I don't see any problem with this. Tons of people are still not ready to jump in the bitcoin bandwagon just because they don't want to take any risk and are simply waiting for the system to proves that it works in the long run. Low risk / low return. It's a choice that anybody is free to take.

[HenryRomp]

Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"

This is so foolish. It's not "60% of the coins are already gone" it's "60% of the coins have already been mined."

It's like saying you shouldn't buy gold because most of the gold has already been mined--it's just false. Maybe you shouldn't go pan for gold if the river has already been panned out, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether you should buy gold or not.

Same with coins. How many have been mined or haven't doesn't influence whether or not you should buy them, only whether or not you should try to mine them. And mining's not the point, it's the means to an end--it's just to get the coins into existence, from there on out they can get distributed by other mechanisms like commerce and speculative trading.

Bitcoins need to be distributed somehow and it comes with a lot of risk for the early adopers just like all new technologies. High risk / High reward. I don't see any problem with this. Tons of people are still not ready to jump in the bitcoin bandwagon just because they don't want to take any risk and are simply waiting for the system to proves that it works in the long run. Low risk / low return. It's a choice that anybody is free to take.

Absolutely correct.

[ZephramC]

If someone owns 10 000 BTC (for example) then it means he (or she) contributed to the bitcoin community (by adoption/distribution/popularization/providing liquidity/etc.) and his contribution value is higher than 10 000 BTC (or at least equal). If Bitcoin is adopted worldwide it will be such a great service to the humanity that I am ok with few multibilionaries rewarded for this for their vision and will to risk in the right time.