If Bitcoin became the sole reserve currency...

[bitleif]

Newsflash for noobs, bitcoin isn't about fulfilling your socialist fever dreams of "wealth distribution". It never will be, and we don't care. Nor do we think wealth distribution the way you are talking about it is a particularly good idea.

[GriTBitS]

Newsflash for noobs, bitcoin isn't about fulfilling your socialist fever dreams of "wealth distribution". It never will be, and we don't care. Nor do we think wealth distribution the way you are talking about it is a particularly good idea.

Bitcoin = GO BIG or GO HOME

[amencon]

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

I think that is being extremely optimistic, but even if your scenario were to prove true-- nothing in the world would change at all, so what would the point of the currency be? Maybe I'm asking too much, but in other words-- what would be so revolutionary about it?

I don't think anybody should have any delusions that bitcoin "solves" disparities in wealth.  There will always be wealth disparities, that is just a reality.  If the only value bitcoin was touted to bring to the world was no more wealth disparity than your point is valid and bitcoin will be pointless.

The world can change dramatically and still have rich and poor people, not sure why you would think otherwise.

If anything I think bitcoin can bring somewhat reduced unfairness in wealth distribution long term.  Sure there will be some wealth concentrations around the smart and business saavy, around the ruthless and psychopathic, and around some due to early adoption for awhile.  However this is true with our current system, and with bitcoin you get the benefit of not allowing the rich and powerful to crony up to the money printers and get first dibs like you see with most fiat.

So my prediction would be somewhat more fair wealth distribution, as well as all the other advatages that comes with sound AND programmable money.  Sounds pretty good to me.

Edit: My personal belief is that current wealth distribution is not 100% "fair" but that neither is !00% uniform distribution of wealth.

[niothor]

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

I think that is being extremely optimistic, but even if your scenario were to prove true-- nothing in the world would change at all, so what would the point of the currency be? Maybe I'm asking too much, but in other words-- what would be so revolutionary about it?

I don't think anybody should have any delusions that bitcoin "solves" disparities in wealth.  There will always be wealth disparities, that is just a reality.  If the only value bitcoin was touted to bring to the world was no more wealth disparity than your point is valid and bitcoin will be pointless.

The world can change dramatically and still have rich and poor people, not sure why you would think otherwise.

If anything I think bitcoin can bring somewhat reduced unfairness in wealth distribution long term.  Sure there will be some wealth concentrations around the smart and business saavy, around the ruthless and psychopathic, and around some due to early adoption for awhile.  However this is true with our current system, and with bitcoin you get the benefit of not allowing the rich and powerful to crony up to the money printers and get first dibs like you see with most fiat.

So my prediction would be somewhat more fair wealth distribution, as well as all the other advatages that comes with sound AND programmable money.  Sounds pretty good to me.

You're sooo wrong.
Somebody  cursed me and called me a non - believer (not the actual word he used) , because I said that bitcoin won't solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Africa.

[amencon]

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

I think that is being extremely optimistic, but even if your scenario were to prove true-- nothing in the world would change at all, so what would the point of the currency be? Maybe I'm asking too much, but in other words-- what would be so revolutionary about it?

I don't think anybody should have any delusions that bitcoin "solves" disparities in wealth.  There will always be wealth disparities, that is just a reality.  If the only value bitcoin was touted to bring to the world was no more wealth disparity than your point is valid and bitcoin will be pointless.

The world can change dramatically and still have rich and poor people, not sure why you would think otherwise.

If anything I think bitcoin can bring somewhat reduced unfairness in wealth distribution long term.  Sure there will be some wealth concentrations around the smart and business saavy, around the ruthless and psychopathic, and around some due to early adoption for awhile.  However this is true with our current system, and with bitcoin you get the benefit of not allowing the rich and powerful to crony up to the money printers and get first dibs like you see with most fiat.

So my prediction would be somewhat more fair wealth distribution, as well as all the other advatages that comes with sound AND programmable money.  Sounds pretty good to me.

You're sooo wrong.
Somebody  cursed me and called me a non - believer (not the actual word he used) , because I said that bitcoin won't solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Africa.

You idiot OF COURSE bitcoin will solve world hunger, world peace too, otherwise what's the point?!!?!

[niothor]

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

I think that is being extremely optimistic, but even if your scenario were to prove true-- nothing in the world would change at all, so what would the point of the currency be? Maybe I'm asking too much, but in other words-- what would be so revolutionary about it?

I don't think anybody should have any delusions that bitcoin "solves" disparities in wealth.  There will always be wealth disparities, that is just a reality.  If the only value bitcoin was touted to bring to the world was no more wealth disparity than your point is valid and bitcoin will be pointless.

The world can change dramatically and still have rich and poor people, not sure why you would think otherwise.

If anything I think bitcoin can bring somewhat reduced unfairness in wealth distribution long term.  Sure there will be some wealth concentrations around the smart and business saavy, around the ruthless and psychopathic, and around some due to early adoption for awhile.  However this is true with our current system, and with bitcoin you get the benefit of not allowing the rich and powerful to crony up to the money printers and get first dibs like you see with most fiat.

So my prediction would be somewhat more fair wealth distribution, as well as all the other advatages that comes with sound AND programmable money.  Sounds pretty good to me.

You're sooo wrong.
Somebody  cursed me and called me a non - believer (not the actual word he used) , because I said that bitcoin won't solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Africa.

You idiot OF COURSE bitcoin will solve world hunger, world peace too, otherwise what's the point?!!?!

You have to add "Asic communist" so that I will feel really insulted )))))

[amencon]

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

I think that is being extremely optimistic, but even if your scenario were to prove true-- nothing in the world would change at all, so what would the point of the currency be? Maybe I'm asking too much, but in other words-- what would be so revolutionary about it?

I don't think anybody should have any delusions that bitcoin "solves" disparities in wealth.  There will always be wealth disparities, that is just a reality.  If the only value bitcoin was touted to bring to the world was no more wealth disparity than your point is valid and bitcoin will be pointless.

The world can change dramatically and still have rich and poor people, not sure why you would think otherwise.

If anything I think bitcoin can bring somewhat reduced unfairness in wealth distribution long term.  Sure there will be some wealth concentrations around the smart and business saavy, around the ruthless and psychopathic, and around some due to early adoption for awhile.  However this is true with our current system, and with bitcoin you get the benefit of not allowing the rich and powerful to crony up to the money printers and get first dibs like you see with most fiat.

So my prediction would be somewhat more fair wealth distribution, as well as all the other advatages that comes with sound AND programmable money.  Sounds pretty good to me.

You're sooo wrong.
Somebody  cursed me and called me a non - believer (not the actual word he used) , because I said that bitcoin won't solve the problems of poverty and hunger in Africa.

You idiot OF COURSE bitcoin will solve world hunger, world peace too, otherwise what's the point?!!?!

You have to add "Asic communist" so that I will feel really insulted )))))

Oops sorry, you Asic communist.

[Erdogan]

Anybody can aquire bitcoins now, there is not lower limit. If you planned to go to the pub and buy a pint of beer, you could buy bitcoins for the corresponding amount. It is your choice. If you do, you might be able to buy a hundred pints later. Maybe. Anyway, even the very last adoptor of bitcoin will be able to reap the benefits. It is a money designed to not loose value, forchrissake.

Bitcoin is sound money. In a world with sound money, everybody will win. Some will be richer than the others, but so what? In case of no government intervention, the riches of any individual will depend only of his merit. If one individual is good at making money, it means prosperity to everyone, not only to the one earning the extra profits.

A prosperous societey means individual rights, private property AND the general understanding that being rich, not by being friend of the government types, but by the merit of making useful products or services for the consumer, is respectable and deserved.

This was the situation during the industrial revoulution in England. If there is a country or area that have this attitude towards the makers of wealth now, tell me, and I will move there.

[zimmah]

if it ever comes that far, the current owners of bitcoin can only gain goods by spending their bitcoins.

unlike the current wealthy elite, they can not just print more money.

eventually even the richest bitcoiners will go broke if they keep spending their bitcoins.

[bitbeg]

if it ever comes that far, the current owners of bitcoin can only gain goods by spending their bitcoins.

unlike the current wealthy elite, they can not just print more money.

eventually even the richest bitcoiners will go broke if they keep spending their bitcoins.

True, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the richest Bitcoiners came upon an extreme amount of wealth and others did not. In fact, they came about the coins by attributing a value to them that literally comes from thin air, much in the same way as printed money.

[kjj]

...and over half the Bitcoins that will ever exist are already in the hands of such a small amount of people (let's say 1 million?), what would be the repercussions?

As it stands today, a huge chunk of people are left out.

Those who:

- don't have any money to 'invest'
- are without a computer or internet connection
- don't know about Bitcoin
- can, but are unwilling to buy into Bitcoin for any given reason
- are incarcerated, sick, comatose, etc.

The rich can still buy, so they'll never be out of the loop. Besides, they hold value elsewhere which they can always sell for whatever the currency will be.

Forgetting the madness of speculative greed, and just concentrating on those who believe that Bitcoin can one day be the reserve world currency/money-- do you believe that such a disproportion in future wealth is something that's going to be good for humanity?

I always thought that one of the ideas behind Bitcoin would be to somehow 'stick it' to the rich/banks/governments. However, if the best case scenario (or one of them) becomes a reality, the thought of the future disparity makes my stomach turn. As it stands, 1/7000th of the world population already owns 50-60% of the total sum of the future 'money', and most of them are hording.

The possibility of this outcome alone makes Bitcoin the ultimate divider of people and predestines it for failure. The failure can, and most likely will, see it become what it once was-- a niche for a specific type of transaction or completely disappearing, or it will be a failure of humanity on an epic scale.

if it ever comes that far, the current owners of bitcoin can only gain goods by spending their bitcoins.

unlike the current wealthy elite, they can not just print more money.

eventually even the richest bitcoiners will go broke if they keep spending their bitcoins.

True, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the richest Bitcoiners came upon an extreme amount of wealth and others did not. In fact, they came about the coins by attributing a value to them that literally comes from thin air, much in the same way as printed money.

No, see, you are missing some steps.  Bitcoin won't "become the sole reserve currency" with the current distribution.  The Federal Reserve, the ECB and the PBOC aren't going to put out press releases saying "We've adopted bitcoin as the reserve currency.  We don't have any.  Can you sell us some?"

The banks need to acquire them first.  That means buying them from people.  That means changing the bitcoin distribution.  In particular, the central banks would need to gather many, many bitcoins before they could consider using it as a reserve.

Your analysis is very static.  You don't see the system as being a living, moving thing.  But I figure your post is much more political than it is analytical.

[bitbeg]

No, see, you are missing some steps.  Bitcoin won't "become the sole reserve currency" with the current distribution.  The Federal Reserve, the ECB and the PBOC aren't going to put out press releases saying "We've adopted bitcoin as the reserve currency.  We don't have any.  Can you sell us some?"

The banks need to acquire them first.  That means buying them from people.  That means changing the bitcoin distribution.  In particular, the central banks would need to gather many, many bitcoins before they could consider using it as a reserve.

Your analysis is very static.  You don't see the system as being a living, moving thing.  But I figure your post is much more political than it is analytical.

If the banks had to buy them from people, you think they would buy them at whatever the speculative (out of thin air) value is? They would run it to the ground before they would 'buy' a single coin, and at that point it would be useless. The government and/or media can destroy Bitcoin at any time. They've never redistributed their wealth and they're not going to start now because of cryptos-- nothing will force them into that situation, they are the ones in charge and there is no way in hell they will allow competition-- for them, everything is at stake.

This is why I mentioned Bitcoins simply disappearing. My question is a hypothetical/philosophical one.

Most people with some ideals see Bitcoin as a way for the banks/govt to stay out of our pockets-- to not allow them to take more than they already have-- this is seen as unjust. Bitcoin is seen as revolutionary by these people because of its ability to accomplish this. I happen to think that these same people acquiring so much of something for pretty much next to nothing, is also inherently unfair to those that don't, and won't do anything to redistribute the wealth from the ultra rich to the ultra poor. It is a potential revolution for the 'haves' in denial but not for the 'have nots'. They will not actually be taking anything from the super rich, and the wealth (because of the very nature of 'wealth') has to come from somewhere or be in relation to something else. That relation will only cause the poor to become poorer because they didn't gain anything of value, even if they didn't actually 'lose' anything.

[bitbeg]

A prosperous societey means individual rights, private property AND the general understanding that being rich, not by being friend of the government types, but by the merit of making useful products or services for the consumer, is respectable and deserved.

But you can't have it both ways. There is nothing I did that made me potentially deserve anything when I bought a bitcoin. I simply exchanged one method of storing value for another. Sure, bitcoin has some usefulness as a tool for barter, but why would we attribute a value to it, when bitcoins being traded for bitcoins is pointless. If there is only a finite amount of value just as there is a finite amount of resources and people, then where is that value coming from? 

[Loki8]

If cryptocurrency succeeds as a major financial innovation, bitcoin won't be the only one. In fact, some altcoins with superior features could take over most of the cryptocurrency market in as soon as a year or two. Things move fast, and we're still in the early phases of the rise of cryptocurrency. Ordinary people probably still have plenty of time to get into these investments and grow their wealth.

Exactly! Bitcoin is like Napster. After Napster there was Morpheus, Grokster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc. etc. which were then supplanted by eDonkey and BitTorrent. It's never going to stop. People who think Bitcoin will remain the major cryptocurrency on the crypto markets are just naive. The use of technology on the Internet is rapidly evolving. eMunie is a highly advanced cryptocurrency and can be the next big thing.

[kjj]

If the banks had to buy them from people, you think they would buy them at whatever the speculative (out of thin air) value is? They would run it to the ground before they would 'buy' a single coin, and at that point it would be usless. The government and/or media can destroy Bitcoin at any time. They've never redistributed their wealth and they're not going to start now because of cryptos-- nothing will force them into that situation, they are the ones in charge and there is no way in hell they will allow competition-- for them, everything is at stake.

This is why I mentioned Bitcoins simply disappearing. My question is a hypothetical/philosophical one.

Most people with some ideals see Bitcoin as a way for the banks/govt to stay out of our pockets-- to not allow them to take more than they already have-- this is seen as unjust. Bitcoin is seen as revolutionary by these people because of its ability to accomplish this. I happen to think that these same people acquiring so much of something for pretty much next to nothing, is also inherently unfair to those that don't, and won't do anything to redistribute the wealth from the ultra rich to the ultra poor. It is a potential revolution for the 'haves' in denial but not for the 'have nots'. They will not actually be taking anything from the super rich, and the wealth (because of the very nature of 'wealth') has to come from somewhere or be in relation to something else. That relation will only cause the poor to become poorer because they didn't gain anything of value, even if they didn't actually 'lose' anything.

You are so confused that I'm not even sure where to start.

All value is "out of thin air", or really "in our minds".  If the banks want to buy bitcoins, they will do so at a price agreed to by the seller.  That's how markets work, the buyer and seller agree on a price.

I'm not sure how exactly "they would run it to the ground", or how they "can destroy Bitcoin at any time".

You also don't seem to understand the distinction between money and wealth.  To be clear, money is not wealth, it is what you use to purchase wealth.

The people using bitcoin today are not getting rich for "pretty much next to nothing".  Just because you can't see the value in what someone does, does not mean there isn't any.

And finally, bitcoin is an experiment in libertarian/Austrian money.  The goal was not social justice or wealth redistribution or any other left-wing nonsense.  If that was what you wanted, go check out the altcoin section of the forums.  I'm sure there are plenty of scamcoins there that aim to do what you want.

[wobber]

If cryptocurrency succeeds as a major financial innovation, bitcoin won't be the only one. In fact, some altcoins with superior features could take over most of the cryptocurrency market in as soon as a year or two. Things move fast, and we're still in the early phases of the rise of cryptocurrency. Ordinary people probably still have plenty of time to get into these investments and grow their wealth.

Exactly! Bitcoin is like Napster. After Napster there was Morpheus, Grokster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc. etc. which were then supplanted by eDonkey and BitTorrent. It's never going to stop. People who think Bitcoin will remain the major cryptocurrency on the crypto markets are just naive. The use of technology on the Internet is rapidly evolving. eMunie is a highly advanced cryptocurrency and can be the next big thing.

I have read your post and was thinking that you might be right and I might loose all sticking with Bitcoin... And went to eMunie http://emunie.com/how-it-works

LOL.

It's just another for-get-rich coin. Bring something better to the bitcoin protocol and I'll switch. Meanwhile, if people don't like, please don't use it.

[kjj]

A prosperous societey means individual rights, private property AND the general understanding that being rich, not by being friend of the government types, but by the merit of making useful products or services for the consumer, is respectable and deserved.

But you can't have it both ways. There is nothing I did that made me potentially deserve anything when I bought a bitcoin. I simply exchanged one method of storing value for another. Sure, bitcoin has some usefulness as a tool for barter, but why would we attribute a value to it, when bitcoins being traded for bitcoins is pointless. If there is only a finite amount of value just as there is a finite amount of resources and people, then where is that value coming from? 

Just because you can't see the value in what someone does, does not mean there isn't any.

In barter, you trade what you have for what you want.  Money is a way to abstract that transaction out.  You still trade what you have for what you want, but it doesn't need to be with the same person, or at the same time.  You complete your half, giving what you have, for an IOU.  Later, you redeem that IOU with someone else to get what you want.

By holding that IOU, you let society use your wealth, your capital.  You hope that you'll get back a value similar to what you traded first, plus the growth of the capital you let society use.

But money doesn't have a fixed or objective value.  It is subjective, just like everything else.  By holding that IOU, you are also taking the risk that you might not be able to trade it for what you initially gave up.  You might not be able to trade it at all.  Particularly with bitcoin.  By holding your IOU in the form of bitcoin, you are taking a huge risk.  There is also a huge potential upside, but that isn't at all a sure thing.

[bitbeg]

All value is "out of thin air", or really "in our minds".  If the banks want to buy bitcoins, they will do so at a price agreed to by the seller.  That's how markets work, the buyer and seller agree on a price.

I'm not sure how exactly "they would run it to the ground", or how they "can destroy Bitcoin at any time".

You don't think the the banks or government can manipulate the markets? Outlawing, extreme taxing, using the media as a tool for propaganda, etc. are just a few ways.

You also don't seem to understand the distinction between money and wealth.  To be clear, money is not wealth, it is what you use to purchase wealth.

If Bitcoin is supposed to be money, why is one worth $700? Or anything at all?

The people using bitcoin today are not getting rich for "pretty much next to nothing".  Just because you can't see the value in what someone does, does not mean there isn't any.

If I bought BTC1000 for $1000 a couple of years ago I didn't do much to justify having $700,000, or the ability to suddenly buy a house and fancy car. Excuse me if I don't see much 'value' in what I did. The problem is our notion of what is valuable. Hard work or even smart work isn't valuable-- getting as much as possible for as little as possible is what passes as valuable nowadays and is precisely what gives value to Bitcoin.

And finally, bitcoin is an experiment in libertarian/Austrian money.  The goal was not social justice or wealth redistribution or any other left-wing nonsense.  If that was what you wanted, go check out the altcoin section of the forums.  I'm sure there are plenty of scamcoins there that aim to do what you want.

There was a goal of social justice, just not for everyone-- you know, not having banks or governments controlling and taking our money-- remember that? By saying there wasn't means you are admitting that Bitcoin is nothing more than speculative greed driven 'value' quite literally based on nothing. What other usefulness does it have over classic 'money'?

And because you mentioned all the other altcoins-- wouldn't they make Bitcoin 'tech' seem redundant (if that were another aspect of its 'value')?

[kjj]

All value is "out of thin air", or really "in our minds".  If the banks want to buy bitcoins, they will do so at a price agreed to by the seller.  That's how markets work, the buyer and seller agree on a price.

I'm not sure how exactly "they would run it to the ground", or how they "can destroy Bitcoin at any time".

You don't think the the banks or government can manipulate the markets? Outlawing, extreme taxing, using the media as a tool for propaganda, etc. are just a few ways.

I think they can try.  You seem to assume that someone has a magic wand.  If they do, then the topic isn't interesting.  If they don't, then the topic is pointless.

You also don't seem to understand the distinction between money and wealth.  To be clear, money is not wealth, it is what you use to purchase wealth.

If Bitcoin is supposed to be money, why is one worth $700? Or anything at all?

Because someone else is willing to give you that much for one, or they are willing to sell you one at that price.

The people using bitcoin today are not getting rich for "pretty much next to nothing".  Just because you can't see the value in what someone does, does not mean there isn't any.

If I bought BTC1000 for $1000 a couple of years ago I didn't do much to justify having $700,000, or the ability to suddenly buy a house and fancy car. Excuse me if I don't see much 'value' in what I did. The problem is our notion of what is valuable. Hard work or even smart work isn't valuable-- getting as much as possible for as little as possible is what passes as valuable nowadays and is precisely what gives value to Bitcoin.

The good news is that the market doesn't give a fuck what you think.  The market thinks you did something good, and is rewarding you for it.

And finally, bitcoin is an experiment in libertarian/Austrian money.  The goal was not social justice or wealth redistribution or any other left-wing nonsense.  If that was what you wanted, go check out the altcoin section of the forums.  I'm sure there are plenty of scamcoins there that aim to do what you want.

There was a goal of social justice, just not for everyone-- you know, not having banks or governments controlling and taking our money-- remember that? By saying there wasn't means you are admitting that Bitcoin is nothing more than speculative greed driven 'value' quite literally based on nothing. What other usefulness does it have over classic 'money'?

"Social justice" is one of those phrases that always means the opposite of what it means.  In general, people that are interested in actual justice don't use the phrase, and the people that do use the phrase really mean "theft".

And because you mentioned all the other altcoins-- wouldn't they make Bitcoin 'tech' seem redundant (if that were another aspect of its 'value')?

Ever hear of the network effect?  If you created an altcoin that was exactly like bitcoin in every way, why would anyone switch to it?

Now if you create an altcoin with some differences, people will use it depending on the utility they see in those differences.  So far, it would appear that people want bitcoin more than they want the alternatives.  In the long run, we'll see who wins.

I don't think we are actually communicating here.  I'll see if I can try to find a better way to explain it to you.

[PenAndPaper]

Newsflash for noobs, bitcoin isn't about fulfilling your socialist fever dreams of "wealth distribution". It never will be, and we don't care. Nor do we think wealth distribution the way you are talking about it is a particularly good idea.

Bitcoin = GO BIG or GO HOME

Yes but the question is how big? And for how many people to become big 
Saying it that way makes it sound like a ponzi