If Bitcoin became the sole reserve currency...

[kireinaha]

I think it's a totally valid question; don't mind all the others giving you a hard time, they're just butt hurt and in a bad mood today for obvious reasons.

[bitbeg]

...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.

snip...

As soon as i read this, i know its another rambling about...."wealth distribution"

I dont know about you guys but i'm sick of newbies who spent literally 5 mins thinking and then post up.... a "flaw" they just find.


EDIT:
I think we should vote for having Newbie section to up their logged in time requirement to 100hrs.

This isn't a flaw I just found. I think it's a potentially fundamental flaw. Stop acting like you own the place.

Why the fck you think you can have a "discussion" on "fundamental flaw" in a Speculation forum?

Idiot, go do a search, and if you're genuinely interested you will find the discussion and read over all the points that were brought up.

What a lame attempt, troll.
 

You drooling buffoon, I am speculating on the future of Bitcoin.

If it matters to you so much, find the threads, and point me in the right direction. It would be so much more useful and you would make your point with one goddamn post. You would help cleanse this forum (apparently it matter to you that much!), and I would ask a moderator to close and move this thread.

Instead, like the useless waste of disgusting flesh that you are, you resort to insults and stupidity.

 

[freebird]

i'm glad you have brought up a question that hasn't been discussed to death. please explain how the current system is anything but making you sick to your stomach then we'll discuss bitcoins

I haven't discussed it to death with anyone. If you already have, why are you joining another discussion about it?

because this topic has been discussed to death and that's why there is a search feature.

regardless, at least make at attempt to answer my question to you. otherwise it looks like someone is paying you to talk nonsense

The current system has been making me sick to my stomach for quite some time. You are making assumptions that have no basis in reality. The very point of this thread is that the problems that we are currently facing will only (possibly) get worse. My numbers might be off, but even if today 1% (or 70 million) of the world population owns 90% of the money, that is still a better scenario than 1 million owning 60% of it.

Personally, I would rather have a bunch of geeks own most of the money than a bunch of corrupt banks and the governments they buy off.

Any proportion of any group will structure itself in the same way. You will still have greedy geeks-- or are they somehow immune to human nature?

Revolutionaries become tyrants, it has always happened throughout history.

Regardless, the proportions would remain the same. Would these geeks one day, in a moment of mass enlightenment, redistribute the wealth?

And one more point-- it is no longer the just geeks, but rather geeky speculators and speculators alone who are driven by greed that are buying up the most coin and form the the majority of cryptocurrency holders.

The philosophical issue you keep coming back to is your opposition to an unequal distribution of wealth. The problem is, in a free market economy, wealth naturally accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, the poor overthrow the rich through a violent revolution. Then some of the poor revolutionaries become tyrants, as you pointed out. The cycle repeats.

I don't know if there is any permanent escape from this cycle. It seems to be a consistent feature of human history.

What I do know is that for reasons of personal survival, it would be very smart for the average person with a low net worth to be accumulating cryptocurrency right now. Because I certainly don't think the economy is going to be improving anytime soon. All around the world, there is chronic structural unemployment, governments deep in debt and in some cases practically owned by for-profit banks, and a lack of money velocity in the economy because more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a few people who have so much that they don't need to spend it.

The only people who are truly free are those who have enough assets to live off of their wealth (passive income) rather than needing traditional employment. Cryptocurrencies offer ordinary people a chance to reach that level as this technology explodes over the next few years. I suggest that anyone who can do so, take that chance while it still exists.

P.S. I certainly hope that people who become wealthy from investing in bitcoin will share their newfound wealth with needy people and worthy causes. It would be great to see more philanthropy by bitcoiners.

[bitbeg]

The philosophical issue you keep coming back to is your opposition to an unequal distribution of wealth. The problem is, in a free market economy, wealth naturally accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, the poor overthrow the rich through a violent revolution. Then some of the poor revolutionaries become tyrants, as you pointed out. The cycle repeats.

I don't know if there is any permanent escape from this cycle. It seems to be a consistent feature of human history.

What I do know is that for reasons of personal survival, it would be very smart for the average person with a low net worth to be accumulating cryptocurrency right now. Because I certainly don't think the economy is going to be improving anytime soon. All around the world, there is chronic structural unemployment, governments deep in debt and in some cases practically owned by for-profit banks, and a lack of money velocity in the economy because more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a few people who have so much that they don't need to spend it.

The only people who are truly free are those who have enough assets to live off of their wealth (passive income) rather than needing traditional employment. Cryptocurrencies offer ordinary people a chance to reach that level as this technology explodes over the next few years. I suggest that anyone who can do so, take that chance while it still exists.

It's not so much my opposition to wealth disparity in general, but my concern with how Bitcoin (cryptos) can potentially make the extreme disparity we have today look a lot less extreme in the future.

You say anyone should take the chance, but my point is that not just anyone can take the chance, nor will they.

I appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion. With that said, I think your position can be questioned. You say that this is a chance for ordinary people to get a fairer share, but if self-limited cryptos are the way of the future, then aren't a very small amount of early adopters and/or the ones with enough money to invest, going to always form a very small and highly disproportionate amount of wealth holders-- as is already the case today?

Like I said, a tiny amount of the population already holds over half the total amount of Bitcoin. I'm pretty sure the disproportion in other alt-currencies is even more pronounced because they are even less known. And if the amount of potential new currencies is unlimited, then wouldn't it make their very reason for existence pointless?

[freebird]

It's not so much my opposition to wealth disparity in general, but my concern with how Bitcoin (cryptos) can potentially make the extreme disparity we have today look a lot less extreme in the future.

The best case scenario would be the creation of a new altcoin, with superior features to bitcoin, and its creators to be humanitarian type of people who would market the new coin as much as possible to ordinary people, so that there would be (1) more early adopters, and (2) more diversity among the early adopters rather than only geeks. It would have to be a project in which developers would work together with philosophical, socially conscious type of people to achieve a common goal of a "people's currency" that spreads wealth around rather than concentrating it.

My honest opinion is that bitcoin itself is going to become the cryptocurrency for the financial establishment. It's already starting to be embraced by hedge funds, and sooner or later it will be traded as an ETF on the stock market, and within a few years it will be playing a store-of-value role similar to gold in billion-dollar investment portfolios.

I will continue to own bitcoin, because it's a good way to make money and it's a useful tool for sending money abroad without incurring large fees. But I don't believe it's going to fundamentally transfer power to the common folks or anything like that.

You say anyone should take the chance, but my point is that not just anyone can take the chance, nor will they.

True. But that, alas, may be part of the human condition. The smart and the lucky have advantages. It is what it is.

I appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion. With that said, I think your position can be questioned. You say that this is a chance for ordinary people to get a fairer share, but if self-limited cryptos are the way of the future, then aren't a very small amount of early adopters and/or the ones with enough money to invest, going to always form a very small and highly disproportionate amount of wealth holders-- as is already the case today?

There is nothing actually stopping ordinary people from buying bitcoin. They just need to be made aware of it, and they need to be persuaded that it's worth the risk. Even somebody who buys a few hundred bucks worth of it today, could still make thousands of dollars from it within a few years.

[PenAndPaper]

Bitcoin will never be the sole currency just like the internet is not the sole source for news, phones are not the sole way to communicate etc...

How about cryptocurrencies in general? Anything that requires some kind of prior knowledge, 'luck', pre-existing wealth, technological capability etc. will eventually run into the same problem.

What kind of problem? It's not a problem if it doesn't become the sole currency. I don't think anyone hoped for something like that anyway.

If cryptocurrencies become the only currencies, doesn't that still leave a shitload of people behind?

Isn't every single speculator, consciously or not, hoping for that?

When i 'm talking about bitcoins i 'm talking about cryptos in general. And no speculators don't hope for that. They just want as many options as possible in order to speculate 

[bitbeg]

It's not so much my opposition to wealth disparity in general, but my concern with how Bitcoin (cryptos) can potentially make the extreme disparity we have today look a lot less extreme in the future.

The best case scenario would be the creation of a new altcoin, with superior features to bitcoin, and its creators to be humanitarian type of people who would market the new coin as much as possible to ordinary people, so that there would be (1) more early adopters, and (2) more diversity among the early adopters rather than only geeks. It would have to be a project in which developers would work together with philosophical, socially conscious type of people to achieve a common goal of a "people's currency" that spreads wealth around rather than concentrating it.

My honest opinion is that bitcoin itself is going to become the cryptocurrency for the financial establishment. It's already starting to be embraced by hedge funds, and sooner or later it will be traded as an ETF on the stock market, and within a few years it will be playing a store-of-value role similar to gold in billion-dollar investment portfolios.

I will continue to own bitcoin, because it's a good way to make money and it's a useful tool for sending money abroad without incurring large fees. But I don't believe it's going to fundamentally transfer power to the common folks or anything like that.

You say anyone should take the chance, but my point is that not just anyone can take the chance, nor will they.

True. But that, alas, may be part of the human condition. The smart and the lucky have advantages. It is what it is.

I appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion. With that said, I think your position can be questioned. You say that this is a chance for ordinary people to get a fairer share, but if self-limited cryptos are the way of the future, then aren't a very small amount of early adopters and/or the ones with enough money to invest, going to always form a very small and highly disproportionate amount of wealth holders-- as is already the case today?

There is nothing actually stopping ordinary people from buying bitcoin. They just need to be made aware of it, and they need to be persuaded that it's worth the risk. Even somebody who buys a few hundred bucks worth of it today, could still make thousands of dollars from it within a few years.

The smart would look at this as nothing more than a speculative bubble-- everything about it is a classic bubble. If they are smart, they will probably stay away. There is a difference between smart and informed. So the informed might say this isn't a bubble at all, but they will have an extremely hard time justifying that to someone who is rightfully skeptical and using their smarts.

The ordinary might only need to be made aware, but since they're already relatively late to the game, their success will depend on the people that come after them. If there are none, they will fail. The people that got in early, or have already cashed out are the only winners so far. Time will tell if anyone buying in now will profit, but the fact remains that they will drive the price up most for those who got in early. So the later they get on board the less of a potential payout exists, not only because they're late to the party, but because the more people that buy in, the less potential there is for every new 'investor'. That will make it harder to get any ordinary, smart, or even extraordinary folks to buy in.

[I_bitcoin]

The singularity is near.   Some may be left behind .   Good news is that there are some signs that many are connecting and integrating.   Mobile technology in third world countries with things like M-PESA and such.

[niothor]

...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.

So , should I stop washing myself because on other part of the globe people don't have drinking water?
Should we stop having big tv's or powerfull appliances because people on other side of the globe don't have electricity?
Should I refuse 90% of my wage because in Somalia they earn 10% of what i'm earning?
Should I stop using google because some people don't have a clue what internet is?

[over1977v]

The smart would look at this as nothing more than a speculative bubble-- everything about it is a classic bubble. If they are smart, they will probably stay away. There is a difference between smart and informed. So the informed might say this isn't a bubble at all, but they will have an extremely hard time justifying that to someone who is rightfully skeptical and using their smarts.

The ordinary might only need to be made aware, but since they're already relatively late to the game, their success will depend on the people that come after them. If there are none, they will fail. The people that got in early, or have already cashed out are the only winners so far. Time will tell if anyone buying in now will profit, but the fact remains that they will drive the price up most for those who got in early. So the later they get on board the less of a potential payout exists, not only because they're late to the party, but because the more people that buy in, the less potential there is for every new 'investor'. That will make it harder to get any ordinary, smart, or even extraordinary folks to buy in.

So you say smart people dont see how usefull Bitcoin is ? You should maybe invest some time how is Bitcoin used, and not just look at price market...

[PenAndPaper]

The singularity is near.   Some may be left behind .   Good news is that there are some signs that many are connecting and integrating.   Mobile technology in third world countries with things like M-PESA and such.

Care to explain that singularity riddle? Also m-pesa, africa and bitcoins failed to create any hype so far although it shows potential for the currency.

[bitbeg]

So , should I stop washing myself because on other part of the globe people don't have drinking water?

You should treat water as the precious and very limited resource that it is. You should do your moral part as someone who lucked out in the lottery of life and try not only to not be wasteful of water, but to help those without it. Naturally you don't, you're a self-righteous scumbag who feels entitled to things simply because of a luck of the draw.

Should we stop having big tv's or powerfull appliances because people on other side of the globe don't have electricity?

You realize the energy it takes to power your high-tech toys is taken from other parts of the world? Do you realize that people are being killed every single day, and worse yet, live horrific daily lives, because people like you feel justified in their greed by their arrogant sense of entitlement ?

If you do, you're just another asshole. If you don't, you're an idiot. I don't know which is worse.

I'm also pretty sure that you are unaware of the fact that this brand of ultra consumerism is unsustainable, and sooner or later, we'll all be fucked.

Should I refuse 90% of my wage because in Somalia they earn 10% of what i'm earning?

In Somalia, they probably earn 1% of what you're earning. 10% of your wage going to them would automatically increase their wealth by 1000%, while decreasing yours by 10%. So maybe you shouldn't refuse your wage, but you could put it to a use that is something other than simply hoarding for yourself? You know, like helping others. Sure, I understand that charity can be a corrupt business, and that it's sometimes better to give a fishing pole, than actual fish, but we could so much more-- instead of being so damn blind to what is happening around the world.

In relation to Somalia, one of the stated reasons by the pirates for their illegal activities is the illegal dumping of toxic waste by western nations off of their shore. The waste is a direct bi-product of western consumerism.

Should I stop using google because some people don't have a clue what internet is?

How about using google for something more than Bitcoin speculation and porn?

[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.

[niothor]

Should I stop using google because some people don't have a clue what internet is?

How about using google for something more than Bitcoin speculation and porn?

What the hell you can use google for anything other that those two?

[bitbeg]

The smart would look at this as nothing more than a speculative bubble-- everything about it is a classic bubble. If they are smart, they will probably stay away. There is a difference between smart and informed. So the informed might say this isn't a bubble at all, but they will have an extremely hard time justifying that to someone who is rightfully skeptical and using their smarts.

The ordinary might only need to be made aware, but since they're already relatively late to the game, their success will depend on the people that come after them. If there are none, they will fail. The people that got in early, or have already cashed out are the only winners so far. Time will tell if anyone buying in now will profit, but the fact remains that they will drive the price up most for those who got in early. So the later they get on board the less of a potential payout exists, not only because they're late to the party, but because the more people that buy in, the less potential there is for every new 'investor'. That will make it harder to get any ordinary, smart, or even extraordinary folks to buy in.

So you say smart people dont see how usefull Bitcoin is ? You should maybe invest some time how is Bitcoin used, and not just look at price market...

The usage of Bitcoin, on a world scale, and relative to everything else is minimal. It has for most of its history been used for 'off the books' transactions. These transactions were often made to purchase illegal goods. Sure more people are adopting it, but mostly they are doing so to profit somehow from the Bitcoin phenomenon, not because of some profound philosophy or practical future implications. And whatever the tiny % of businesses that have adopted it is, they do not justify the attributed 'value' of any cryptocurrency, because nothing justifies a pricetag (based on fiat, btw) on what is supposed to be a method of exchange. The pricetag is nothing more than speculation.

[bitbeg]

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?

[freebird]

The usage of Bitcoin, on a world scale, and relative to everything else is minimal.

Yeah, that's why it's still a good buy. Because the usage isn't going to be minimal for much longer. It's a very useful technology.

[freebird]

The smart would look at this as nothing more than a speculative bubble-- everything about it is a classic bubble. If they are smart, they will probably stay away.

Did the smart also stay away from buying stock in Microsoft or Apple, pre-IPO?

Bitcoin is currently like a pre-IPO tech stock. You can't even buy it in your online brokerage account yet. And, like tech stocks, it is based on a specific technological innovation. People who are buying bitcoin are betting that the innovation of cryptocurrency is going to catch on and be used much more widely. I think that's a smart position, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that bitcoin's current valuation is just a bubble.

[freebird]

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 think you're underestimating the utility of being able to transfer money across international borders nearly instantaneously and without paying fees to a financial institution.

Bitcoin doesn't have to solve the socioeconomic problems of the world to be a big deal. It just has to provide a useful service that people will want to use.

I share your idealistic desire for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. However, I don't see bitcoin as the solution to that social issue. I just see it as a useful technology that can enable people to transfer money through the internet without a middleman.

[GriTBitS]

there are like 9 million coins left to mine,,, everyone has there chance.... people are going to learn how to be different. savers instead of spenders. its a needed flush of the system. Yes of course 20% going to own 80% thats nature... research 20-80 rule... its universal you cant change it. Best thing to do is protect your coins and protect your family and blood line... Why do you think the rich are so strick on who they associate with and they push out trash... they dont wanna be infected!