So, did the people who whined about early adopters buy cheap BTC?

[Gabi]

Cause they were all like "omg early adopters bought tons of btc for a so low price! This is not fair!"

Well, did you buy them at 6$ now? What? You didn't? Guess what? I expected that.

Why? Cause omg price is low, crash, fail, blabla? But but but that's exactly what early adopters faced, an almost unknown currency at very low price, they risked a LOT and won (BTC price then increased). While you are only good at whining  


BTC at 6$ was a chance to buy them at a low price even in august 2011, if you whined about early adopters AND you missed that then you are just a whiner  

Why i open that thread? Cause i'm tired of reading about ppl who is good only to whine about early adopters and of course can't be bothered to risk when price is low.

[1714027581]

1714027581

[1714027581]

1714027581

[1714027581]

1714027581

[1714027581]

1714027581

[hugolp]

+1

I approve this message.

[Vladimir]

BTC at 6$ was a chance to buy them at a low price even in august 2011, if you whined about early adopters AND you missed that then you are just a whiner  

This also applies to those who sold below 10$ (or 1000$). Wanna be seen as an early adopter, than hold on to most of your bitcoin until 2015 or something.

Nobody remembers those who bought some BRK/A shares at 10$ and sold at 11$. Those who bought than and still owns a few percent of those are entirely different matter.

[evoorhees]

Cause they were all like "omg early adopters bought tons of btc for a so low price! This is not fair!"

Well, did you buy them at 6$ now? What? You didn't? Guess what? I expected that.

Why? Cause omg price is low, crash, fail, blabla? But but but that's exactly what early adopters faced, an almost unknown currency at very low price, they risked a LOT and won (BTC price then increased). While you are only good at whining  


BTC at 6$ was a chance to buy them at a low price even in august 2011, if you whined about early adopters AND you missed that then you are just a whiner  

Why i open that thread? Cause i'm tired of reading about ppl who is good only to whine about early adopters and of course can't be bothered to risk when price is low.

+1!!!!!!  The term "early adopter" should be changed to "wild risk taker". I think a lot of people just want to be given a bunch of valuable stuff, and have no risk attached

[SgtSpike]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

[The_Duke]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

This.

And comparing buying BTC at $0.001 each (or mining them with hundreds per week) or at $6 each is kinda idiotic.

[FlipPro]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

This.

And comparing buying BTC at $0.001 each (or mining them with hundreds per week) or at $6 each is kinda idiotic.

If your so worried about it why not just mine IXcoin? You can be an early adopter right now!

ixcoin.org

...

Seriously what do you want?

[Explodicle]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

In hindsight maybe a slower curve or earlier hype would have been better for economic stability, but at this point I feel like changing the rules would do more harm than good. A new fork wouldn't gain acceptance before the Bitcoin early adopters all sell out and the problem solves itself. It's not like they don't "deserve" it, so what's the big deal?

[SgtSpike]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

In hindsight maybe a slower curve or earlier hype would have been better for economic stability, but at this point I feel like changing the rules would do more harm than good. A new fork wouldn't gain acceptance before the Bitcoin early adopters all sell out and the problem solves itself. It's not like they don't "deserve" it, so what's the big deal?

What's the big deal?

The big deal is, no one will accept Bitcoins to replace any major currency once they realize how much the early adopters hold.

Right now, the world's richest man holds what, 60 or 70 billion USD?  The 1.5 million BTC that Satoshi holds now would effectively become at least one TRILLION dollars if BTC replaced the USD.  That's just too much to be acceptable by any reasonable person.  WAY too much.

[N12]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

Agreed. It can be a problem for stability.

Also, what people here are forgetting is that early adopters usually have CPU mined their wealth. Running a CPU consuming app for a few weeks is neither risky or wild. That’s something people even do for free to help a cause, like folding@home.

Putting your money in Bitcoin or today’s mining hardware is certainly risky though.

[RodeoX]

Even if you bought at $9 two days ago and sold today for $11, bitcoin would outperform your stocks for the entire year. 
And I agree with the OP. Don't hate just because you can't pull the trigger.

[jancsika]

The OP creates a false dichotomy between early adopters, who "risked a LOT and won" (OP's emphasis), and late adopters who "are only good at whining".

Here's a counterexample of an early adopter who is a "whiner" and also feels differently about the level of risk he took:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10755.0

But that's just an aside.  As far as I can tell, Satoshi either didn't consider the consequences of having no relationship between block difficulty and block reward, or he/she purposefully wanted no relationship.  This poor design will hinder wider adoption of Bitcoin because it simply doesn't make sense to newcomers that the same rewards are given regardless of how much security is being provided for the block chain.

But maybe the bigger problem is that this _makes_ sense to people who aren't newcomers.

Or maybe it's just me.  Can someone please explain the lack of relationship I mentioned above, without resorting to "Satoshi designed the system so he/she deserves those coins," or, "whiners be hatin'," or, "RALLY!!!, etc."?  In fact let's make it really clean by leaving miners/investors out completely-- I just want to know why Bitcoin is designed this way.

[Vladimir]

Or maybe it's just me.  Can someone please explain the lack of relationship I mentioned above, without resorting to "Satoshi designed the system so he/she deserves those coins," or, "whiners be hatin'," or, "RALLY!!!, etc."?  In fact let's make it really clean by leaving miners/investors out completely-- I just want to know why Bitcoin is designed this way.

This is actually a very simple question to answer. This design allowed to solve bootstrap problem, also known as catch 22 or chicken and egg problem.

i.e. it is not a bug it is a feature as are many other properties of bitcoin.

[kokjo]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

+1 agreed! did just put that in my sig!

[evoorhees]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

Hmmm maybe I'm just weird, but this seems like the biggest non-issue of all the non-issues. Those who "adopted" earliest represented the greatest initial thrust behind the project. Bitcoin was a "silly nothing" when the early adopters got involved... and without them it would've forever remained as such. I sincerely hope those early adopters make a fortune, and I care not at all what "proportion" of Bitcoins any single person owns.

Those who hold the most coins have the greatest incentive to see them succeed, and if they decide to "dump" them, then all the complainers will get a great opportunity to buy for cheap!  I really don't see the concern here... but it seems just like jealousy and a misunderstanding of how prices and markets work.

[SgtSpike]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

Hmmm maybe I'm just weird, but this seems like the biggest non-issue of all the non-issues. Those who "adopted" earliest represented the greatest initial thrust behind the project. Bitcoin was a "silly nothing" when the early adopters got involved... and without them it would've forever remained as such. I sincerely hope those early adopters make a fortune, and I care not at all what "proportion" of Bitcoins any single person owns.

Those who hold the most coins have the greatest incentive to see them succeed, and if they decide to "dump" them, then all the complainers will get a great opportunity to buy for cheap!  I really don't see the concern here... but it seems just like jealousy and a misunderstanding of how prices and markets work.

I'm not jealous.  I just know that when the world looks at Satoshi and a few others as owning a large percentage of the currency (and thus having a large amount of power with regards to money supply, inflation/deflation, pricing, political movements, etc), the world is going to have a problem with it.  It's one big roadblock to Bitcoins replacing any fiat currency.

You yourself may not have a problem with it, but it should at least concern you, from the perspective of having more people adopt and use bitcoin.

[Maged]

The 1.5 million BTC that Satoshi holds now...

Where is that number coming from? It simply isn't true.

Or maybe it's just me.  Can someone please explain the lack of relationship I mentioned above, without resorting to "Satoshi designed the system so he/she deserves those coins," or, "whiners be hatin'," or, "RALLY!!!, etc."?  In fact let's make it really clean by leaving miners/investors out completely-- I just want to know why Bitcoin is designed this way.

This is actually a very simple question to answer. This design allowed to solve bootstrap problem, also known as catch 22 or chicken and egg problem.

i.e. it is not a bug it is a feature as are many other properties of bitcoin.

This. It was needed in order to make Bitcoin irresistible to people early on. Without it, we wouldn't have nearly as many people today, ESPECIALLY MINERS. Thanks to an ever-increasing difficulty, it applied the very important "BUY(mine) NOW!!!" rule of advertising. If you knew that you could make the same tomorrow as you could today, would you be in that much of a hurry to secure the Bitcoin network? Even if the only thing we wouldn't have had much of today was miners, we'd be screwed. Bitcoin was officially attacked a few months ago. If it wasn't for the inflated security of the Blockchain that was caused by keeping the block reward the same, Bitcoin would have been successfully destroyed, instead of a few Bitcoin-related sites.

[SgtSpike]

Maged - I don't know what the exact number is, but since you said it isn't true, you must know?

[kokjo]

I don't have a problem with early adopters being rewarded.  I DO have a problem with any single person holding more than 0.5% of the currency available.

Hmmm maybe I'm just weird, but this seems like the biggest non-issue of all the non-issues. Those who "adopted" earliest represented the greatest initial thrust behind the project. Bitcoin was a "silly nothing" when the early adopters got involved... and without them it would've forever remained as such. I sincerely hope those early adopters make a fortune, and I care not at all what "proportion" of Bitcoins any single person owns.

Those who hold the most coins have the greatest incentive to see them succeed, and if they decide to "dump" them, then all the complainers will get a great opportunity to buy for cheap!  I really don't see the concern here... but it seems just like jealousy and a misunderstanding of how prices and markets work.

you are weird. it simply can't be good for the market if anyone is holding too much of the currency.
they are over rewarded, i have no problem with them getting insanely rich. 0.5% is way too much. 0.005% is much more fair. yes its only  1050. and you can't buy much with that now. but lets seen in 5-10 years, i think they will be insanely rich, and i will too, even if i only have 35 btc.

[aq]

I'm not jealous.  I just know that when the world looks at Satoshi and a few others as owning a large percentage of the currency (and thus having a large amount of power with regards to money supply, inflation/deflation, pricing, political movements, etc), the world is going to have a problem with it.  It's one big roadblock to Bitcoins replacing any fiat currency.

The fed, which is a single institution, can print as much USD as they want. So they print them self a much larger percentage than Satoshi will ever have. Is it a roadblock to use USD? Apparently no. So Satoshi could end up as a tiny little mini-fed, sort of a small regulative to the bitcoin world, if he even cares