I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price. But, what else is new? In which way is this different from, say, shares in startups? Some people get a brilliant idea, work day and night for several years, then let their company go public. Sure, the founders have shitloads of shares and get rich. Is that a problem? Would you demand Sergey Brin to disclose what he plans to do with his money earned from selling Google shares? If so, go play somewhere else!
Visible yes, but in plainsight? No.
I am fairly convinced that had anyone EVER introduced me to this thing called bitcoin I would have been all over it.
Problem is there were no commercials there were people screeming "see this!"
Had I just been intriduced og seen an article or anything, but no satoshi and a few other people knew they had a goldmine so they werent in a hurry to tell people about it and I cant blame them, I would do the same.
As I see it they premined exactly to the point that we wouldnt mind too much.
The tought that satoshi could (If he wanted to) crash the price back to a few pennies per bitcoin makes me sick.
That to me dosnt sound like fair market.
I think if satoshi at this point wanted to strengthen the bitcoin community he should either destroy his million bitcoins or use them slowly for the good of bitcoin, but eitherway people will get very scared should his coins ever move.
It might just scare bitcoin to death.
I can trust the market to be fiar/Do-its-thing, but I cant trust a single man when I dont even know his real name.
This argument is ridiculous. What did you expect? A global advertisement campaign costing tens of millions of dollars before BTC ever had its first documented transaction and therefore no established value? You have a weird concept of what "fair" is.
Given the 7+ billion people on this planet of which over half have no direct private Internet access, I'd love to hear what you would have done otherwise to, 1) ensure everyone knows about the idea and that everyone gets an equal opportunity to get in at the same time, 2) ensure that the tens of millions of dollars you spent marketing the idea can be recouped by the value you believe BTC is destined to reach, and 3) prevent Satoshi from reaping the rewards of his own invention, which would probably make recouping that advertising money impossible, anyway? I mean, even typing this sounds ridiculous.
It was more like, "Hey, here's this cool idea I came up with. I think it's novel. Here's exactly how it works, and you can do whatever you want with it. But, I'm going to start mining this thing, and you're welcome to join if you want to." And you call that unfair?
