A way to lessen inequality in Bitcoin

[jinni]

One could create a donation-based basic income for everyone.

One sets up a fund. Basically a wallet. People donate to that wallet and one creates one wallet for each person in the world and distribute the btc evenly to all those wallets and it is possible for every single human to claim one by giving their fingerprint which is then stored cryptographically (so that one can see that the fingerprints are different but not how they look like) publicly and decentralized so that the same fingerprint cannot claim a wallet twice. With 7bn people 70btc would be enough to give every human one satoshi. The fund can be created before one develops the technology and slowly accumulate.

And just increasing the amount of people using Bitcoin will increase the value Bitcoin has. If you don't want the money or don't want to give your fingerprint don't claim the wallet. Under inflation, giving people money becomes more expensive, under a deflationary regime giving people money becomes cheap, because some day that satoshi is going to be worth a dollar.

In Bitcoin-terms it would be like a faucet but where you don't have to do anything for it to accumulate.

[1714832849]

1714832849

[1714832849]

1714832849

[1714832849]

1714832849

[1714832849]

1714832849

[Catswold]

Like all such . . . umm . . . questionable suggestions, this one shows very little real understanding of human nature.

Go ahead, do precisely that distribute them equally among all the people of the world . . . everything is rosy and all will have money . . . within 6 months, the bulk of those bitcoins will again be in the hands of the minority once more.  Out of the hands of the ignorant and non-productive and back into the hands of industrious investors and businessmen.

Nobody set out to cause wealth to be distributed unevenly, it is a simple manifestation of human nature that some will prosper while others don't.  Can't change it, can't social engineer it, it simply is.  There will always be poor and there will always be wealthy.  It's the natural order of things.

[jinni]

Like all such . . . umm . . . questionable suggestions, this one shows very little real understanding of human nature.

Go ahead, do precisely that distribute them equally among all the people of the world . . . everything is rosy and all will have money . . . within 6 months, the bulk of those bitcoins will again be in the hands of the minority once more.  Out of the hands of the ignorant and non-productive and back into the hands of industrious investors and businessmen.

Nobody set out to cause wealth to be distributed unevenly, it is a simple manifestation of human nature that some will prosper while others don't.  Can't change it, can't social engineer it, it simply is.  There will always be poor and there will always be wealthy.  It's the natural order of things.

I'm not setting out to destroy all wealth inequality. One could have a small opt-out automatic donation on for example .01% of all transactions that goes the wallet that spreads it to everyone. So it is voluntary, but you are given a suggestion to donate a little. Which in time will be worth a lot. A basic income is suggested by many and among others Milton Friedmann liked the idea, it's clean and simple. And with Bitcoin even cleaner and simpler.

As for Bitcoin being back in the hands of a few isn't a problem with the idea, in fact it means that those wealthy who give will get the money back. So maybe they could keep giving and keep getting back instead of hording only.

[Carlton Banks]

While I'm keen on totally brutal free-market principles, they do produce their real-world problems. I think having a full on cultural revolution (where people don't get encouraged to believe that learning is a weakness, most importantly) will solve the problem in the long term, but before that can come about, there's going to be a lot of unfortunate people roaming the streets (hell, there already are).

Some kind of voluntary scheme is sensible, if only to make it safe and comfortable to walk around your neighbourhood. I don't like the idea of being surrounded by beggars and muggers everywhere I go, even if that's what the free market serves up for us.

[jinni]

Such a fund would also give everyone a stake in Bitcoin's success.

[cr1776]

While I'm keen on totally brutal free-market principles, they do produce their real-world problems. I think having a full on cultural revolution (where people don't get encouraged to believe that learning is a weakness, most importantly) will solve the problem in the long term, but before that can come about, there's going to be a lot of unfortunate people roaming the streets (hell, there already are).

Some kind of voluntary scheme is sensible, if only to make it safe and comfortable to walk around your neighbourhood. I don't like the idea of being surrounded by beggars and muggers everywhere I go, even if that's what the free market serves up for us.

I agree with you.  Charity is always a good thing.

It is important to remember that it isn't charity if it is at the point of a gun and it isn't charity if it is someone else's money. :-).

[Carlton Banks]

I've said this elsewhere already, but if the transition to cryptocurrency is anything but smooth (and that's a seriously optimistic scenario), then there will be alot of people who end up losing all their saved money, even their pocket change, because no-one will sell them cryptocurrency in exchange for it. That number could be higher than we'd all be comfortable with, so there's got to be some contingency for how bad that kind of situation could be.

Put another way, when currencies in a fractional reserve system collapse, only the quickest will get any money out in time. What fraction of those quickest will get their money into hard currency before the real value becomes zero? Troubling to think how many people could be left with nothing. I will not be happy with that situation.

[cr1776]

I've said this elsewhere already, but if the transition to cryptocurrency is anything but smooth (and that's a seriously optimistic scenario), then there will be alot of people who end up losing all their saved money, even their pocket change, because no-one will sell them cryptocurrency in exchange for it. That number could be higher than we'd all be comfortable with, so there's got to be some contingency for how bad that kind of situation could be.

Put another way, when currencies in a fractional reserve system collapse, only the quickest will get any money out in time. What fraction of those quickest will get their money into hard currency before the real value becomes zero? Troubling to think how many people could be left with nothing. I will not be happy with that situation.

Good point. I am not sure if it would be a slow collapse or extremely fast. Or if the currency and bit coin will coexist.  Often I lean towards coexistence for a long time.

However if it happened quickly, it would be terrible for people who lose it all.

[jinni]

Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.

Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.

[jinni]

Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.

Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.

By simply giving away to everyone Bitcoin you could buy the support for Bitcoin from the entire world population.

[Ibian]

Fucking commies.

There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs. Charity spreads weakness, it does not cure it.

[cr1776]

Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.

Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.

If you mean each person will have 70 btc, you may want to check the math. :-)

[jinni]

There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs.

It wont solve the worlds problems, but it will at make Bitcoin mainstream.

[Ibian]

If bitcoin needs to stoop to bribery to become mainstream instead of doing so on its own merits then it won't last and I want no part of it. No matter the form of money, once socialism sets in we will be right back where we were. Only without the ability to print money, which will make the system collapse that much faster. There can not be winners without losers, and everyone being equal means nobody is doing that great. Set up your own private soup kitchen if you want but don't try to drag the world along with it.

[jinni]

Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.

Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.

If you mean each person will have 70 btc, you may want to check the math. :-)

I meant 70 BTC is enough to give everyone one satoshi, and then everyone has a stake in making Bitcoin more valuable. If more than 70 btc comes in, then great, more satoshis for everyone. If 7000 btc kome in everyone will have 1000 satoshis. That means that the price has to go to $100k/btc for that to be worth $1, but it wont flood the market because it will take time to implement so that people can actually access their wallets. Price went up 100x in 2013. If 7000btc were given away as a free gift, the price could easily go up to $100k in 2014. And according to Dan Arielys Predictably Irrational, the best way to make someone want something is to give away a free gift.

[Siegfried]

I've said this elsewhere already, but if the transition to cryptocurrency is anything but smooth (and that's a seriously optimistic scenario), then there will be alot of people who end up losing all their saved money, even their pocket change, because no-one will sell them cryptocurrency in exchange for it. That number could be higher than we'd all be comfortable with, so there's got to be some contingency for how bad that kind of situation could be.

Put another way, when currencies in a fractional reserve system collapse, only the quickest will get any money out in time. What fraction of those quickest will get their money into hard currency before the real value becomes zero? Troubling to think how many people could be left with nothing. I will not be happy with that situation.

Well, most people in the world today already have basically nothing. Even in the United States the average person's net worth is less than 5,000 dollars and they live from paycheck to paycheck. When the fractional reserve system collapses, I believe the new economy will give more people a fair chance to accumulate money and eventually achieve a basic level of financial security.

[cr1776]

Making such a fund will make bitcoin gain legitimacy as everyone has a stake. Once you have 70BTC every human can have a stake in Bitcoin. At least on paper until the fingerprint reading equipment thing is sorted out. It would be in every Bitcoiners best interest to donate a portion of their holdings to such a fund.

Edit: in fact every Bitcoin-holder would benefit from giving away Bitcoin until it hits a sweet spot of potential increase in BTC price and BTC-percentage given away.

If you mean each person will have 70 btc, you may want to check the math. :-)

I meant 70 BTC is enough to give everyone one satoshi, and then everyone has a stake in making Bitcoin more valuable. If more than 70 btc comes in, then great, more satoshis for everyone. If 7000 btc kome in everyone will have 1000 satoshis. That means that the price has to go to $100k/btc for that to be worth $1, but it wont flood the market because it will take time to implement so that people can actually access their wallets. Price went up 100x in 2013. If 7000btc were given away as a free gift, the price could easily go up to $100k in 2014. And according to Dan Arielys Predictably Irrational, the best way to make someone want something is to give away a free gift.

I see. Thanks for clarifying!

[Siegfried]

Fucking commies.

There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs. Charity spreads weakness, it does not cure it.

If bitcoin needs to stoop to bribery to become mainstream instead of doing so on its own merits then it won't last and I want no part of it. No matter the form of money, once socialism sets in we will be right back where we were. Only without the ability to print money, which will make the system collapse that much faster. There can not be winners without losers, and everyone being equal means nobody is doing that great. Set up your own private soup kitchen if you want but don't try to drag the world along with it.

These posts demonstrate a significant intellectual deficit. The original post described a system of voluntary charitable contributions, not communism. I cannot understand your hatred of what most normal people consider to be basic morality. I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite because you have accepted kindness and generosity from others many times throughout your life. Clearly you have some serious psychological issues. Are you Michelle Bachmann?

[jinni]

If bitcoin needs to stoop to bribery to become mainstream instead of doing so on its own merits then it won't last and I want no part of it. No matter the form of money, once socialism sets in we will be right back where we were. Only without the ability to print money, which will make the system collapse that much faster. There can not be winners without losers, and everyone being equal means nobody is doing that great. Set up your own private soup kitchen if you want but don't try to drag the world along with it.

When ushering in a new system it makes sense to get everyone started with some satoshis to even the playing field a little.

[Ibian]

Fucking commies.

There is this saying, maybe some of you know it. Goes something like this: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a man a fishing rod, and he will trade it for a fish! This is because man is lazy and will always have his hand out as long as there are hand-outs. Charity spreads weakness, it does not cure it.

If bitcoin needs to stoop to bribery to become mainstream instead of doing so on its own merits then it won't last and I want no part of it. No matter the form of money, once socialism sets in we will be right back where we were. Only without the ability to print money, which will make the system collapse that much faster. There can not be winners without losers, and everyone being equal means nobody is doing that great. Set up your own private soup kitchen if you want but don't try to drag the world along with it.

These posts demonstrate a significant intellectual deficit. The original post described a system of voluntary charitable contributions, not communism. I cannot understand your hatred of what most normal people consider to be basic morality. I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite because you have accepted kindness and generosity from others many times throughout your life. Clearly you have some serious psychological issues. Are you Michelle Bachmann?

"Most normal people" are fools. I don't believe this needs to be contested so why you would try that argument is beyond me. And you appear to be a dick.