Bitcoin redistribution

[henryreardon]

Given the political leanings of the country these days, when Bitcoin really explodes and the value of bitcoins goes through the roof, can y'all see something like this going down:

Reporter: Mr. President!  What do you think about the fact that 80% of bitcoins are held by 10% of the population?

Obama: I and many of my fellow Americans believe that that is unfair.  We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance with Bitcoin. 

Reporter:  Do you plan to take any action in this regard?

Obama:  Yes.  I am am working in a bipartisan manner to introduce legislation that would ensure that all Americans receive opportunities with Bitcoin.

Lone Fox Reporter:  So do you plan to redistribute bitcoins from those who hold them to those who don't?

Obama:  All Americans deserve opportunities.  That is the kind of country I believe in, and that is the kind of country that you elected me to lead.

(applause... fade to black...)

[thinkloop]

The high concentration of Bitcoin in few hands has been a lingering deterrent to my investing heavily in it. I wonder if this will be a hindrance to its adoption by big investors and institutions. It's not the uneven distribution of wealth that's the problem, but the danger of few individuals having the power to manipulate the value of the currency at will. The risk may be too much for sophisticated funds to justify investing big.

[knightcoin]

Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just 1%

Just 8.4% of all the 5bn adults in the world own 83.4% of all household wealth (that’s property and financial assets, like stocks, shares and cash in the bank).  About 393 million people have net worth (that’s wealth after all debt is accounted for) of over $100,000, that’s 10% own 86% of all household wealth!  But $100,000 may not seem that much, if you own a house in any G7 country without any mortgage.  So many millions in the UK or the US are in the top 10% of global wealth holders.  This shows just how little two-thirds of adults in the world have – under $10,000 of net wealth each and billions have nothing at all.

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/

[Kungfucheez]

Are you high or something?

[thinkloop]

Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just 1%

Just 8.4% of all the 5bn adults in the world own 83.4% of all household wealth (that’s property and financial assets, like stocks, shares and cash in the bank).  About 393 million people have net worth (that’s wealth after all debt is accounted for) of over $100,000, that’s 10% own 86% of all household wealth!  But $100,000 may not seem that much, if you own a house in any G7 country without any mortgage.  So many millions in the UK or the US are in the top 10% of global wealth holders.  This shows just how little two-thirds of adults in the world have – under $10,000 of net wealth each and billions have nothing at all.

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/

The top 50 holders of Bitcoin control 3.5m out of 13m coins, or 27% of the supply. The top 50 richest Americans are worth $700b out of $10t dollars, or 7%. Money supply chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MB,_M1_and_M2_aggregates_from_1981_to_2012.png

That's assuming their entire wealth is in USD, which, of course, it's not. The dollar is significantly more dispersed.

[domob]

Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just 1%

Just 8.4% of all the 5bn adults in the world own 83.4% of all household wealth (that’s property and financial assets, like stocks, shares and cash in the bank).  About 393 million people have net worth (that’s wealth after all debt is accounted for) of over $100,000, that’s 10% own 86% of all household wealth!  But $100,000 may not seem that much, if you own a house in any G7 country without any mortgage.  So many millions in the UK or the US are in the top 10% of global wealth holders.  This shows just how little two-thirds of adults in the world have – under $10,000 of net wealth each and billions have nothing at all.

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/

The top 50 holders of Bitcoin control 3.5m out of 13m coins, or 27% of the supply. The top 50 richest Americans are worth $700b out of $10t dollars, or 7%. Money supply chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MB,_M1_and_M2_aggregates_from_1981_to_2012.png

I assume you mean "top 50 addresses"?  (I don't see how one could get information about "top holders" as in persons, not addresses, for Bitcoin.)  In that case, these addresses probably include business addresses of exchanges, for instance.  In the USD world, you also can't include accounts that banks own into your statistics.

[cr1776]

Given the political leanings of the country these days, when Bitcoin really explodes and the value of bitcoins goes through the roof, can y'all see something like this going down:

Reporter: Mr. President!  What do you think about the fact that 80% of bitcoins are held by 10% of the population?

Obama: I and many of my fellow Americans believe that that is unfair.  We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance with Bitcoin.  

Reporter:  Do you plan to take any action in this regard?

Obama:  Yes.  I am am working in a bipartisan manner to introduce legislation that would ensure that all Americans receive opportunities with Bitcoin.

Lone Fox Reporter:  So do you plan to redistribute bitcoins from those who hold them to those who don't?

Obama:  All Americans deserve opportunities.  That is the kind of country I believe in, and that is the kind of country that you elected me to lead.

(applause... fade to black...)

Plausible if bit coin became huge.  i am waiting to see how the "redistribution of oil" works since it is quite concentrated in a few areas and "it isn't fair" to the world, particularly Africa since the can't afford it.  Ditto ocean front property in Hawaii.  'Spread the wealth around' via government was the phrase that he used in 2008.

 :-)

And addresses =/= people.  And some are exchanges.

[Akka]

Obama:  All Americans deserve opportunities.  That is the kind of country I believe in, and that is the kind of country that you elected me to lead.
(applause... fade to black...)

If that happens, I'm curious on how they identify the American Bitcoins, to redistribute them between Americans. Or are you saying they will attempt to steal the money of everyone worldwide to distribute it between Americans?

[greyman]

With my economic knowledge being limited, can someone explain what are the main disadvantages of such a distribution we've got in Bitcoin?

[Akka]

With my economic knowledge being limited, can someone explain what are the main disadvantages of such a distribution we've got in Bitcoin?

It's that many are envy of people getting rich and automatically thinks it's unfair. Even if they never had made and will make the same decisions /take the same risks as the people which accomplish it.

[acsalles]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

[knightcoin]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

That's what's Bill Gates is doing, Gates has reduced his stock holding hodling on pre schedule share sell off, and transferring his wealth to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[henryreardon]

If that happens, I'm curious on how they identify the American Bitcoins, to redistribute them between Americans. Or are you saying they will attempt to steal the money of everyone worldwide to distribute it between Americans?

I imagine they'd get some dinosaurs together and issue some silly law along the lines of...

The United States v. Satoshi and the Early Adopter Bitcoin community, 987 U.S. 479, 527 (2014)

All current US citizens who hold bitcoins shall remit them to the US Treasury 32uEbMgunupShBVTewXjtqbBv5MndwfXhb according to the following schedule:

<100 bitcoins - 10%

100-500 bitcoins - 30%

500+ bitcoins - 60%

And they'd have some curmudgeon on TV explaining to Al Bundy America how Bitcoin is a series of tubes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4) and how this law is needed in the name of fairness.

[Ibian]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

Satoshi is not stupid enough to believe in the climate change garbage. A religious nut could not have made something like bitcoin.

[domob]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

Satoshi is not stupid enough to believe in the climate change garbage. A religious nut could not have made something like bitcoin.

I don't want to be carried off-topic and I also don't know how things are in the US much (where seemingly most of the religious nuts and climate-deniers are), but I would associate religious nuts with denying climate change, not the other way round as your statement suggests.  Why do you think that religious nuts in particular are those supporting scientifically evidenced climate change?  (When they opposed scientifically evidenced evolutionary theory, for instance.)

[shawshankinmate37927]

Given the political leanings of the country these days, when Bitcoin really explodes and the value of bitcoins goes through the roof, can y'all see something like this going down:

Reporter: Mr. President!  What do you think about the fact that 80% of bitcoins are held by 10% of the population?

Obama: I and many of my fellow Americans believe that that is unfair.  We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance with Bitcoin. 

Reporter:  Do you plan to take any action in this regard?

Obama:  Yes.  I am am working in a bipartisan manner to introduce legislation that would ensure that all Americans receive opportunities with Bitcoin.

Lone Fox Reporter:  So do you plan to redistribute bitcoins from those who hold them to those who don't?

Obama:  All Americans deserve opportunities.  That is the kind of country I believe in, and that is the kind of country that you elected me to lead.

(applause... fade to black...)

Why not just creare a new ObamaCoin that is equally distributed to all Americans? 

[Ibian]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

Satoshi is not stupid enough to believe in the climate change garbage. A religious nut could not have made something like bitcoin.

I don't want to be carried off-topic and I also don't know how things are in the US much (where seemingly most of the religious nuts and climate-deniers are), but I would associate religious nuts with denying climate change, not the other way round as your statement suggests.  Why do you think that religious nuts in particular are those supporting scientifically evidenced climate change?  (When they opposed scientifically evidenced evolutionary theory, for instance.)

Too bad, we are officially derailed.

The so-called manmade global warming shit is pure politics and superstition. The science is, in fact, divided on how much and even if we make a meaningful difference, what the factors are and useful responses to it.

But even if we pretend we are in fact warming the planet, that is vastly preferable to keeping the pre-oil and coal status quo because that would result in another ice age. We are at the tail end of one of the short warm periods, so keep on burning that coal and oil. If they are right there is a nonzero chance we are warding off an ice age, and if they are wrong any attempts to "fix" things would just be money out the window.

Additionally, just for completeness sake, keep in mind there are no actual "climate scientists". There is no such thing, it doesn't exist. There are geologists and meteorologists and such, but there are no actual climate scientists. It's a term the media made up.

[thinkloop]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

Satoshi is not stupid enough to believe in the climate change garbage. A religious nut could not have made something like bitcoin.

I don't want to be carried off-topic and I also don't know how things are in the US much (where seemingly most of the religious nuts and climate-deniers are), but I would associate religious nuts with denying climate change, not the other way round as your statement suggests.  Why do you think that religious nuts in particular are those supporting scientifically evidenced climate change?  (When they opposed scientifically evidenced evolutionary theory, for instance.)

Too bad, we are officially derailed.

The so-called manmade global warming shit is pure politics and superstition. The science is, in fact, divided on how much and even if we make a meaningful difference, what the factors are and useful responses to it.

But even if we pretend we are in fact warming the planet, that is vastly preferable to keeping the pre-oil and coal status quo because that would result in another ice age. We are at the tail end of one of the short warm periods, so keep on burning that coal and oil. If they are right there is a nonzero chance we are warding off an ice age, and if they are wrong any attempts to "fix" things would just be money out the window.

Additionally, just for completeness sake, keep in mind there are no actual "climate scientists". There is no such thing, it doesn't exist. There are geologists and meteorologists and such, but there are no actual climate scientists. It's a term the media made up.

True or not, seems weird to dump poison in the atmosphere - why not err on the side of clean air?

[Ibian]

If prices are getting very high, Satoshi would not really need hundreds of billions of Dollars, it makes more sense if he is voluntarialy organizing a serious "giveaway" and distributed it to non-profitable organizations working agains climate-change, to red-cross, fund educational programs, etc...

He would remain very, very rich, would make Bitcoin safer and definitely write his name in history.

Satoshi is not stupid enough to believe in the climate change garbage. A religious nut could not have made something like bitcoin.

I don't want to be carried off-topic and I also don't know how things are in the US much (where seemingly most of the religious nuts and climate-deniers are), but I would associate religious nuts with denying climate change, not the other way round as your statement suggests.  Why do you think that religious nuts in particular are those supporting scientifically evidenced climate change?  (When they opposed scientifically evidenced evolutionary theory, for instance.)

Too bad, we are officially derailed.

The so-called manmade global warming shit is pure politics and superstition. The science is, in fact, divided on how much and even if we make a meaningful difference, what the factors are and useful responses to it.

But even if we pretend we are in fact warming the planet, that is vastly preferable to keeping the pre-oil and coal status quo because that would result in another ice age. We are at the tail end of one of the short warm periods, so keep on burning that coal and oil. If they are right there is a nonzero chance we are warding off an ice age, and if they are wrong any attempts to "fix" things would just be money out the window.

Additionally, just for completeness sake, keep in mind there are no actual "climate scientists". There is no such thing, it doesn't exist. There are geologists and meteorologists and such, but there are no actual climate scientists. It's a term the media made up.

True or not, seems weird to dump poison in the air - why not err on the side of a clean environment?

CO2 is not a poison.

[thinkloop]

True or not, seems weird to dump poison in the atmosphere - why not err on the side of clean air?

CO2 is not a poison.

Anything is a poison in the right doses, but what about carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, etc.?