Bitcoin redistribution

[Ibian]

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.?

Just stop. CO2 is required for plants to live which is required for YOU to live. Stop with the idiocy.

[1715024764]

1715024764

[1715024764]

1715024764

[1715024764]

1715024764

[1715024764]

1715024764

[RodeoX]

Are you high or something?

LOL. I swear I was thinking the same thing.

Honestly, where do people get this stuff? By this logic Obama would already have given you my land, gold, money, stocks, etc. And in the case of bitcoin how would anyone know who has bitcoins anyway? In fact the estimate of what percent is held by what percent is a very, very rough guess.

[keithers]

with any form of currency, investment, or asset, there is always a distribution that has a few heavy hitters at the top who own the most bitcoins, dollars, euros, yen, stock, etc.  Then there are people in the middle, and obviously the lower portion that just has a small amount.   That is just the nature of money.   Anything that has to do with money will always have a distribution like this...there really isn't a way around this unless there were guidelines and laws prohibiting a person to have more than X amount of whatever instrument that you are talking about...

[Siegfried]

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.?

Just stop. CO2 is required for plants to live which is required for YOU to live. Stop with the idiocy.

How would you like to live on Venus?

[Kungfucheez]

lol

That didn't take very long for the conversation to go from Bitcoins, to Climate change, to Venus. 

[Xav]

with any form of currency, investment, or asset, there is always a distribution that has a few heavy hitters at the top who own the most bitcoins, dollars, euros, yen, stock, etc.  Then there are people in the middle, and obviously the lower portion that just has a small amount.   That is just the nature of money.   Anything that has to do with money will always have a distribution like this...there really isn't a way around this unless there were guidelines and laws prohibiting a person to have more than X amount of whatever instrument that you are talking about...

What if?

What if this Bitcoin-community stays limited up to about a few million users, world wide, because each participant thinks 'my coins are going to be worth much much more in the future so why would I spend'? Bitcoin will then grow into a paradoxical dilemma, for the value of its Network increases by the size, which offers no other solution then to spread anyway; spread and conquer, spread to survive. Also, a BTC will 'remain' just a useless binary chunk of storage when circulating from speculator to speculator, ultimately just providing a few miners some profits probably. On the other hand, Bitcoin is not in a hurry and it might also be true that the longer it exists the more trusted it becomes; it survived many an attack already which adds to its reputation ...

In graphical terms; nobody knows if and where the elbow shows up.


 

[Ibian]

with any form of currency, investment, or asset, there is always a distribution that has a few heavy hitters at the top who own the most bitcoins, dollars, euros, yen, stock, etc.  Then there are people in the middle, and obviously the lower portion that just has a small amount.   That is just the nature of money.   Anything that has to do with money will always have a distribution like this...there really isn't a way around this unless there were guidelines and laws prohibiting a person to have more than X amount of whatever instrument that you are talking about...

What if?

What if this Bitcoin-community stays limited up to about a few million users, world wide, because each participant thinks 'my coins are going to be worth much much more in the future so why would I spend'? Bitcoin will then grow into a paradoxical dilemma, for the value of its Network increases by the size, which offers no other solution then to spread anyway; spread and conquer, spread to survive. Also, a BTC will 'remain' just a useless binary chunk of storage when circulating from speculator to speculator, ultimately just providing a few miners some profits probably. On the other hand, Bitcoin is not in a hurry and it might also be true that the longer it exists the more trusted it becomes; it survived many an attack already which adds to its reputation ...

In graphical terms; nobody knows if and where the elbow shows up.


 

That's not how it works. Everyone has their spending point. For me it begins around 10k, that's when I will start living solely on my bitcoins and thus circulating them back into the economy. This idea that nobody will spend bitcoins ever is absurd.

[RodeoX]

...
This idea that nobody will spend bitcoins ever is absurd.

No kidding. I have spent over $800 this week alone, and over 2k since the new year. And no, not on drugs. I have never gambled or bought, drugs, porn, etc. with bitcoin.

[deisik]

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.

It works both ways, i.e. a few addresses in these top 50 may well belong to the same person. I don't know if there is a way to check this, but we can for sure find (if they are yet unknown) and exclude exchange addresses (and other big businesses') out of the equation...

[deisik]

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.?

It is interesting to note that normal concentration of CO2 in the blood of mammals is higher than that in the atmosphere. It means that in ancient times the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were much higher than now. So, by burning coal, we just return carbon to the atmosphere that was previously taken by plants...

[subvolatil]

What is this

[odolvlobo]

lol

That didn't take very long for the conversation to go from Bitcoins, to Climate change, to Venus.  

Hitler would have agreed because you are all Nazis.

[solex]

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...)

So, in this future Obama has abolished elections by Executive Order?
In this same future none of the owners of large Bitcoin holdings are prepared to actually spend their money??

[Ibian]

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...)

So, in this future Obama has abolished elections by Executive Order?
In this same future none of the owners of large Bitcoin holdings are prepared to actually spend their money??

While elections are not officially abolished yet, one could argue that a choice between two people who will do the same things (increase debt and reduce civil liberties) is not a real choice.