Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2016, 12:05:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0  [Torrent].
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Question: The fact that 25% of BTC are already in circulation, but far less than 0.1% of Bitcoin's ideal mature community is here...
Makes for interesting trivia, but it's not a concern - 10 (33.3%)
May turn off newcomers, but let's not fix what's not broken. - 5 (16.7%)
May make BTC less fair than intended (enriching earlier participants at expense of later), but still nothing should be done - 4 (13.3%)
May make BTC less fair than intended, but anything we could do would be more harm than good - 3 (10%)
It is bound to be a growing problem, and might entice newcomers to fork or restart the blockchain. - 8 (26.7%)
Total Voters: 30

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
Author Topic: Coin distribution vs community size  (Read 3445 times)
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 154

View Profile
March 29, 2011, 11:44:01 AM

normal, non greedy people

I believe that notion to be an oxymoron.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 294

View Profile WWW
March 29, 2011, 02:46:35 PM

Personally, I'm going to stop using Google because I wasn't able to buy shares before their IPO.  How unfair is that!!!  True, my business has made me tens of thousands off of Google AdWords advertising, but THAT'S NO EXCUSE!!!

If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B
Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge.
0.009 BTC too confusing?  Use mBTC instead!  Details at or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly.
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666

View Profile
March 29, 2011, 06:10:32 PM

So basically, casascius's point is that a small minority of future potential bitcoin population has grabbed significant share of total bitcoin wealth and this is portrayed as bitcoins disadvantage and unfairness.

Proposed solution is to somehow change rules of the game now so that "jonny's come late" get bigger piece of the pie without taking much risks.

What disregarded is amount of risk early adopters took allocating significant part of their resources, be it time or money, to a high risk venture while protecting initially vulnerable bitcoin network.

Now it is proposed to change the rules of the game to redistribute wealth away from early adopters to jonny come laters or else jonny come laters will revolt and start their own currency.

Right, this is perfectly understandable, it sounds like you feel we deserve to be enriched at others' expense because of all the risk we took.  (Which was what, exactly, by the way?)

Bernanke probably feels the same way...  After all, printing money is tiring and risky and at the end of the day, he and all his buddies deserve to be compensated for that lavishly with the fruits of others' labor.

The thing about Bitcoin is that "jonny come late" has free access to the kitchen.  If "jonny come late" doesn't like that only 1% of the pie is on the table but that he must pay for the whole pie, he might just start some cookin.

You seem to be saying that Bitcoin early adopters have taken little risk, yet you present the case that any one of those participants could manipulate the market in a way which would put the newfound 'wealth' of their cohorts at risk by dumping BTC on the market. You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps I misunderstood, and you really mean to say that the early adopters assumed less risk than later adopters do, because the early adopters can manipulate the market. If that is the case, let's say an early adopter crashes Mt. Gox by 50%, let's say this happens repeatedly... The only thing that would happen is that BTC would be available at a lower price, allowing these late comers an opportunity to by in at prices that were once only available several months before they ever heard of Bitcoin... It would also most likely cause Difficulty to fall as well, creating an opportunity for new miners, etc. From a game-theory perspective this does not seem like such a bad thing. I think it would be the healthiest thing for Bitcoin if this happened earlier, because it would likely result in such actions becoming progressively more difficult as the economy matures.

Yes, Bitcoin is a self-balancing system.  Well thought out.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!