Bitcoin became valuable because it's failed at fair distribution?

[Broly46]

I think bitcoin is the fairest distribution so far, I had never came across a system that’s fair from the very beginning, only a better system that’s less unfair, and when it’s fair, it will soon natural developed into unfair, and it’s the nature of a working economic system, and it is certainly what’s going on in the crypto space albeit at a alarming rapid pace, it used to took centuries to distribute gold, when it come to cash, it took decades to distribute, and crypto took only weeks to distribute, and it is also getting very fast to developed into unfairness, I’m not trying to undermine bitcoin, it is giving me a mixed feeling about fair and unfairness at the same time, I think it’s good to share your opinions, what do you think how and why it is more valuable.

And I strongly believe usd is the most powerful currency ever in the world as claimed by POTUS simply because the absurd inequality in distributing the USD, and the top elite simply can print 99.9% of the USD while 0.1% of USD distribute to you and me.

[coin_ghost]

I am not sure what you mean by

crypto took only weeks to distribute, and it is also getting very fast to developed into unfairness

. Can you give me an example of bitcoin being fair or unfair vs USD being fair or unfair?

[Broly46]

I am not sure what you mean by

crypto took only weeks to distribute, and it is also getting very fast to developed into unfairness

I’m assuming it will took very fast to go from fair to unfair under identical circumstances, practically speaking, it will took very little time to turn from point A to point B.
[/quote]

Can you give me an example of bitcoin being fair or unfair vs USD being fair or unfair?

Bitcoin is very fair in my opinion, some may suggest Satoshi alone mine nearly 1m of the coins, but that’s not the same with USD, can I just say it, the FED can simply print 99.9% of the overall circulating USD, and I simply can’t call that fair, and it has no doubt absurd than simply owning 1m out of 21m total supply.

[Broly46]

I don't see bitcoin, from a fair or unfair side.  I try to see bitcoin, from the other side.  Namely, transparency on the system.  Which in my opinion, bitcoin tends to be better than usd

The transparency is certainly a plus for being immutable currency, and POW further fortifying the immutability, and it’s proven again any hard fork coin will failed trying to undermine the immutability bitcoin have. Of course I can’t say the transparency is the same for other crypto, most of them can undergo a series of swap, forks and splits, which make it more difficult to understand where it is going.

[AverageGlabella]

Bitcoin is fairer than most currencies however its not the perfect system. The perfect system in my eyes would employ a type of socialism approach rather than the current "rich get richer". I don't think anyone can deny that you need a large investment to now mine Bitcoin. Of course this wasn't always true and anyone with a computer had the potential to mine Bitcoin when it was worth a lot less than it is now. However because of the mining difficulty increasing and will continue to increase in the future with emerging technology being able to mine quicker and more efficiently with higher hashrates we will price out those that can't afford these rigs. Bitcoin was initially mined on laptops and computers however we have since moved away from this and it now requires specialized mining rigs to be running 24/7 to be able to earn anything worth while. Unless you are using your mining rig for heating this can become a very expensive "hobby" when combining other bills too. There's now warehouses full of mining rigs in countries in Asia because the price of electricity is so low.

And I strongly believe usd is the most powerful currency ever in the world as claimed by POTUS simply because the absurd inequality in distributing the USD, and the top elite simply can print 99.9% of the USD while 0.1% of USD distribute to you and me.

This is wrong. The most elite cannot just print money off for the sake of it. The only people in the United States that can print off money legally is the U.S Treasury which is in charge of printing off money. However they can't just do that as they please as the governing body of money is called the Federal Reserve Bank which has control of the money supply through its ability to create credit and interest rates. The FRB actually control all money which is sent off to the banks of every major country in the world. Remember that if you print off too much money the economy becomes unstable and we would probably enter a recession which would further devalue the amount of money everyone owns and therefore printing off money isn't the solution to everything.

Cash is backed up by gold and what cash is is basically a IOU note which you give people to promise them gold. Gold is moved around from time to time but imagine paying for your groceries in gold it would be a nightmare. Instead we carry the much lighter and lower value cash.

[buwaytress]

I know your view is unpopular, and as a Bitcoin person myself, I agree with you, that it's really difficult to genuinely think of Bitcoin as having succeeded as a fair distribution coin. I think it's more accurate to say that it is the one with the least unfair distribution -- but this is not at all a disservice or an undermining of Bitcoin. I think accepting that at least at the beginning, it would have been impossible to ensure "fair" distribution when it was literally a handful of nodes mining it. I believe Satoshi left all that stash untouched partly because he/they understood that.

By design, any distribution of tech over the internet also excludes more than half of the world (and ten years ago, I think even 2/3rd of the world). Arguably, the precise population that would have needed this fair distribution the most.

But Bitcoin was a great start nevertheless, and there are a lot of people who helped distribute it onwards... and as the whales slowly relinquish their supplies, we will see things becoming fairer.

[Broly46]

Bitcoin is fairer than most currencies however its not the perfect system. The perfect system in my eyes would employ a type of socialism approach rather than the current "rich get richer".

Yeah, the basic idea of bitcoin is about mining, and with mining in the table, even the Satoshi can’t print bitcoin at will, that is why no one can control the creation of bitcoin except the miners, but the FED can simply print money, which is a far fetch to just mining. Mining is fairer system no doubt.
[/quote]

.

This is wrong. The most elite cannot just print money off for the sake of it.

It is a contradiction.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0

There is a sharp trajectory from year 2008 the time btc was created to the year 2018, from 1,000,000m to 4,000,000m of m0 supply, it doesn’t took a genius to know a 400% of printing money, I’m not sure what’s going on with the supply increase and I doubt no one can tell that in a understandable manner, and the only person who can print money? Not you or me, but there is only one guy who can, and the guy can’t tell what’s going on too? They tell me they can create money at their will but the chart tell a different story, of course I don’t expect any answer that can justify what they say and what is going on.

[simpleIPaddress]

I know your view is unpopular, and as a Bitcoin person myself, I agree with you, that it's really difficult to genuinely think of Bitcoin as having succeeded as a fair distribution coin. I think it's more accurate to say that it is the one with the least unfair distribution -- but .....

Bitcoins situation is difficult. There are a lot of 'shalecoins' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0, coins with no owners, which will be 'fracked' when quantum computers exist. Maybe after a very long time, but it will happen. With that knowledge, the big money can't come to Bitcoin. Imagine a Bitcoin price > 1,000,000 $ and then coming in millions of new coins. How will that work?
Therefore, it would be better, if Satoshi looked for ways to distribute this 'shalecoins'. Even moving the coins to P2PKH addresses would help them being quantum secure.
Maybe Satoshi created the greatest prize competition https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150688.0

Maybe Satoshi created the greatest prize competition and the privatekeys are somehow within the blockchain.

or Satoshi wants quantum computers to be developed and these coins will be their reward.

Support us, support Bitcoin.

[bittraffic]

Its not fair of course because its not distributed to all people in the world, it has to be mined by those who first believe it. Those who just learned BTC I guess can't say its unfair because after all you just learned about it. But you have your fair chance to earn it if you have the equipment or you can get to mine the altcoins or buy them. They are still crypto and are going to be valuable one day.

[Artemis3]

I think bitcoin is the fairest distribution so far, I had never came across a system that’s fair from the very beginning, only a better system that’s less unfair, and when it’s fair, it will soon natural developed into unfair, and it’s the nature of a working economic system, and it is certainly what’s going on in the crypto space albeit at a alarming rapid pace, it used to took centuries to distribute gold, when it come to cash, it took decades to distribute, and crypto took only weeks to distribute, and it is also getting very fast to developed into unfairness, I’m not trying to undermine bitcoin, it is giving me a mixed feeling about fair and unfairness at the same time, I think it’s good to share your opinions, what do you think how and why it is more valuable.

And I strongly believe usd is the most powerful currency ever in the world as claimed by POTUS simply because the absurd inequality in distributing the USD, and the top elite simply can print 99.9% of the USD while 0.1% of USD distribute to you and me.

Depends in what you consider fair. The concept of inequality is a problem in itself; some people consider unfair that some have more than others, despite those having worked or risked more.

In the beginning, Bitcoin was available to everyone, willing to dedicate a few computing resources to mine it. But with time, given that the amount of worldwide produced Bitcoin is fixed in the code, the more people got involved, the less everyone would get. Furthermore, those willing to invest more into mining, would get bigger chunks than others.

You could say that's unfair to the poor, depending on where your ideology comes from... Unfortunately that camp is more of the idea of, give the exact same amount to everyone, no matter what. Working or risking is irrelevant. Then you are going to get the other group claim, that is unfair the lazy and do nothing are valued the same than the hard workers, or that you value a hard worker like a parasite.

So what it is fair?

Challenging the power of the USD, sure, that was bound to happen anyway. But the rich, the so called 1% isn't going to be affected so don't ever think this is some kind of social revenge, it isn't. See, those people can, and actually have the chance to jump ship (wherever they do it its their problem). And the smart ones would have large investments in many assets anyway, not just USD. Should the USD collapse, as some wish, the ones with the most to lose are ironically those holding less of it, since overnight their purchasing power gets cut in half or more everyday (i know, I'm living in hyperinflation here) while the rich remain mostly unaffected, just a few trades here and there and everything remains the same.

But, having produced money that replaced State controlled money, that is a success, and a small gain for humanity. People and economies NOW have the chance to have savings actually gain value (slowly) overtime. Sure a few did in the past, but who could ever afford to own and secure valuables like gold?

Maybe you could say Bitcoin was like getting gold available to the masses.

[simpleIPaddress]

So what it is fair?

To become the owners of the 'shalecoins' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0, coins with no owners.
We have the same situation like 2009 when Bitcoin started. There are millions of 'shalecoins'. Everyone has now the equal chance.

It will be good for Bitcoin.

[eaLiTy]

some may suggest Satoshi alone mine nearly 1m of the coins, but that’s not the same with USD, can I just say it, the FED can simply print 99.9% of the overall circulating USD, and I simply can’t call that fair, and it has no doubt absurd than simply owning 1m out of 21m total supply.

Satoshi published the white paper well before releasing the first bitcoin software and no one stopped anyone from being the initial miner and anyone who was capable of mining the coins with their basic laptop could have made tens of thousands of coins and it is a fair system from the beginning. Bitcoin is valuable simply because it is the first decentralized currency.

[simpleIPaddress]

some may suggest Satoshi alone mine nearly 1m of the coins, but that’s not the same with USD, can I just say it, the FED can simply print 99.9% of the overall circulating USD, and I simply can’t call that fair, and it has no doubt absurd than simply owning 1m out of 21m total supply.

Satoshi published the white paper well before releasing the first bitcoin software and no one stopped anyone from being the initial miner and anyone who was capable of mining the coins with their basic laptop could have made tens of thousands of coins and it is a fair system from the beginning. Bitcoin is valuable simply because it is the first decentralized currency.

But nobody heard of or understood Bitcoin then. The result was

I think the likeliest scenario is that hundreds of people downloaded and ran the client then, got a bunch of blocks that were at the time useless because they were valueless, then deleted their client.

Satoshi did not expect that but then he could/can do something for the better distribution of the 'shalecoins'.
It would be better for Bitcoin.

[YuginKadoya]

We can say that Bitcoin is fair because of its transparency while some will lead to unfairness because of its animosity and unknown source that it came from then Bitcoin transaction really needs trust towards its transaction, I think that Bitcoin will be fair and unfair depending on what happens and what may people think, We can say that even if someone or somebody had scam you in transacting Bitcoin then you would just call it unfair, Is this the fault why escrow exist because of unfairness to the system, Well I think the system is not perfect but trust is the issue here and that is what Bitcoin is using.

[dothebeats]

Capitalism destroyed the essence of 'fairness' that you are trying to imply for bitcoin. The moment bitcoin had its value in USD is the moment where everything started to crumble, for wealth distribution that is. Those who had the means to buy more bitcoins and farm it while the difficulty is low became the whales that we have today, and those that were late in the game became the minnows. Though the setup is like this, we can't deny the fact that some average Joe's became decently rich due to bitcoin. In a societal setup like this, no matter how many systems are introduced and how many implementations are placed, you can't expect fair distribution knowing that someone will always have the silver spoon and someone will always need to work to get what they wanted.

Perhaps if our society magically turns into utopia the next morning, fair distribution of wealth would be possible.

[Broly46]

Satoshi published the white paper well before releasing the first bitcoin software and no one stopped anyone from being the initial miner and anyone who was capable of mining the coins with their basic laptop could have made tens of thousands of coins and it is a fair system from the beginning. Bitcoin is valuable simply because it is the first decentralized currency.

I can’t deny it’s a sound argument, by the time it is before the internet become mainstream, in 2008, I think I was stumble upon some boring sites, may be I remember I came across the first internet video streaming site, then I spend time on online games, but bitcoin was so trivial by the time, doubt it was all the same to everyone, prior to 2008, anyone who’s truly interested in bitcoin must have been some highly insightful individual, well, being the first come first serve definitely a issues here, because not everyone share the equal knowledge, information, IQ, EQ, date of birth. Having distribute fairly is very challenging task, can bitcoin really up to the task?

[Vaskiy]

There isn't anything as fair and unfair distribution, everything is a data. When it is processed in the right way it will be valued and when some flaw arises in between it gets degraded. This is the common philosophy, and bitcoin now seems to have everything processed in the right way making it more valuable. Also it has its limitations, while the same won't fit with USD as no data gets revealed relative to the printing of currencies.

[Broly46]

We can say that Bitcoin is fair because of its transparency while some will lead to unfairness because of its animosity and unknown source that it came from then Bitcoin transaction really needs trust towards its transaction, I think that Bitcoin will be fair and unfair depending on what happens and what may people think, We can say that even if someone or somebody had scam you in transacting Bitcoin then you would just call it unfair, Is this the fault why escrow exist because of unfairness to the system, Well I think the system is not perfect but trust is the issue here and that is what Bitcoin is using.

I think the beginning phase of bitcoin sound perfectly fair by the concept, but it starting to change over the time, in just 4 years after it goes published, smartest people in the world begin to find the “loop holes” in the bitcoin, they invented the first generation of ASIC in 2012, specifically just to mine bitcoin, and it’s also why I called a fair system to slowly developed toward unfairness, and bitcoin may not stop that from happening, because the increased difficulty not only punish the big miner, it also punish the small miner, and small miner get punished the big time. By now, I think mining no longer the only way to get bitcoin, because POS has been invented after the ASIC, the next generation of new coiner may no longer stick with POW anymore.

Capitalism destroyed the essence of 'fairness' that you are trying to imply for bitcoin. The moment bitcoin had its value in USD is the moment where everything started to crumble, for wealth distribution that is. Those who had the means to buy more bitcoins and farm it while the difficulty is low became the whales that we have today, and those that were late in the game became the minnows. Though the setup is like this, we can't deny the fact that some average Joe's became decently rich due to bitcoin. In a societal setup like this, no matter how many systems are introduced and how many implementations are placed, you can't expect fair distribution knowing that someone will always have the silver spoon and someone will always need to work to get what they wanted.

Perhaps if our society magically turns into utopia the next morning, fair distribution of wealth would be possible.

I see a lot of people cursing the govt for taking USD off the gold standard, I don’t know how true it was, but as the time passing I see more and more of their predictions came into reality, I don’t know what are them and who they’re working for, but they can really make everything to follow their way, anyway it is a certainty, if you didn’t born rich, you certainly has no say in the real world, but you can have a lot to say if you’re in the internet, as nobody know who you’re.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think anyone can deny that you need a large investment to now mine Bitcoin. Of course this wasn't always true and anyone with a computer had the potential to mine Bitcoin when it was worth a lot less than it is now. However because of the mining difficulty increasing and will continue to increase in the future with emerging technology being able to mine quicker and more efficiently with higher hashrates we will price out those that can't afford these rigs. Bitcoin was initially mined on laptops and computers however we have since moved away from this and it now requires specialized mining rigs to be running 24/7 to be able to earn anything worth while.

sure, but

• when CPU mining was still possible (2009-2010), the tiny amount of people doing it mostly considered Bitcoin experimental, there were no exchanges and no exchange rate
• when GPU mining started (2010-2013) BTC had a price (on MtGox). But Bitcoiners were ridiculed left and right
• when ASIC mining started (2013 - today), BTC price had really taken off. But Bitcoiners were still heavily ridiculed

if all the people pointing fingers had bothered to investigate Bitcoin seriously, they might not have missed the opportunity. But instead they were deriding it.


If you want to mock a new trend, don't complain later that it made all the people you were mocking wealthy. It's just plain salty bitterness, and nothing else.

[Broly46]

Its not fair of course because its not distributed to all people in the world, it has to be mined by those who first believe it. Those who just learned BTC I guess can't say its unfair because after all you just learned about it. But you have your fair chance to earn it if you have the equipment or you can get to mine the altcoins or buy them. They are still crypto and are going to be valuable one day.

When it is perfectly fairly distributed, I can’t guarantee it would have a lot of value, thus is the reality.

..

Depends in what you consider fair. The concept of inequality is a problem in itself; some people consider unfair that some have more than others, despite those having worked or risked more.

Being fair is a very subjective question, and adding a little bit of twisting, anyone can call a unfair into a fair system, do you see why mainstream news advocating how fair USD is while nobody seem to agree with the news.

You could say that's unfair to the poor, depending on where your ideology comes from... Unfortunately that camp is more of the idea of, give the exact same amount to everyone, no matter what. Working or risking is irrelevant. Then you are going to get the other group claim, that is unfair the lazy and do nothing are valued the same than the hard workers, or that you value a hard worker like a parasite.

So what it is fair?

Yeah, fair is very subjective under a globalization climax, I’m hoping to see a fair system that you can have a fair share of everything, be it good, cloth, house, health care, every life support need, when it come to risking anything, it’s going to be so complex, risking is not really a thing to anyone, I see all the people shun risk, a fair system without a risk, did it existed? Of course risk assessment is a must skill to anyone, but the real life do not tolerate anyone who cannot take risk, and it is also how it create a world today, risk and fair didn’t really mixed well.