Lightning Network Observer

[Wind_FURY]

but maintaining such node is not of the same order of magnitude as maintaining an on-chain Bitcoin wallet.

In the video and in the document they state they have a team of 4 full time engineer employed only to run this node.




This looks like a proper job, requiring a scientific approach.

Of purse there will be space for amateur operator, but this is going to be another highly capital intensive industry.

That's what I have been asking, but never had a good reply, and I was only made to look stupid for asking "such a stupid question".

The question was, "If it was possible that the increase of level in "specialization" to run a Lightning node 24 hours a day, 7 days a week would be the same as mining Bitcoin, and because of that, will cause to require node operators to actually profit from routing". Node operators are also staking actual Bitcoins, a form of "capital" that can possibly be used more profitably somewhere else. Therefore, there must be a motive for profit to run a Lightning node as it gets more specialized.

[1714318365]

1714318365

[1714318365]

1714318365

[1714318365]

1714318365

[1714318365]

1714318365

[BlackHatCoiner]

In the video and in the document they state they have a team of 4 full time engineer employed only to run this node.

Running and maintaining a seriously commercial lightning node, such as OpenNode, requires technical competence around Bitcoin, Lightning, APIs, web development, Unix, system administration, android and iOS, etc., and a shitload amount of capital. It's an entire business on its own.

Just running a lightning node for sending and receiving LN-BTC doesn't require all that stuff, though.

I never give up on the idea that a person has to have discretionary income to even be able to invest into anything, so yeah, if we cannot even get into the arena of having discretionary income, and also meaning that the income invested into bitcoin is "extra money" that they are not going to need for 4-10 years, then we might not get anywhere, except for talking about how they might be able to increase their income or to decrease their expenses..

I'm just saying this: A person with minimum wage can't save the same amount a millionaire can. Their living is too limited to saving.

Node operators are also staking actual Bitcoins, a form of "capital" that can possibly be used more profitably somewhere else.

That's true for everything. But, yes. Running a lightning node can be seen as mining, because in both cases you're spending capital to create some.

[fillippone]

Node operators are also staking actual Bitcoins, a form of "capital" that can possibly be used more profitably somewhere else.

That's true for everything. But, yes. Running a lightning node can be seen as mining, because in both cases you're spending capital to create some.

The report gives  quite a surprising insight on the matter:

In September 2022, we had an average capacity of roughly ~420 btc across our Lightning nodes, and earned roughly 40 million satoshis in routing fees. This is a yield of 0.095%, which is ~1.15% APY (Annual Percentage Yield). That is relatively low for now, but growing rapidly.

For context, @cold_sats on Twitter is a Lightning enthusiast running a top 100 node with a total capacity of ~19.8 btc. He discloses his earnings and most of his strategies, which is commendable and makes his data useful for comparison. In March he estimated his yield for 2022 to be 1.44% per year, but using September 2022 data, this number is 0.55% per month, or 6.8% on a yearly basis. This is significantly higher than our performance, with the caveat that we have been primarily focused on building out our infrastructure.

This is way more than I would have expected.
This is yield out of your own private keys.

[Wind_FURY]

Node operators are also staking actual Bitcoins, a form of "capital" that can possibly be used more profitably somewhere else.

That's true for everything. But, yes. Running a lightning node can be seen as mining, because in both cases you're spending capital to create some.

I believe it's going to be the same as the evolution of Bitcoin mining. Altruism helped bootstrap/establish the network, but as it became more specialized, the Lightning node operators who could run them for profit will be more incentivized to maintain their node for a much longer amount of time.

I also believe that because it is actual capital being "staked" in those channels, and a very limited form of capital at that, the fees would, at times of high demand, would be more expensive than the fees of some altcoins. I use BlueWallet's Lightning app, I sometimes pay $0.25 per transaction because they also take a fee for each transaction besides the Lightning fee.

[BlackHatCoiner]

This is yield out of your own private keys.

That's the exact way I'd describe it. It's like renting your funds to someone, but you don't hand them over anything. 

I also believe that because it is actual capital being "staked" in those channels, and a very limited form of capital at that, the fees would, at times of high demand, would be more expensive than the fees of some altcoins.

We might reach a time when routing a transaction becomes more expensive than paying the transaction fee of an altcoin, but we will never pay more for an off-chain transaction than an on-chain one, with the same confirmation time.

Also,

There are different kind of parameters to take into consideration. Well, yeah, since running a Lightning node becomes even more specialized, and demand for routing (to be more precise) rises, there has to be a higher price for it. But, as Lightning becomes more decentralized, by the entrance of new funds, from new users, there's more competition for routing fees (or economically speaking, greater supply) which makes the price drop.

There's something I hadn't thought in the past. As Lightning becomes more decentralized, we'll observe either more frequent routing failures (which won't last due to competition), or higher fees due to need for more intermediaries to route (since there will be little connectivity across the network*), or both.

*If the network becomes larger at scale, imagine the times a transaction has to be routed to be accomplished if node A is in one edge of the map, and node B is in the other.

[fillippone]

This is yield out of your own private keys.

That's the exact way I'd describe it. It's like renting your funds to someone, but you don't hand them over anything. 

I also believe that because it is actual capital being "staked" in those channels, and a very limited form of capital at that, the fees would, at times of high demand, would be more expensive than the fees of some altcoins.

We might reach a time when routing a transaction becomes more expensive than paying the transaction fee of an altcoin, but we will never pay more for an off-chain transaction than an on-chain one, with the same confirmation time.

Also,

There are different kind of parameters to take into consideration. Well, yeah, since running a Lightning node becomes even more specialized, and demand for routing (to be more precise) rises, there has to be a higher price for it. But, as Lightning becomes more decentralized, by the entrance of new funds, from new users, there's more competition for routing fees (or economically speaking, greater supply) which makes the price drop.

There's something I hadn't thought in the past. As Lightning becomes more decentralized, we'll observe either more frequent routing failures (which won't last due to competition), or higher fees due to need for more intermediaries to route (since there will be little connectivity across the network*), or both.

*If the network becomes larger at scale, imagine the times a transaction has to be routed to be accomplished if node A is in one edge of the map, and node B is in the other.

Lightning node operator.
This is the first professional figure in a new economic system, where capital allocation choices are profoundly influenced by technical analysis of the network. Maybe one day there will be derivatives on this to hedge against adverse scenarios (like an orange producer can hedge selling orange juice futures, why not a node operator can hedge his operations selling futures on network fees?)

[cygan]

became aware today of this interesting service for the lightning nodes.
anyone already there who has tried this?

On the backend, we improved
- testing tailscale support with raspiblitz
- LNBits fixed bug not sending invoice-hook all the time
- Further extended CLN / hybrid and a raspibolt pre-check script

https://tunnelsats.com/

[JayJuanGee]

I never give up on the idea that a person has to have discretionary income to even be able to invest into anything, so yeah, if we cannot even get into the arena of having discretionary income, and also meaning that the income invested into bitcoin is "extra money" that they are not going to need for 4-10 years, then we might not get anywhere, except for talking about how they might be able to increase their income or to decrease their expenses..

I'm just saying this: A person with minimum wage can't save the same amount a millionaire can. Their living is too limited to saving. 

I hate to be refusing to give up on a topic, and to beat it to death, but we can imagine situations in which a persistent (and even relatively poor) bitcoiner could have had gotten ahead of a person who is much better off, such as a millionnaire.  Of course, the wise millionnaire is going to beat out the poor person every time, if we were using wealth as the ONLY differentiator.

One of the historical matters with bitcoin has been that the bitcoiner has been able to get ahead of a lot of people who were much better off than the bitcoiner because of knowing about bitcoin, and it surely would have had helped if the bitcoiner also had not really made any mistakes.

Let's take a somewhat extreme example of a millionnaire who failed to invest over the past 9 years, and largely his networth stayed the same.. or if he ONLY invested in index funds and the very basics, maybe his networth might have gone up to $1.5 million rather than $1 million.. perhaps?

Now we can take a hussling and bussling poor person who works consistently through the past 9 years, but really maybe in our extreme hypothetical we might be able to say that such poor person could ONLY scrape together around $10 to $20 per week in order to invest into bitcoin.. so in that sense the average per week was ONLY $15 per week... so such poor person may well have ended up investing $7k into bitcoin over 9 years, but only able to generate around 7.2BTC.. so he would still be way behind the hypothetical non-industrious millionnaire, but perhaps another 9 years is going to bring him to parity or to surpass the hypothetical non-industrious millionnaire.

So don't get me wrong.. I am not trying to say that the poor person is going to completely be able to catch up. because millionnaires have all kinds of advantages if other things are equal, but we are in a bitcoin forum in which people know about bitcoin and they should be able to figure out some reasonable, prudent and even aggressive strategies that are NOT overly aggressive in order to contribute to their advancing upon the so many no coiners who are out there who fail/refuse to either learn about bitcoin or to take adequate and/or sufficient action upon knowing about bitcoin.

I will acknowledge too that poor people fuck up all of the time, and there can be a lot of reasons for that, including becoming too aggressive and then ending up gambling rather than protecting themselves and building, and surely if they are poor, they will continuously be tempted to dip into their bitcoin savings rather than allowing it to grow... so I am surely not suggesting that growing wealth is easy and it can take 30-40 years or longer, and sometimes even people who work that long on growing wealth never end up getting to a kind of retirement or fuck you status, but bitcoin does seem to have historically been able to offer those kinds of opportunities if it had been played correctly (and should be easier with an asset that has been going up.. even though people do figure out ways to lose money, even on an asset that has been historically going up), and there really is not any evidence that bitcoin's investment thesis is weaker currently than it had been historically - even though the already BTC price appreciation likely has dampened some of the upside potential since the total addressable market is still ONLY about $1 Quadrillion and bitcoin has gone from $0 to around $1.2 trillion and then currently back down to around $400 billion.

[fillippone]

I'm just saying this: A person with minimum wage can't save the same amount a millionaire can. Their living is too limited to saving. 

<...>

Bitcoin is a possibility to redistribute the wealth without the use of violence, for the first time in history.
And for the first time in History also, there weren't entry barrier to the bitcoin investment, nor violence or prevarications involved.

I am not saying that the resulting distribution will be fair, no one ever said that and it's not something Bitcoin has or even want to address.
It will only be different: as different are the criteria used for this distribution.
Luck, smartness, vision, instead of violence, prevarication and law, as the previous paradigm.

[franky1]

in fiat land. people used to only be able to buy whole shares and when 1 share was many hundreds of dollars. third world country citizens could not afford to buy single shares because their $3 a week wage (ignorant people call "coffee amount") meant they couldnt buy a single tesla share unless they saved up for years

yet bitcoin came around to solve that. allow people to buy decimal amounts every week to skip the 'save to buy' and just go straigh tto the buy stage

but then the ignorant "coffee amount" preachers then tried to say bitcoin was not fit for the 3rd world countries where bitcoin should not be used for the unbanked, in their narrow minded view. and so tried to push for 3rd world countries to adopt a sub network. offramping people away from bitcoin to this weak, insecure subnetwork

now they are saying the 3rd world countries are not "techies" and shouldnt run independent nodes but instead put their value into the trust of a custodian wallet
silly thing is that this weak subnetwork, has no big rules. thus it is not difficult to build user friendly GUI's. but as its well known when devs cant be bothered to make rules, secure a network and then make the network userfriendly.. that network is not going to succeed. but hey they dont care. they just want control and limit users abilities in the elites favour


(i mentioned this phase years ago about moving from hop model to hub/soke model of "factories"/custodians)


these ignorant people have been seen in the last couple days to start to word this subnetwork as a more risk aware less utopian promise. and even try to be more realistic by saying the unit of measure is not "bitcoin" but a different unit which they start calling LN-btc.. much like other subnetworks dont define their units as bitcoin but (binance: WBTC, liquid LBTC)

so although they have now started to sound more realistic to the risk awareness and difference of the networks and security models and utility(a positive) they are still trying to limit what 3rd world countries have access to, where only the elites can get the parts that 'make' profit at the jeopardy of the poor who have to trust the elites wont abuse such system

such a shame they wasted 5 years going down that avenue..

[JayJuanGee]

in fiat land. people used to only be able to buy whole shares and when 1 share was many hundreds of dollars. third world country citizens could not afford to buy single shares because their $3 a week wage (ignorant people call "coffee amount") meant they couldnt buy a single tesla share unless they saved up for years

yet bitcoin came around to solve that. allow people to buy decimal amounts every week to skip the 'save to buy' and just go straigh tto the buy stage

but then the ignorant "coffee amount" preachers then tried to say bitcoin was not fit for the 3rd world countries where bitcoin should not be used for the unbanked, in their narrow minded view. and so tried to push for 3rd world countries to adopt a sub network. offramping people away from bitcoin to this weak, insecure subnetwork

now they are saying the 3rd world countries are not "techies" and shouldnt run independent nodes but instead put their value into the trust of a custodian wallet
silly thing is that this weak subnetwork, has no big rules. thus it is not difficult to build user friendly GUI's. but as its well known when devs cant be bothered to make rules, secure a network and then make the network userfriendly.. that network is not going to succeed. but hey they dont care. they just want control and limit users abilities in the elites favour

(i mentioned this phase years ago about moving from hop model to hub/soke model of "factories"/custodians)

these ignorant people have been seen in the last couple days to start to word this subnetwork as a more risk aware less utopian promise. and even try to be more realistic by saying the unit of measure is not "bitcoin" but a different unit which they start calling LN-btc.. much like other subnetworks dont define their units as bitcoin but (binance: WBTC, liquid LBTC)

so although they have now started to sound more realistic to the risk awareness and difference of the networks and security models and utility(a positive) they are still trying to limit what 3rd world countries have access to, where only the elites can get the parts that 'make' profit at the jeopardy of the poor who have to trust the elites wont abuse such system

such a shame they wasted 5 years going down that avenue..

You started off so great franky1, and you described one of the issues, and how bitcoin addresses the ability for very poor people to get into bitcoin, and you lasted almost 3 paragraphs before you started to devolve into nonsense.

Very poor people can still invest into bitcoin, and they do not have to NOT operate a node and they do not have to use any inferior aspects of bitcoin or even any side chains if they do not want.  They can buy bitcoin little by little, and they can study bitcoin at the same time to figure out how they want to store their bitcoin and even the extent to which they might run a node  or to engage in any of the securing the network aspects that come with running a bitcoin node.

Regarding lightning network or any other second layer those are additional use case options that they can choose or not choose to add to their BTC participation that might go beyond merely just buying bitcoin, whether it is $3 per week or some other amount that might work for them.

By the way, between about 2015 and 2019, I used to buy and sell bitcoin to random folks, and I would charge anywhere between 5% and 12% premium over what I considered to be my replacement costs for the mere hassle of meeting some stranger or some random person, and I would also tell them that I did not want to arrange a meeting unless they were going to transact a minimum of $300.. and many times I had maximum amounts too.. such as maybe just a few thousand, and if I got to know them, then maybe I would agree to go outside of the ranges or to change the premium.

People will sometimes meet others at bitcoin meet ups or other events and then agree to buy or sell bitcoin, and I suppose if they know each other they might decide not to even charge any premium or to have minimum amounts, and maybe if someone is in a really poor location they might choose to trade very low amounts - and it used to be that some of the exchanges would allow trading of any amount, even a dollar... but these days some of the exchanges will have $5 minimum.. or some other similar amount as their minimum trade amount.

There are ways to attempt to work around minimums, and I would imagine that some of the ideas around minimums would depend on the environment.. Sometimes when BTC prices start to move a lot in a short period of time, some individual buyer/sellers don't want to transact, and some exchanges will shut down or "pause" their services, and maybe volumes get high, or maybe the price gets so volatile that they don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a trade (or a bunch of trades that are flooding in and meeting in person , there might be ideas that people are starting to act crazy during such high volatile times, so it might feel unsafe to even meet).

You likely realize that some kinds of products are more pegged to BTC than other types of products, and I recall a guy who used to come to me on a fairly regular basis, and I frequently would try to talk him out of doing any bitcoin transactions because he seemed a bit nutso.., and several times he told me that he had heard about bitcoin from a friend who told him to get involved in "OneCoin."  So he would text me or something and say that he wanted to meet so that he could buy some bitcoin, and then he would give me an apparent bitcoin address to send bitcoin to him, and so many times, I tried to explain to him that he should be buying bitcoin, not investing into "OneCoin" because that was a scam and he was quite likely to lose all of his money... but I said that I would sell him the BTC and he just needed to give me a BTC address, and I was not responsible for if he received the BTC or if the BTC was credited to his "OneCoin" account.. and so sometimes people get ideas in their head, and I was in a bit of an uncomfortable position regarding how much to interact with the guy and the extent to which I should even agree to sell him BTC that he was having me send to his "OneCoin" account.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Sure, if a poor person had bought some bitcoin since the very beginning, he'd have had them appreciated in value. But since he's poor, chances are, he isn't financially educated, and might had spent them in the time between, or perhaps even kept them, but couldn't step forward.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a $800/month, 9-5 job, with zero capital other than your house and your bitcoin, you don't have that much wealth. Wealth comes from time, which is the real asset that we can't afford to lose in the end. A millionaire can just live off his capital, because he's living off passively, not actively.

I am not saying that the resulting distribution will be fair

You know what? I don't even know what the fuck does that mean. What's fair ultimately? Bitcoin exists 13 years now, and is accessible by literally every person that has some meager Internet connection. And every such person can have the exact same rights, oppositely to our current monetary system wherein only politicians and bankers do. People must take the personal responsibility to educate themselves at some point. Fair or not, it's unquestionably fairer.

I like this quote:

Everyone will buy bitcoin at the price they deserve.

[JayJuanGee]

[...]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Sure, if a poor person had bought some bitcoin since the very beginning, he'd have had them appreciated in value. But since he's poor, chances are, he isn't financially educated, and might had spent them in the time between, or perhaps even kept them, but couldn't step forward.

We seem to be deviating more and more away from talking about lighting network - yet for me, sometimes it is not easy to leave new ideas or responses outstanding.. ..

Accordingly, I will agree with you that it is likely that a lot of poor people are not very well financially educated - and part of the evidence would be their actual status of being poor and perhaps not being able to get out of such trap, but the basics of building wealth are neither complicated nor difficult to understand in practice - which is living within your means, setting some portion of your income aside and then try to put that "investment" money into something that will either appreciate in value or hold its value as much as you can.... and sure the other part about NOT dipping into the wealth stash while it is building and compounding can be quit difficult for anyone to accomplish - whether poor or not.,.. and of course, if you are poor, you may well only have one or two places in which you have stored value... when you are richer then you would likely have more areas in which you have stored your value, so if you have an emergency (or some desire to purchase) while you are rich, you can choose to spend from the asset class / currency that has the least likelihood to appreciate in value.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a $800/month, 9-5 job, with zero capital other than your house and your bitcoin, you don't have that much wealth. Wealth comes from time, which is the real asset that we can't afford to lose in the end. A millionaire can just live off his capital, because he's living off passively, not actively.

I am pretty sure that I have similar back and forths with you on this topic in the past, and it does not seem to be that we really disagree about some of the underlying characteristics that might exist at certain points of time regarding how an investment portfolio might look, but we should be talking about how the poor person can potentially be in a position to improve his/her lot, even when his/her starting position is relatively worse, way worse or even dire as compared to the person with way more assets and resources.

So maybe I am starting to get frustrated with some of your themes because you seem to imply that obstacles are so great for poor people that they would not be able to overcome them or to catch up to the rich person, or that the rich person is always going to be ahead, not have to try very hard to stay ahead, and a lot of those kinds of assumptions have some truth within them because the world has a lot of unfairnesses, and social (financial) mobility can be quite difficult to achieve - including that maybe the moving up from being in poverty would not be possible to get to millionaire status, but still it seems to me that there still could be decent chances that diligent poor person is going have decent odds to catch up to the sloppy millionaire.. even though s/he would not be able to catch up to the equally diligent millionaire.  

Regarding diversification, it is not necessarily true that a rich person is going to automatically be diversified, even though it may well be true that it may well not be prudent for a poor person to attempt too much diversification prior to growing his/her investment portfolio to a certain size in which diversification starts to become more justifiable in order to bring more protections towards the kinds of assets being held and abilities to being able to choose from which assets to spend during times in which various asset classes might have differences in their valuations and projections of valuation changes.

I am not saying that the resulting distribution will be fair

You know what? I don't even know what the fuck does that mean. What's fair ultimately? Bitcoin exists 13 years now, and is accessible by literally every person that has some meager Internet connection. And every such person can have the exact same rights, oppositely to our current monetary system wherein only politicians and bankers do. People must take the personal responsibility to educate themselves at some point. Fair or not, it's unquestionably fairer.

I like this quote:

Everyone will buy bitcoin at the price they deserve.

There are a lot of ways to frame ideas of fairness whether we are talking about access to being able to buy bitcoin or ability to know about it or to understand the information that is out there about bitcoin.  Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location), and sure those kinds of accusations can be made after the fact because there are people who were in a better position to know about bitcoin and to find out about bitcoin (and to understand it), so it should not be unexpected that people are going to make claims about bitcoin being unfairly distributed and the earlier adopters knowing more and having more access - so in some sense the great price swings do allow for newer people to get into bitcoin at a relatively lower price - even though they won't likely be able to get bitcoin below $5k or even less likely below $1k or $100, as some of the earlier adopters had been able to do.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

Very poor people can still invest into bitcoin, and they do not have to NOT operate a node and they do not have to use any inferior aspects of bitcoin or even any side chains if they do not want.  They can buy bitcoin little by little, and they can study bitcoin at the same time to figure out how they want to store their bitcoin and even the extent to which they might run a node  or to engage in any of the securing the network aspects that come with running a bitcoin node.

Very appropriate, personally at first we also experienced problems in terms of starting bitcoin investments, because the available capital could not make large purchases of bitcoins, so on another occasion I had to find a way to be able to start investing bitcoins and finally decided to buy bitcoins a little little by little, today my financial strength is increasing, following the bitcoin price increase in the previous year.
Many people don't understand the concept of investing in bitcoin, so they don't look for ways to get around it. In fact, if we look further, bitcoin has grown so rapidly to date.

Regarding lightning network or any other second layer those are additional use case options that they can choose or not choose to add to their BTC participation that might go beyond merely just buying bitcoin, whether it is $3 per week or some other amount that might work for them.

Many options can be added regarding the second layer. Think of it similar to having friends with someone on twitter or other social media. This way, if the user does not have an open channel with someone on the lightning network, there is still a path through the shared user.
More precisely, there are many ways that can be solved using the network, so convenience for convenience will continue to be created and bitcoin is the basic idea of ​​the emergence of the innovation that we are discussing.

By the way, between about 2015 and 2019, I used to buy and sell bitcoin to random folks, and I would charge anywhere between 5% and 12% premium over what I considered to be my replacement costs for the mere hassle of meeting some stranger or some random person, and I would also tell them that I did not want to arrange a meeting unless they were going to transact a minimum of $300.. and many times I had maximum amounts too.. such as maybe just a few thousand, and if I got to know them, then maybe I would agree to go outside of the ranges or to change the premium.

It still looks offline, even though this development has gone through a much more developed level than before. I mean, if doing transactions in the year using numbers like you mentioned, then under $300 is very unbalanced, even when someone does and wants to make a transaction, the main thing to think about is distance and meeting arrangements.
But now we no longer need to do distance and time management, because people abroad can make transactions so quickly and cheaply with bitcoin, the adoption and development of bitcoin is very sophisticated through the available technology.

People will sometimes meet others at bitcoin meet ups or other events and then agree to buy or sell bitcoin, and I suppose if they know each other they might decide not to even charge any premium or to have minimum amounts, and maybe if someone is in a really poor location they might choose to trade very low amounts - and it used to be that some of the exchanges would allow trading of any amount, even a dollar... but these days some of the exchanges will have $5 minimum.. or some other similar amount as their minimum trade amount

It may be due to unbalanced transaction fees, that some exchanges decide to take minimum and maximum steps for trading.
Of the many exchanges that I have searched, it is true that they make a minimum figure of $5 for transactions, but I also don't know whether this minimum restriction is to compensate for the number of transactions made by someone.

There are ways to attempt to work around minimums, and I would imagine that some of the ideas around minimums would depend on the environment.. Sometimes when BTC prices start to move a lot in a short period of time, some individual buyer/sellers don't want to transact, and some exchanges will shut down or "pause" their services, and maybe volumes get high, or maybe the price gets so volatile that they don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a trade (or a bunch of trades that are flooding in and meeting in person , there might be ideas that people are starting to act crazy during such high volatile times, so it might feel unsafe to even meet).

This is the most interesting issue to discuss, because people usually forget about technical things, even though there are many ways to make it easier to run, in order to broaden my horizons, the most interesting focus is probably on this technical issue.
Given that there are still many drawbacks that I do not fully understand, so that I can understand technical things like that and can apply them in my bitcoin trading, and I am sure you better understand the cycle of understanding and solutions to this problem

You likely realize that some kinds of products are more pegged to BTC than other types of products, and I recall a guy who used to come to me on a fairly regular basis, and I frequently would try to talk him out of doing any bitcoin transactions because he seemed a bit nutso.., and several times he told me that he had heard about bitcoin from a friend who told him to get involved in "OneCoin."  So he would text me or something and say that he wanted to meet so that he could buy some bitcoin, and then he would give me an apparent bitcoin address to send bitcoin to him, and so many times, I tried to explain to him that he should be buying bitcoin, not investing into "OneCoin" because that was a scam and he was quite likely to lose all of his money... but I said that I would sell him the BTC and he just needed to give me a BTC address, and I was not responsible for if he received the BTC or if the BTC was credited to his "OneCoin" account.. and so sometimes people get ideas in their head, and I was in a bit of an uncomfortable position regarding how much to interact with the guy and the extent to which I should even agree to sell him BTC that he was having me send to his "OneCoin" account.

Annoying story, people who are a little bit crazy getting to know you as a master of bitcoin, my question?
what if people in this forum one by one start coming and asking the same thing, this will waste your time in providing special material outside the usual curriculum.
The fault lies in people usually not trying to learn bitcoin as a whole, they are only interested in the stories that people tell, although there are many other reasons that must be considered, fluctuating and the wrong way to invest in "OneCoin", when it should simply buy and provide a Bitcoin address.

So in conclusion from my narrow thinking, someone knows bitcoin closely, but unfortunately they don't know where to start, even though the available resources and technology can be learned quite easily for now.
The progress of bitcoin is so rapid, many technical developments were launched based on the idea of bitcoin, and for that bitcoin is something that is difficult to describe or manifests that are not visible, but can be felt like a blowing wind.
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong in interpreting the meaning of your discussion

[JayJuanGee]

There are ways to attempt to work around minimums, and I would imagine that some of the ideas around minimums would depend on the environment.. Sometimes when BTC prices start to move a lot in a short period of time, some individual buyer/sellers don't want to transact, and some exchanges will shut down or "pause" their services, and maybe volumes get high, or maybe the price gets so volatile that they don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a trade (or a bunch of trades that are flooding in and meeting in person , there might be ideas that people are starting to act crazy during such high volatile times, so it might feel unsafe to even meet).

This is the most interesting issue to discuss, because people usually forget about technical things, even though there are many ways to make it easier to run, in order to broaden my horizons, the most interesting focus is probably on this technical issue.
Given that there are still many drawbacks that I do not fully understand, so that I can understand technical things like that and can apply them in my bitcoin trading, and I am sure you better understand the cycle of understanding and solutions to this problem

I claim that I don't really know very much about technical matters; however, over my nearly 9 years in bitcoin, I have done bitcoin transactions in a variety of ways - including some services that were like exchanges, and other variations of wallets, and sometimes interacting between these - if there is some desire to interact with someone or some service or even claiming forked coins in 2017 (which was a challenge for me to learn some things/angles about derivation paths).

The longer that we are in bitcoin, hopefully we learn things, yet in my above comment I was also trying to suggest both that things change and that there may well be quite a bit of geographical variation or even variation in terms of whether people who want to transact in bitcoin might know people in the real world who would like to transact directly with them - and maybe not even using any third party services, beyond wallet to wallet (and wallets might differ, but if they are transacting directly they can frequently negotiate terms and/or fees in respect to any transaction that they might decide to do).

The more options that anyone has would likely increase their abilities to negotiate terms or even refuse to transact if they believe the financial or even the safety circumstances are not good for them.  Or maybe some people might get worried about accounting, so they might not want to engage in some transactions because they might believe it creates too much accounting work for them.  So for example, let's say that someone wants to buy $300 in bitcoin from me, and if the BTC price had moved dropped a lot, I might feel that I would ONLY want to do such transaction if the fee is high because I feel that the BTC price might not drop anymore in order that I would be able to rebalance my books at a lower price (which might have been my attempted practice of sell and replace by rebuying at a lower price, if possible).

If someone has BTC, then probably they have more options to set the terms of a negotiation if someone else does not have any BTC, they want BTC, but they cannot find any other way to get BTC that they feel comfortable with... so in that sense if I am amongst one of their ONLY options for getting BTC (and I know it), then I could be more strict in my negotiations.. maybe?  Personalities can come into play too because some people are more ruthless in their negotiations than other people, and there are likely circumstances in which people like to "build good will," and other people want to be perceived as a "ruthless bargainer."

You likely realize that some kinds of products are more pegged to BTC than other types of products, and I recall a guy who used to come to me on a fairly regular basis, and I frequently would try to talk him out of doing any bitcoin transactions because he seemed a bit nutso.., and several times he told me that he had heard about bitcoin from a friend who told him to get involved in "OneCoin."  So he would text me or something and say that he wanted to meet so that he could buy some bitcoin, and then he would give me an apparent bitcoin address to send bitcoin to him, and so many times, I tried to explain to him that he should be buying bitcoin, not investing into "OneCoin" because that was a scam and he was quite likely to lose all of his money... but I said that I would sell him the BTC and he just needed to give me a BTC address, and I was not responsible for if he received the BTC or if the BTC was credited to his "OneCoin" account.. and so sometimes people get ideas in their head, and I was in a bit of an uncomfortable position regarding how much to interact with the guy and the extent to which I should even agree to sell him BTC that he was having me send to his "OneCoin" account.

Annoying story, people who are a little bit crazy getting to know you as a master of bitcoin, my question?

These kinds of dynamics happen all over in the world when we are dealing with people.  There are always a percentage of people that we might find annoying or crazy, and some kinds of activities/jobs involve more interactions with people in the real world but also some jobs/activities can be structured in ways that might lessen or even eliminate interactions with other people or even the ability to negotiate if some people might set up their transacting arrangements as "take it or leave it" and other people love to haggle in their interactions.

So, maybe if you interact with someone and they might not have any other offers, or they believe you give them the best deal, or they can trust you not to screw with them, then they might keep coming back and referring their friends - and yeah, you may or may not want to be perceived as the "bitcoin guy" or "master of bitcoin" as you put it.

what if people in this forum one by one start coming and asking the same thing, this will waste your time in providing special material outside the usual curriculum.

Well, sometimes we do have repetition of themes, and some members have more patience than others in terms of dealing with repetition of themes.  I feel that I have way more patience with repetition when I believe that the poster is being genuine - rather than merely trolling... and sometimes it is not easy to know these answers.

I know that even I will sometimes post in ways that seem less than genuine, and maybe I either go on the attack of another member or fail to have enough patience with another member because I might make some premature presumptions about their intentions or even sometimes read the interaction/post wrongly.

The fault lies in people usually not trying to learn bitcoin as a whole, they are only interested in the stories that people tell, although there are many other reasons that must be considered, fluctuating and the wrong way to invest in "OneCoin", when it should simply buy and provide a Bitcoin address.

People are in different stages of their learning, and some people go through shitcoin phases, or they might get reckt or they might be resentful about some earlier bitcoin (or crypto) transactions that they made, or they may be influence by either wrong information or assigning the wrong kinds of weight to the information that they know to reach bad/wrong conclusions.

We are all subject to wrong conclusions and/or weighing our evidence wrongly.

If I am interacting with a member and calling them a "dummy," I might later realize that I was the one who was the dummy - so we are all subject to getting some aspects of bitcoin wrong, and it seems that a lot of us are hear to share information - should involve both teaching and learning - even if there might be periods in which we are more on one side of the relationship depending on with whom we are interacting, and we likely can also treat other members as peers even if we might feel that we know more than they do in some areas.. but there could be areas that other members know more, including their experiences.. I cannot know your experiences unless you tell me, and I can attempt to make inferences from what you tell me, and sometimes if information is communicated badly, then I might get it wrong. and it still might NOT mean that you are a dummy just because I am having troubles understanding the message that is being attempted to communicate.

So in conclusion from my narrow thinking, someone knows bitcoin closely, but unfortunately they don't know where to start, even though the available resources and technology can be learned quite easily for now.
The progress of bitcoin is so rapid, many technical developments were launched based on the idea of bitcoin, and for that bitcoin is something that is difficult to describe or manifests that are not visible, but can be felt like a blowing wind.
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong in interpreting the meaning of your discussion

Of course, getting started is going to be different for people who entered into bitcoin now as compared with 9 years ago or even 2 years ago, so there are going to be stages that we may well have to go through, even if we already determined that we want to enter into bitcoin, we still have to figure out the size of our position relative to other investments that we might have, and then we also have to consider various ways that we might want to store or use bitcoin - whether we use exchanges, on chain bitcoin wallets or even lightning wallets that may be more custodial and/or trusted than others.  There are likely some people who currently come into bitcoin by learning about lightning network, but there still might be some needs to learn about both bitcoin and the lightning network in order to attempt to understand aspects of the tools that they are using - even though many of us would like some of the tools to become more user-friendly and even less likely that someone might end up losing their BTC due to mistakes that they might make or that they might presume that if they lose their password, they can still get someone to help them to recover their funds - which in many circumstances in bitcoin, there might not be a way to recover the funds if the person had not taken adequate precautions to make sure that they have a back up... and I think that many of us here are trying to balance those kinds of factors, even if some of the members in this forum are way more technically literate than others which surely affects which bitcoin or lightning tools that they are going to use versus what a less technically literate member might be willing to try out .. and that also goes to some of the ideas of newbies who might be more or less technically literate, but sometimes they might need to figure out why they are investing into bitcoin or wanting to use it before really digging into the technical aspects - but those are personal choices too.. because many of us will gravitate towards areas of our knowledge in which we are more comfortable.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So maybe I am starting to get frustrated with some of your themes because you seem to imply that obstacles are so great for poor people that they would not be able to overcome them or to catch up to the rich person

I'm not saying it's impossible to catch up the rich person. Just very difficult. I've never met a person who became rich by doing a 9-5 job, for the simple reason that a 9-5 job eats most of the creativity and time, both of which are important parameters for wealth building.

Also, rich isn't wealthy. You can be rich by winning the jackpot, but you can go poor a few years later.

Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location)

There's unfairness in distribution given that a person in 2080 won't have the same block reward with one in 2009, biological unfairness in intelligence, unfairness in education, but there's no political unfairness, and that's the game changer. There are no people who were never elected to decide for our monetary policy. Everyone has the same rights upon that.

[cryptosize]

Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location)

Even if you have inside info, most people will ignore you.

One example:

I had inside info (thanks to some Discord friends) about Chia/XCH, around 1 month (Feb 2021) before the mainnet was launched (day 1 difficulty was around 100 PiB).

I managed to get quite a few XCH for myself with solo farming (took around 1 month of continuous effort/plotting, until farming difficulty became too high and pooling wasn't available from the get-go).

There are some rumors that the XCH blockchain will serve to store WEF's notorious carbon credits, so I think it's a good idea to hodl them (didn't pay anything, apart from miniscule electricity amounts).

Was did I do as an insider? I tried to return the favor by informing others. Did they listen to me? No. Should I pity them?

I wish someone had told me about ETH back in 2014-2015, when you could mine 1 ETH ($1 back then) per day with a single GPU.

Fun fact: someone had informed me about the BTC concept back in 2003 (!!!). What did I do? I mocked him (along with several other forum participants).

The same person informed us again in late 2008/early 2009 about BTC's launch. Same response. We mocked him to death.

The moral of the story: if you are a man, you should accept the responsibility of your own actions.

There is no politician here to save anyone from his idiocy. Mistakes are (expensive) lessons.

What your proposal regarding "fair" BTC distribution?

Should Satoshi have divided 21 million BTC to 8 billion people from the get-go? That's around 0.002625 BTC (262500 sats) per person. That's assuming new people aren't born every single day...

Guess what? Even if that was the case, 1 year later some people would have ZERO sats, while some others would be wholecoiners.

Why? Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4WF3cSd9Q

Some people are spenders (instant gratification), while some others are investors (delayed gratification).

Some people will decide to spend their money on drugs (cigarettes, weed, heroine), while others will decide to cut their bad habits and stack more sats:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/lolbr0/im_quitting_smoking_and_buying_bitcoin_every_week/

How many people smoke on this planet? Billions! And most of them are poor. Should we pity them?

Everyone can buy some sats, instead of literally burn money by buying/smoking cigarettes. Why don't they do it? Because their mindset is poor. Richness begins from your mindset, not your wallet!

Of course being rich isn't for everyone and I'd argue it can be detrimental to their health (if they're highly addictive personalities/prone to instant gratification):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Best#Alcoholism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Maradona#Drug_abuse_and_health_problems

Socialism doesn't exist according to universe's laws... unless we become gods one day. We're nowhere near that.

If you want a more scientific (mathematical) explanation of why income inequality exists, I suggest to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle#In_economics
https://qz.com/957711/everything-including-the-growing-income-disparity-can-be-explained-by-physics

Of course that doesn't mean that everyone who is already rich deserves their wealth... inheritors are the worst kind IMHO. They didn't work for their wealth.

I don't like Proof of Stake either for the exact same reason: the rich get richer with zero effort. PoW allows this to happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xanz0h/bitcoin_mining_powered_by_used_cooking_oil/

That's why I don't plan to inherit wealth to my children, unless they really deserve it (I'll judge that).

You need to be able to prove you worth something and that you won't squander it on stupid things (like drugs). That's non-negotiable for me.-

Either way, true diversity means that not all people are the same. Some are good at building wealth, while others may be good at dancing or singing or cooking (there are lots of potential talents).

Why should everyone be rich? If everyone was rich, who would do all these 9-5 jobs? That's something to consider.

Maybe in a society where A(G)I and robots will do all jobs, everyone will be rich. We're far from that.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

I claim that I don't really know very much about technical matters; however, over my nearly 9 years in bitcoin, I have done bitcoin transactions in a variety of ways - including some services that were like exchanges, and other variations of wallets, and sometimes interacting between these - if there is some desire to interact with someone or some service or even claiming forked coins in 2017 (which was a challenge for me to learn some things/angles about derivation paths).

The longer that we are in bitcoin, hopefully we learn things, yet in my above comment I was also trying to suggest both that things change and that there may well be quite a bit of geographical variation or even variation in terms of whether people who want to transact in bitcoin might know people in the real world who would like to transact directly with them - and maybe not even using any third party services, beyond wallet to wallet (and wallets might differ, but if they are transacting directly they can frequently negotiate terms and/or fees in respect to any transaction that they might decide to do).

The more options that anyone has would likely increase their abilities to negotiate terms or even refuse to transact if they believe the financial or even the safety circumstances are not good for them.  Or maybe some people might get worried about accounting, so they might not want to engage in some transactions because they might believe it creates too much accounting work for them.  So for example, let's say that someone wants to buy $300 in bitcoin from me, and if the BTC price had moved dropped a lot, I might feel that I would ONLY want to do such transaction if the fee is high because I feel that the BTC price might not drop anymore in order that I would be able to rebalance my books at a lower price (which might have been my attempted practice of sell and replace by rebuying at a lower price, if possible).

If someone has BTC, then probably they have more options to set the terms of a negotiation if someone else does not have any BTC, they want BTC, but they cannot find any other way to get BTC that they feel comfortable with... so in that sense if I am amongst one of their ONLY options for getting BTC (and I know it), then I could be more strict in my negotiations.. maybe?  Personalities can come into play too because some people are more ruthless in their negotiations than other people, and there are likely circumstances in which people like to "build good will," and other people want to be perceived as a "ruthless bargainer."

Indirectly your experience has reached a perfect stage, where you say almost 9 years of conducting transactions in various ways, both exchanges and wallets that have ever existed.
I didn't really find anyone like you, neither on forums nor outside, I mean you have a pretty broad insight into bitcoin knowledge, at least this gives me an idea, after seeing some of the replies you have on the forums.

We will get experience according to what we learn, I believe it takes direct involvement in bitcoin investment, so that we know more basic and deeper technical things, rather than listening to advice and input from experienced people.
That's why bitcoin never limits people to discuss, investment choices and how people take part in it, this uniqueness we will only find, after we are really in the system, the rest of the technical things we can learn from various ways and sources available power.

To be honest, people never refuse to invest in bitcoin, even though they have suffered losses, because almost everyone is consistently in bitcoin and gets the maximum benefit from the investment, coupled with a complete knowledge of the things to consider.
There are many ways to outsmart the buy price when it drops to the sell price, all it takes is patience in recovering the accumulated correction, because bitcoin is clearly able to maintain value, so there is no need to worry and panic in this condition. That's why it is necessary to get involved in bitcoin investment, so that we can clearly know the options and terms of the negotiation, because the role of bidding and negotiation must really be able to bind people's desires.

These kinds of dynamics happen all over in the world when we are dealing with people.  There are always a percentage of people that we might find annoying or crazy, and some kinds of activities/jobs involve more interactions with people in the real world but also some jobs/activities can be structured in ways that might lessen or even eliminate interactions with other people or even the ability to negotiate if some people might set up their transacting arrangements as "take it or leave it" and other people love to haggle in their interactions.

So, maybe if you interact with someone and they might not have any other offers, or they believe you give them the best deal, or they can trust you not to screw with them, then they might keep coming back and referring their friends - and yeah, you may or may not want to be perceived as the "bitcoin guy" or "master of bitcoin" as you put it.

But the difference is that people can ignore things that are considered to interfere with our involvement anywhere, it doesn't matter when interaction is reduced and lost with other people, if the annoying nature of them is not changed from a narrow view to be more open, so we don't waste energy. in dealing with or serving them.

Because as you stated, that dynamics like that will continue to happen all over the world and for some people this will not be okay, because we can use negotiating skills for people who are serious about bitcoin.
The question is whether everyone involved in the dynamic discussion knows bitcoin, has ever been involved in investing and or just wants to have a wild discussion for a truth that has no effect on them.

Because for people who are aware, bitcoin is the best decision in increasing economic resources, in different ways but has the same function "Maximum Profit". Moreover, bitcoin can maintain the value of the money we spend, so waiting for the accumulation of Bull Run is not to be in a hurry, the reaction will appear after the bitcoin market finds a correction.

Well, sometimes we do have repetition of themes, and some members have more patience than others in terms of dealing with repetition of themes.  I feel that I have way more patience with repetition when I believe that the poster is being genuine - rather than merely trolling... and sometimes it is not easy to know these answers.

I know that even I will sometimes post in ways that seem less than genuine, and maybe I either go on the attack of another member or fail to have enough patience with another member because I might make some premature presumptions about their intentions or even sometimes read the interaction/post wrongly.

And I'm sure you already have the answer to this, one's patience and persistence in any case will affect the impact on the final result to be achieved, that's why I say you already know the easy answer.
As long as the bitcoin debate is not in technical terms, I agree not to be limited, as long as it doesn't attack and give misguided understanding to others, because it's based on the fact that bitcoin's uniqueness is due to the life of discussion , although it's not too basic for the reasons I gave.

Incorrect interactions/posts become a reference to how far they know bitcoin, dynamics sometimes don't need a reference, as long as the discussion regarding bitcoin doesn't come out of technical matters. And I'm sure, of the many people who discuss and are still unfamiliar with bitcoin, I am one of them. It may be.

People are in different stages of their learning, and some people go through shitcoin phases, or they might get reckt or they might be resentful about some earlier bitcoin (or crypto) transactions that they made, or they may be influence by either wrong information or assigning the wrong kinds of weight to the information that they know to reach bad/wrong conclusions.

We are all subject to wrong conclusions and/or weighing our evidence wrongly.

If I am interacting with a member and calling them a "dummy," I might later realize that I was the one who was the dummy - so we are all subject to getting some aspects of bitcoin wrong, and it seems that a lot of us are hear to share information - should involve both teaching and learning - even if there might be periods in which we are more on one side of the relationship depending on with whom we are interacting, and we likely can also treat other members as peers even if we might feel that we know more than they do in some areas.. but there could be areas that other members know more, including their experiences.. I cannot know your experiences unless you tell me, and I can attempt to make inferences from what you tell me, and sometimes if information is communicated badly, then I might get it wrong. and it still might NOT mean that you are a dummy just because I am having troubles understanding the message that is being attempted to communicate.

I am part of the people you say, because I started cryptocurrency from shitcoin, but after so long in this space, it seems something is wrong with my thinking about shitcoin and for that I started to develop myself to get to know bitcoin specifically.

Bowing to wrong conclusions or weighing inaccurate evidence.
Since I started this space without being taught by anyone, I am self-taught about the Crypto space, so getting to the bitcoin level will be difficult for some people I have in common with.

However, as long as we are willing to learn, then nothing is impossible for us to achieve. I became one example of thinking Shitcoin turned into bitcoin. As I want to know, the way you serve the discussion of many people in the forum, that's the hardest part for people like me, because what I see you are people who always consistently serve long discussions in forums about bitcoin.
There are many ways available in bitcoin, this uniqueness will appear when someone seriously explores the best side of bitcoin, while how to use, transact and invest is a technical part that must be studied well, so that some beginners do not get caught in fear when bitcoin undergoes a correction.While the bitcoin cycle can be seen as the basis from which we should start, if bitcoin thinking has become the basis for investment decisions, then the technicalities will emerge in understanding and following developments.

[JayJuanGee]

So maybe I am starting to get frustrated with some of your themes because you seem to imply that obstacles are so great for poor people that they would not be able to overcome them or to catch up to the rich person

I'm not saying it's impossible to catch up the rich person. Just very difficult. I've never met a person who became rich by doing a 9-5 job, for the simple reason that a 9-5 job eats most of the creativity and time, both of which are important parameters for wealth building.

Probably overall, I am not even really disagreeing with your various factual representations or even the appreciation of various life futilities that exist with much of the population that might not be realized the futility of a lot of matters until working a whole life and still being poor after doing everything correctly...

But it still seems to me that you are ongoingly complaining about the unfairnesses in life and sure it may even be true that any of us can work our asses off and still we don't get anywhere and we cannot break through the glass ceiling and we might not even end up better off than our parents, even if we might have tried harder or even had more successes along the way.. in the end we still end up in a bad or maybe even worse position.

Another thing is trying to figure out what is being measured, because we already know that dollar wealth does not necessarily equate with happiness, and wealth can be measured in a variety of ways, yet even if we attempt to stick with financially measuring wealth, we still might be able to figure out ways in which people who are able to live within their means might end up being able to become more wealthy than people who live beyond their means and then keep getting into trouble because they are not very good at managing whatever financial resources are available to them - and I am not even against debt, because there are ways to use debt in order to leverage wealth, but there are also ways to use debt that gets someone into trouble because of the consumption of products and services that do not hold their value, and so the person may get into debt beyond their means or be held back from accumulating wealth because of consumption rather than investment decisions earlier in life or before they are sufficiently financially ready to consume at the level that they choose to consume.

Also, rich isn't wealthy. You can be rich by winning the jackpot, but you can go poor a few years later.

Of course, winning the jackpot could result in a person being rich and wealthy if s/he knows (or learns) how to manage the money in order to figure out how to live on interest rather than depleting principle or otherwise figuring out ways to manage the money.

Let me give an example of a person (in mid-to-late 20s) who might ONLY have $50k in networth and who might have ONLY had an income of around $3k per month wins a jackpot that receives a net amount of $2 million may well either completely squander the money or such person could be set for life with a $6,666 per month income from the $2 million for the rest of his/her life, if they invest it somewhat wisely and they live off the interest and they ONLY dip into principle when they might feel that they are getting close to the end of their life (in the event that they might not want to pass it on after death). 

So for the above hypothetical person, winning of such jackpot may have allowed this person to completely stop working because his/her income has doubled, and therefore it comes down to just managing the new income and the new situation, there may be ways to create buffers to ensure an ability to continue to live with a $3k per month income and maybe ONLY slowly move up to the $6,666k per month income that the $2 million would allow.. and the transition would be learning how to live with the income and then also making sure to learn how to make sure that the principle is growing in value at least 4% per year in order to justify drawing up to $6,666k per month, but if managing finances is new to a person, then such person would have to learn to make sure that they are able to sustain their chosen withdrawal rate on their newly acquired wealth.   

Just because we can witness a lot of examples of irresponsible behavior should not necessarily cause us to conclude that everyone is irresponsible with their finances and not capable of learning, even if maybe most people might end up NOT being able to sufficiently manage their newly acquired $2 million extra to their networth because they choose to fail/refuse to learn how to manage that money to make it last, but instead choose to spend it without giving sufficient attention to making sure that it is able to last as long as they would like it to last..
 

Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location)

There's unfairness in distribution given that a person in 2080 won't have the same block reward with one in 2009, biological unfairness in intelligence, unfairness in education, but there's no political unfairness, and that's the game changer. There are no people who were never elected to decide for our monetary policy. Everyone has the same rights upon that.

I don't really disagree with your various categories of assessment, yet no matter what there are going to be complications involving existing systems and even the passing down of wealth, so matters can become overly complicated when trying to compare what someone would have had available in 2009 versus 2080, and it seems like a big so what to me because it is something that none of us can change in terms of when we were born... but even in 2080, there still might be no coiners or family of no coiners or there might be bitcoiners who had hoarded their bitcoin and passed down their bitcoin, or locked up their bitcoin from earlier years, and some folks may benefit or be disadvantaged by the actions of the earlier bitcoiner,.,.

Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location)

Even if you have inside info, most people will ignore you.

There are a lot of ways to consider insider-information in terms of being able to advantage yourself and people around you or even trying to create systems in which fewer people will have insider information or advantages.  I think that bitcoin / Satoshi had been attempting to create the latter.. perhaps merely to attempt to cause bitcoin to seem to be more credible rather than his own pureness - Open source software has some of those same kinds of sharing of information ideas contained within that may well be attempts to share information in order that no one else has any superior advantage - but also perhaps even a kind of security approach - even though even with bitcoin, there are presumptions that individuals will act in their own self-interests - so there is an interesting balance that seems to be going on with the underlying incentives that were built into bitcoin and continue to be built upon in some ways.. but maybe not in all ways.. 

One example:

I had inside info (thanks to some Discord friends) about Chia/XCH, around 1 month (Feb 2021) before the mainnet was launched (day 1 difficulty was around 100 PiB).

I managed to get quite a few XCH for myself with solo farming (took around 1 month of continuous effort/plotting, until farming difficulty became too high and pooling wasn't available from the get-go).

There are some rumors that the XCH blockchain will serve to store WEF's notorious carbon credits, so I think it's a good idea to hodl them (didn't pay anything, apart from miniscule electricity amounts).

Was did I do as an insider? I tried to return the favor by informing others. Did they listen to me? No. Should I pity them?

I think that it is a bad idea to bring up shitcoins in this thread - even though we are already deviating a lot from the topic by getting into discussion of financial matters.. and you are just likely to make matters worse when talking about so many ideas that might relate to shitcoins .. so maybe you should come up with better example that relates to bitcoin.. and even better if it relates to lightning network.

I wish someone had told me about ETH back in 2014-2015, when you could mine 1 ETH ($1 back then) per day with a single GPU.

Fuck shitcoins.  No need to discuss them here.

Fun fact: someone had informed me about the BTC concept back in 2003 (!!!). What did I do? I mocked him (along with several other forum participants).

The same person informed us again in late 2008/early 2009 about BTC's launch. Same response. We mocked him to death.

Well, of course there are going to be various ways in which people might have been able to participate in bitcoin related matters and even might have been in a better position to understand the topic and/or able to allocate time towards learning about it or investing into it.

Bitcoin is a different thing when it is "prior to its birth" and then even once bitcoin is announced on October 31, 2008, not too many people knew about it or was able to understand it.. and even when it went live on January 3, 2009, it took a bit of time before others started to mine it and it took even about a year and a half longer in mid 2010 before there were starting to be examples of trades for value and even people willing to assign a price to it that others were willing to pay.

And, even hearing about bitcoin would depend on what circles you are in or what part of the world, so surely we can say that some people are advantaged versus others depending on where they were at in life... or even if they had been able to learn about bitcoin, did they take such opportunities or dismiss it.. when they might be too busy to take on a new project, such as learning about what is bitcoin.

The moral of the story: if you are a man, you should accept the responsibility of your own actions.

There is no politician here to save anyone from his idiocy. Mistakes are (expensive) lessons.

You seem to be bringing quite a bit of baggage into this discussion. 

What your proposal regarding "fair" BTC distribution?

I wasn't proposing anything.  I was just mentioning various ways that people might perceive that bitcoin distribution might not be fair, and the criticisms might not be completely without merit in terms of some people being in a better position to have had heard about bitcoin or to have had invested earlier, yet it would seem that the prudent and reasonable thing for anyone to do after they start to learn about bitcoin is to figure out if they are able to learn more and/or if they might need to start to invest into bitcoin at whatever point that they start to hear about it... whether they are investing to learn (or otherwise spending time and energies on bitcoin) or they are financially investing.

Should Satoshi have divided 21 million BTC to 8 billion people from the get-go? That's around 0.002625 BTC (262500 sats) per person. That's assuming new people aren't born every single day...

Guess what? Even if that was the case, 1 year later some people would have ZERO sats, while some others would be wholecoiners.

Why? Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4WF3cSd9Q

Some people are spenders (instant gratification), while some others are investors (delayed gratification).

Some people will decide to spend their money on drugs (cigarettes, weed, heroine), while others will decide to cut their bad habits and stack more sats:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/lolbr0/im_quitting_smoking_and_buying_bitcoin_every_week/

How many people smoke on this planet? Billions! And most of them are poor. Should we pity them?

I did not see anyone here suggesting any other way to distribute bitcoin, even though BlackHatCoiner described various ways that he thought that the rich were advantaged over the poor and even seeming to suggest that bitcoin would not necessarily change those kinds of unfairnesses.. and I was largely attempting to suggest that bitcoin seems to be a tool for the poor to be able to use.  So the ideas of fairness did come up several times, but not necessarily in terms of proposals to change the way that bitcoin "should have been" distributed.. like where you (cryptosize) seem to want to go with your seemingly strawman attack.

Everyone can buy some sats, instead of literally burn money by buying/smoking cigarettes. Why don't they do it? Because their mindset is poor. Richness begins from your mindset, not your wallet!

You're all over the place, cryptosize.  Bring us back to bitcoin.. or maybe even better yet, lightning network?

Of course being rich isn't for everyone and I'd argue it can be detrimental to their health (if they're highly addictive personalities/prone to instant gratification):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Best#Alcoholism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Maradona#Drug_abuse_and_health_problems

Socialism doesn't exist according to universe's laws... unless we become gods one day. We're nowhere near that.

If you want a more scientific (mathematical) explanation of why income inequality exists, I suggest to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle#In_economics
https://qz.com/957711/everything-including-the-growing-income-disparity-can-be-explained-by-physics

Of course that doesn't mean that everyone who is already rich deserves their wealth... inheritors are the worst kind IMHO. They didn't work for their wealth.

A lot of that seems far afield - like either you need to create your own thread, or find a thread on those kinds of topics.  Bitcoin/Lightning.. remember? 
 

I don't like Proof of Stake either for the exact same reason: the rich get richer with zero effort. PoW allows this to happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xanz0h/bitcoin_mining_powered_by_used_cooking_oil/

You're getting closer to the topic.. but still?   

That's why I don't plan to inherit wealth to my children, unless they really deserve it (I'll judge that).

You need to be able to prove you worth something and that you won't squander it on stupid things (like drugs). That's non-negotiable for me.-

Either way, true diversity means that not all people are the same. Some are good at building wealth, while others may be good at dancing or singing or cooking (there are lots of potential talents).

Ideas of inheritance and abilities to pass down wealth vary quite a lot throughout the world, and surely there are aspects of bitcoin that might allow for timelocking of wealth or even being able to pass (or transfer) wealth without requesting or getting permission.. some of these characteristics might also exist somewhat in lightning network too.

Why should everyone be rich? If everyone was rich, who would do all these 9-5 jobs? That's something to consider.

Maybe in a society where A(G)I and robots will do all jobs, everyone will be rich. We're far from that.

It seems that a lot of people aspire to get to financial and psychological circumstances in which they are able to choose their own work, so on an individual level we can see how people might try to create systems in which they can either choose their own work and even to lessen the amount that they have to work.  Even if someone in bitcoin might be able to acquire a lot of bitcoins, they still might need to figure out systems in which they can preserve their wealth and even to be able to spend their wealth without anyone taking their wealth from them, and I suppose that bitcoin and lightning network can be fit into those kinds of systems - yet there still might be questions regarding how much work that any of us ends up having to do to either learn or to establish systems or even to trust others to set up the systems or to manage some of these kinds of interactions with our bitcoins whether they are on chain or if they are being used in the lightning network.

[cryptosize]

incessant blabbering