A _new_ currency has to be fair

[ElectricMucus]

I hear the following statement alot: Bitcoin is pure capitalism, it isn't supposed to be fair.

People who acquired alot of Bitcoins without much effort are supposed to deserve it because they got in early / had alot of spare fiat or generated them before the public knew about it.
I do not have this opinion for the following reason:

Bitcoin wasn't a currency until the first products and services were offered for it. Also it is supposed to be a chicken and the egg problem which I think it is not: You can start a working economy 0-second, once you gathered enough people willing to participate.


This is the main reason why I still doubt bitcoins success (or think it is likely to fail once there is an alternative to it)
And, quite frankly if some people would adopt my suggestion in practice bitcoins intended purpose would be obsolete, and it's current state of existence a sophisticated gambling system would loose it's merit once people realize rapid economic growth is indeed possible.

[1714776656]

1714776656

[1714776656]

1714776656

[1714776656]

1714776656

[1714776656]

1714776656

[evoorhees]

Capitalism is fair.

[ElectricMucus]

Capitalism is fair.

But being able to obtain a "free" voucher as part of a future economy without participation isn't.

If so bitcoin isn't pure capitalism and my argument stands.

[Gabi]

Then buy bitcoins NOW, before their price skyrocket at 500$ and you all are "the early adopters bought them at 3$!!! Not fair!"

If price drop... well then that mean the currency is more or less dying, cause it's market cap will decrease.

So the "fair" argument only apply if price will increase. If you bring that argument you are implying price will increase then why you aren't buying like mad NOW?

[alexanderanon]

You're more than welcome to start your own digital currency.

[ElectricMucus]

Then buy bitcoins NOW, before their price skyrocket at 500$ and you all are "the early adopters bought them at 3$!!! Not fair!"

If price drop... well then that mean the currency is more or less dying, cause it's market cap will decrease.

So the "fair" argument only apply if price will increase. If you bring that argument you are implying price will increase then why you aren't buying like mad NOW?

I do not care about that, same, dumb argument. And quite frankly the public tends to agree, we are far from critical mass and I don't think we will reach it with that attitude. I am not complaining about getting a too small part of the pie, though I considered participating in the economy, but as it turns out, leveraged speculation is more rewarding than actual work.

You're more than welcome to start your own digital currency.

Good idea.

You tell me: Bitcoin isn't fair suck it.
If I find the right people I will come back and tell you: Our system is better, too bad nobody wants bitcoins, suck it.

Goodbye.

[Gabi]

I don't think we will reach it with that attitude.

Then the problem doesn't exist.

[ThomasV]

This is the main reason why I still doubt bitcoins success (or think it is likely to fail once there is an alternative to it)

And, quite frankly if some people would adopt my suggestion in practice bitcoins intended purpose would be obsolete, and it's current state of existence a sophisticated gambling system would loose it's merit once people realize rapid economic growth is indeed possible.

sounds like wishful thinking...
you doubt it will succeed because you want it to fail?

[julz]

I hear the following statement alot: Bitcoin is pure capitalism, it isn't supposed to be fair.

People who acquired alot of Bitcoins without much effort are supposed to deserve it because they got in early / had alot of spare fiat or generated them before the public knew about it.
I do not have this opinion for the following reason:

Bitcoin wasn't a currency until the first products and services were offered for it. Also it is supposed to be a chicken and the egg problem which I think it is not: You can start a working economy 0-second, once you gathered enough people willing to participate.


This is the main reason why I still doubt bitcoins success (or think it is likely to fail once there is an alternative to it)
And, quite frankly if some people would adopt my suggestion in practice bitcoins intended purpose would be obsolete, and it's current state of existence a sophisticated gambling system would loose it's merit once people realize rapid economic growth is indeed possible.

I'm not understanding your argument.  (nor what 'adopt my suggestion' refers to above).
Can you restate it somewhat?

You seem to be saying that a large number of participants who agree to use it is the primary requirement and that this is a relatively easy hurdle(?)
Are you saying the lack of 'fairness' (whether real or just perceived) is going to be a showstopper to widespread adoption, and so a new currency with the attribute of apparent fairness will rapidly overtake it?

It's not obvious to me that a cryptocurrency with more fairness is ever likely to arise.
I recognise that in effect, massive adoption of bitcoin would result in a wealth transfer from the existing global economy to a large number of individuals who didn't contribute a comparable amount of economic activity in return.. but It's also not clear to me that this wealth transfer is anything more than a blip in the scheme of things considering the scale of the global economy.
People win lotteries, both win and lose big-time in gambling, and inherit massive amounts all the time. Those 'unfair' wealth transfers don't seem to be a major issue.. so what is the beef with bitcoin 'unfairness' anyway?  

It's a psychological barrier to mass uptake?  I hardly think so, as people will be acting to maximize their own returns more than worrying about whether someone else got a windfall surely.
I've probably completely misunderstood your argument though - hence my appeal for clarification.

[freequant]

(to OP) You seem to assume that early adopters are still in possession of large amounts of Bitcoins.
What evidence do you have that it is still the case?
Multiple times, exchanges experienced crashes as some people were dumping large quantities of Bitcoins.
Many Bitcoins changed hand during the downward trend that led the price from $30 to $2.
I wouldn't be surprised if many early adopters already liquidated a big part of their holdings.

On the other hand, at current exchange rate, I would expect that people with a reasonnable wealth in fiat currency purchased bitcoins in thousands.
Are these people any more legitimate than early adopters?
Is being wealthy in fiat currency a more noble criterion than being an early adopter?
Are you aware that at current price level, any venture capitalist could pretty much buy the whole Bitcoin economy in a whimp?

Early adopters had the courage to invest time, effort and resources in Bitcoin when it was worth nothing and did not have any clear projection.
Now, people who have the courage to sink a part of their savings to add Bitcoin to their porfolio can still become decently wealthy in Bitcoins at a quite low price in regard of the potential.

Of course, people who do not want to take any risk will never act, and will be left behind.
These are the ones who will complain bitterly that Bitcoin is unfair. But that's alright.
If a fair system is a system that rewards equally people who take risks, and people who don't, then I don't want a fair system.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

In other news, people who bought shares during Google's IPO don't deserve to profit from it, because they didn't participate in making Google's products.

If that was not a big enough hint: There are more ways to participate in an economy than to provide labor. People who buy bitcoins increase the total worth of all bitcoins, thus the incentive of merchants to accept Bitcoin, thus help grow the Bitcoin economy. If this growth results in the success of Bitcoin and a corresponding price appreciation, those who took a risk by investing in bitcoins have every right to profit from it.

[evoorhees]

In other news, people who bought shares during Google's IPO don't deserve to profit from it, because they didn't participate in making Google's products.

If that was not a big enough hint: There are more ways to participate in an economy than to provide labor. People who buy bitcoins increase the total worth of all bitcoins, thus the incentive of merchants to accept Bitcoin, thus help grow the Bitcoin economy. If this growth results in the success of Bitcoin and a corresponding price appreciation, those who took a risk by investing in bitcoins have every right to profit from it.

Ding ding ding!  +1

[gnar1ta$]

In other news, people who bought shares during Google's IPO don't deserve to profit from it, because they didn't participate in making Google's products.

If that was not a big enough hint: There are more ways to participate in an economy than to provide labor. People who buy bitcoins increase the total worth of all bitcoins, thus the incentive of merchants to accept Bitcoin, thus help grow the Bitcoin economy. If this growth results in the success of Bitcoin and a corresponding price appreciation, those who took a risk by investing in bitcoins have every right to profit from it.

Ding ding ding!  +1

I'd call that match, set, and game. And I'm just going to leave this here for the early adopter pyramid ponzi scheme unfair crowd to read.  One of many examples of early adopter successes not being called a ponzi pyramid unfair scam.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/us-facebook-millionaires-idUSTRE7B72NK20111208

[Vandroiy]

• This is no problem. Initial distribution has been proven irrelevant on large time-scales. An early adopter can only spend his coins once, then the problem is done with.
• An alternative that tries to "solve" this "issue" of speculation profits defeats the purpose of the scarcity concept, rendering the new currency unstable and therefore unreliable.

Bitcoin is correct in this regard. The idea of changing this aspect is plain wrong. Envy against early adopters just isn't a very useful notion, the alternatives have greater, prevailing flaws.

I also missed a great chance when I didn't check out Bitcoin the first time I heard of it, I'd probably be rich now if I had. But this is an emotional thing that should not blur our vision of the future.

Bitcoin did it right. Don't get all emotional over a few people who got free coins in the beginning, it's a tiny problem compared with the ones Bitcoin solves. Altering the rules to prefer equality over fairness would destroy the very heart of Bitcoin, the part which makes it better than classical currencies.

[evoorhees]

Bitcoin did it right. Don't get all emotional over a few people who got free coins in the beginning, it's a tiny problem compared with the ones Bitcoin solves. Altering the rules to prefer equality over fairness would destroy the very heart of Bitcoin, the part which makes it better than classical currencies.

Well said, lots of smart comments today!

[paraipan]

Bitcoin did it right. Don't get all emotional over a few people who got free coins in the beginning, it's a tiny problem compared with the ones Bitcoin solves. Altering the rules to prefer equality over fairness would destroy the very heart of Bitcoin, the part which makes it better than classical currencies.

Well said, lots of smart comments today!

yep indeed, ppl are getting used to this kind of threads and they come up with answers in a more organized way.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

[Gabi]

In other news, people who bought shares during Google's IPO don't deserve to profit from it, because they didn't participate in making Google's products.

If that was not a big enough hint: There are more ways to participate in an economy than to provide labor. People who buy bitcoins increase the total worth of all bitcoins, thus the incentive of merchants to accept Bitcoin, thus help grow the Bitcoin economy. If this growth results in the success of Bitcoin and a corresponding price appreciation, those who took a risk by investing in bitcoins have every right to profit from it.

/thread

[N12]

• An alternative that tries to "solve" this "issue" of speculation profits defeats the purpose of the scarcity concept, rendering the new currency unstable and therefore unreliable.

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve and it happens with all extractions of resources, except for Bitcoin which was designed completely inelastic in a 4 year period, so that the gold miner Satoshi, who didn’t even own a pickaxe (CPU mining) in the beginning, could just carry home 1% or 10% of the total money supply.

I do think it would have been justified to use the assumption that surely, at the beginning there will be LESS adopters than later on, and I do think it would have spared us a lot of headaches because we would have seen LESS of a misallocation which the market had to weed out (and maybe still is), and by doing so, actually decreasing trust and usefulness (volatility etc.) of Bitcoin over a longer time period.

Can anyone explain why the Bitcoin mines should produce the same amount of Bitcoins on day #1 where 3 guys on a cryptography mailing list know about it, as on day #1000 where tens of thousands do?

[ThomasV]

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve ...

fair enough. indeed, Bitcoin could have been allocated differently.
but you do understand that the past is history, and that we are not going to change it, don't you?

[N12]

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve ...

fair enough. indeed, Bitcoin could have been allocated differently.
but you do understand that the past is history, and that we are not going to change it, don't you?

No, and I’ve said so before, that would undermine the whole system, obviously. I don’t think we will ever have a chance besides with this block chain. It’s funny because it’s almost extortion when you think about it.

I think noone has discussed a sigmoid curve in 2009 or 2010. The people back then either knew their role in the system and didn’t want to decrease their individual piece of the cake (yay rational actors), or they just didn’t foresee possible "problems" the initial allocation might bring.

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect, and I think it might be good to reflect and learn what could have made Bitcoin more robust, so that the market doesn’t have to go from 32 to 1.99 to (as I think, eventually) surpassing the former high.

As I’ve said the additional volatility it brought is actually decreasing usability and trust. I guess the only advantage this brings is that it attracts a whole lot of speculators who are now correcting what has gone "wrong" with the monetary policy. Maybe this leads to growth that exceeds the damage, but I doubt it.

[ssaCEO]

From the perspective of someone who doesn't have a lot of money, Capitalism isn't fair. Capitalism awards speculators, and their ne'er-do-well children, and their mistresses and sycophants and shills and hangers-on. It keeps hard-working people locked in debt, sometimes to people who don't have to work at all.

Now on the other hand, from the perspective of someone with a lot of money, awards people who think outside the box; who take risks; and it gives their progeny special advantages. To someone who haS a lot of money, it's eminently fair.

Moreover, to middle-class Americans who think that someday they might have a lot of money (writ the "American Dream"), it's also fair.

Deep down, I agree with evoorhees. It's fair, albeit in a cold and evolutionary way. But I can see both sides of the argument, including as it pertains to Bitcoin.

I guess the thing that's worth remembering is that fairness is a meaningless term when it's thrown around by parties who have something to gain or lose. In the casino industry, fairness has a specific definition: Does the customer know what they're getting? Are the rules as written the same as the rules in play? If so, it's fair. Those rules might be completely skewed toward the house, but as long as all the parties are playing by the same rules, and those rules are out there for everyone to see, then that's fair.

So don't be a cheap winner, and don't be a sore loser. Any set of rules is fair as long as the participants all tacitly agree to them.

[ThomasV]

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect [...]

Bitcoin is a currency. It is not a wealth redistribution system. Therefore, it does not have to be perfect, nor even good, at allocating wealth.
Unlike many people on this forum, I do believe in wealth redistribution. However, this should be achieved by governments and taxes, not by the way a currency is allocated.

[westkybitcoins]

• An alternative that tries to "solve" this "issue" of speculation profits defeats the purpose of the scarcity concept, rendering the new currency unstable and therefore unreliable.

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve and it happens with all extractions of resources, except for Bitcoin which was designed completely inelastic in a 4 year period, so that the gold miner Satoshi, who didn’t even own a pickaxe (CPU mining) in the beginning, could just carry home 1% or 10% of the total money supply.

I do think it would have been justified to use the assumption that surely, at the beginning there will be LESS adopters than later on, and I do think it would have spared us a lot of headaches because we would have seen LESS of a misallocation which the market had to weed out (and maybe still is), and by doing so, actually decreasing trust and usefulness (volatility etc.) of Bitcoin over a longer time period.

Can anyone explain why the Bitcoin mines should produce the same amount of Bitcoins on day #1 where 3 guys on a cryptography mailing list know about it, as on day #1000 where tens of thousands do?

*looks up sigmoid curve*

Ah, I've seen this one before. I suppose that might have worked. Although in defense of the designer(s) (note: I'm not an early adopter) I would think smoothly integrating a sigmoid curve instead of the current one would have been more difficult, and possibly not even considered necessary.

(Anyone want to take a crack at it? With difficulty adjustments every 2016 blocks, what should the miner block payouts be to achieve this curve? Presume payout adjustments every year rather than every 4 years. A free bitcoin to the first illustrated viable response!)

In any case, I don't think it matters that much. As bitcoins become more ubiquitous, fewer people will know or care about who jumped in early, and how well they've done.

[Harvey]

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect [...]

Bitcoin is a currency. It is not a wealth redistribution system. Therefore, it does not have to be perfect, nor even good, at allocating wealth.
Unlike many people on this forum, I do believe in wealth redistribution. However, this should be achieved by governments and taxes, not by the way a currency is allocated.

It's a non-concept. There is no wealth "redistribution". Wealth is infinite through technology and innovation. If you want riches, go stake your share through your own choices and actions. Don't just sit their begging for a share from the others.

I hate the left more and more with every passing day I see this bullshit.

[Harvey]

From the perspective of someone who doesn't have a lot of money, Capitalism isn't fair. Capitalism awards speculators, and their ne'er-do-well children, and their mistresses and sycophants and shills and hangers-on. It keeps hard-working people locked in debt, sometimes to people who don't have to work at all.

Now on the other hand, from the perspective of someone with a lot of money, awards people who think outside the box; who take risks; and it gives their progeny special advantages. To someone who haS a lot of money, it's eminently fair.

Moreover, to middle-class Americans who think that someday they might have a lot of money (writ the "American Dream"), it's also fair.

Deep down, I agree with evoorhees. It's fair, albeit in a cold and evolutionary way. But I can see both sides of the argument, including as it pertains to Bitcoin.

I guess the thing that's worth remembering is that fairness is a meaningless term when it's thrown around by parties who have something to gain or lose. In the casino industry, fairness has a specific definition: Does the customer know what they're getting? Are the rules as written the same as the rules in play? If so, it's fair. Those rules might be completely skewed toward the house, but as long as all the parties are playing by the same rules, and those rules are out there for everyone to see, then that's fair.

So don't be a cheap winner, and don't be a sore loser. Any set of rules is fair as long as the participants all tacitly agree to them.

There are no losers in this game unlike your literal zero-sum casino games. There are people that succeeded and there are those that did nothing. There was no real loss. It's just butthurt envy all around.

[elggawf]

I approach this "problem" from the opposite end. You're right: it's not fair, it's not optimal.

But how would you do it? How do you dole out a new currency to people in a fair manner, but also in a decentralized way that's not subject to gaming or influence by any third party?

That, I think, is the key to understanding Bitcoin's idiocy. Things about it's design that seem stupid? They're not that way because it seemed like a good idea to some coked-out libertarian (as much as other coked-out libertarians will insist otherwise), it's that way because there's simply no better way of doing it.

[N12]

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect [...]

Bitcoin is a currency. It is not a wealth redistribution system. Therefore, it does not have to be perfect, nor even good, at allocating wealth.

It’s not about redistribution, it’s about creating a basis that is not absolutely fucked up. Our basis is fucked up because the difficulty was 1 for a whole year, and the price was also very low, but then the user base exploded and the money supply couldn’t react, so humans had to – and we’ve seen how good humans are at that.

In any case, I don't think it matters that much. As bitcoins become more ubiquitous, fewer people will know or care about who jumped in early, and how well they've done.

I don’t think you understand, my point is that the market is struggling with this initial allocation and trying to spread it out, but in doing so lowering its usefulness. (you can’t tell me that the huge volatility we have seen and are seeing is NOT largely due to this, and NOT reducing Bitcoin’s value overall)

My theory with the sigmoid curve is that naturally, as the reward/block grows over time, the incentive to adopt Bitcoin actually grows, and the growth of the community will adapt to it. It simply spreads out more Bitcoins to later people (this is exactly what the market has done the past 6 months!) while still maintaining its basic properties, as "peak bitcoin" would eventually be hit.

BTW, it’s unfortunate I can read Atlas’ bullshit while answering, even though I have him on ignore. I wish he would stop making a new account every day.

[ThomasV]

I don’t think you understand, my point is that the market is struggling with this initial allocation and trying to spread it out, but in doing so lowering its usefulness. (you can’t tell me that the huge volatility we have seen and are seeing is NOT largely due to this, and NOT reducing Bitcoin’s value overall)

I agree, but there are other reasons to volatility. I expect volatility to be reduced in the future

My theory with the sigmoid curve is that naturally, as the reward/block grows over time, the incentive to adopt Bitcoin actually grows, and the growth of the community will adapt to it. It simply spreads out more Bitcoins to later people (this is exactly what the market has done the past 6 months!) while still maintaining its basic properties, as "peak bitcoin" would eventually be hit.

There is no way you could have matched the time constants of your sigmoid with future adoption rate.
For example, the june spike was very sudden; it was completely impossible to predict when such an event, caused by mediatisation, would occur.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

[bitcoinbear]

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect [...]

Bitcoin is a currency. It is not a wealth redistribution system. Therefore, it does not have to be perfect, nor even good, at allocating wealth.
Unlike many people on this forum, I do believe in wealth redistribution. However, this should be achieved by governments and taxes, not by the way a currency is allocated.

It's a non-concept. There is no wealth "redistribution". Wealth is infinite through technology and innovation. If you want riches, go stake your share through your own choices and actions. Don't just sit their begging for a share from the others.

I hate the left more and more with every passing day I see this bullshit.

I think you could better describe this as "resource access redistribution". Since resources are scarce, we can't all have access to them. Essentially wealth is just a measure of access to resources. Is it fair that some people have access to more resources than others? No, but life's not fair.

We should give our resources (wealth) to help others, and we should encourage others to give as well, but I do not think anybody should be forced to give up their wealth.

[Harvey]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

Wage laborers are only victims because your "collective" that I call the state artificially raises the cost-of-living. People can live on $60 a month in other countries for a reason and it's because the state doesn't make everything overpriced.

[N12]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

Wage laborers are only victims because your "collective" that I call the state artificially raises the cost-of-living. People can live on $60 a month in other countries for a reason and it's because the state doesn't make everything overpriced.

GTFO TO YOUR PLAYGROUND @ Politics & Society. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR LOLBERTARIAN RAMBLINGS AND PHILOSOPHY ABOUT EVERYTHING. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE FAIRNESS OF BITCOIN.

THANK YOU

[Harvey]

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect [...]

Bitcoin is a currency. It is not a wealth redistribution system. Therefore, it does not have to be perfect, nor even good, at allocating wealth.
Unlike many people on this forum, I do believe in wealth redistribution. However, this should be achieved by governments and taxes, not by the way a currency is allocated.

It's a non-concept. There is no wealth "redistribution". Wealth is infinite through technology and innovation. If you want riches, go stake your share through your own choices and actions. Don't just sit their begging for a share from the others.

I hate the left more and more with every passing day I see this bullshit.

I think you could better describe this as "resource access redistribution". Since resources are scarce, we can't all have access to them. Essentially wealth is just a measure of access to resources. Is it fair that some people have access to more resources than others? No, but life's not fair.

We should give our resources (wealth) to help others, and we should encourage others to give as well, but I do not think anybody should be forced to give up their wealth.

Resources are scarce on a tangible level but we can use them more efficiently. Innovations that allow us to get by on less resources create wealth. This can be done indefinitely. It's not hurting anyone if somebody has more resources than another. An individual can get by on very little resources by using them efficiently.

We should not sacrifice, we should not commit suicide in the name of a "collective". We should share with others because we choose to value them and not by force.

[Harvey]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

Wage laborers are only victims because your "collective" that I call the state artificially raises the cost-of-living. People can live on $60 a month in other countries for a reason and it's because the state doesn't make everything overpriced.

GTFO TO YOUR PLAYGROUND @ Politics & Society. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR LOLBERTARIAN RAMBLINGS AND PHILOSOPHY ABOUT EVERYTHING. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE FAIRNESS OF BITCOIN.

THANK YOU

Ah but it's relevant, Blitzboom.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

Wage laborers are only victims because your "collective" that I call the state artificially raises the cost-of-living. People can live on $60 a month in other countries for a reason and it's because the state doesn't make everything overpriced.

True, be that as it may, my statement is still true.

The state may not be the collective, but the state does control it, so what you said makes sense. However, it does not negate my statement.

Just because what you said is true, it actually further helps my point. You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

[westkybitcoins]

In any case, I don't think it matters that much. As bitcoins become more ubiquitous, fewer people will know or care about who jumped in early, and how well they've done.

I don’t think you understand, my point is that the market is struggling with this initial allocation and trying to spread it out, but in doing so lowering its usefulness. (you can’t tell me that the huge volatility we have seen and are seeing is NOT largely due to this, and NOT reducing Bitcoin’s value overall)

I think there are two big issues causing more problems than the supply curve: the learning curve for bitcoin, and the fact people can't get or dump bitcoins on a whim. Having to go through the exchanges (I know it's not mandatory, just one of the easiest ways) is quite a bottleneck.

My theory with the sigmoid curve is that naturally, as the reward/block grows over time, the incentive to adopt Bitcoin actually grows, and the growth of the community will adapt to it. It simply spreads out more Bitcoins to later people (this is exactly what the market has done the past 6 months!) while still maintaining its basic properties, as "peak bitcoin" would eventually be hit.

I see where you're coming from, but I do see one distinct advantage with the current growth curve: coins pour in at a high rate right from the start, for quite a while. We still haven't hit the first block payout reduction, so we still, 2 years from startup, have access to the 50 coins/block. True, it's harder, but that's more a function of so many miners jumping in.

With a sigmoid curve, sure, early adopters would have fewer coins... but we'd also probably still be having trouble getting bitcoins due to lower payouts, and would be waiting for the uptick for the coins to pour in.

So, I guess I can see it working (and having issues) either way.

[714]

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve ...

fair enough. indeed, Bitcoin could have been allocated differently.
but you do understand that the past is history, and that we are not going to change it, don't you?

Intractable past circumstances are evidence of failure in the original implementation, which nonetheless remains unchanged. Bad ideas that can't be fixed get replaced. If you think there's any value in Bitcoin you should hope it can change and adapt, otherwise it's just Flooze 2.0 implemented by parties who weren't quite as naïve as the implementors of Flooze 1.0.

It's not clear to me that there's a shared definition of fairness in this discussion. It's hard to decide if it's even relevant if it is undefined. Statements like "capitalism is fair" are good for their humor content, the same thing was once said every bit as earnestly about witch trials by ordeal. What's the weather like in the 17th century?

[evoorhees]

You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

 

A man trades his candy bar for some money. Another man trades his money for the candy bar.

Who lost out?

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

 

A man trades his candy bar for some money. Another man trades his money for the candy bar.

Who lost out?

lol I guess using the simplest of transactions.
 
Using your example with the candy bar, allow to make another point. Not all the time does one actually know he's losing out, furthermore don't think of it as losing out but instead 1 of them got the better hand.

So, using your example there are alot of factors we dont know.
How much did the original owner pay for the candy bar?
Was it the same price he sold it for?
What did he value the candy bar at? Did its capitalistic value go up or down?

No matter how the questions are answered, someone had to of gotten the better deal.

[Harvey]

You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

 

A man trades his candy bar for some money. Another man trades his money for the candy bar.

Who lost out?

lol I guess using the simplest of transactions.
 
Using your example with the candy bar, allow to make another point. Not all the time does one actually know he's losing out, furthermore don't think of it as losing out but instead 1 of them got the better hand.

So, using your example there are alot of factors we dont know.
How much did the original owner pay for the candy bar?
Was it the same price he sold it for?
What did he value the candy bar at? Did its capitalistic value go up or down?

No matter how the questions are answered, someone had to of gotten the better deal.

They both got the better deal. They wouldn't of entered the transaction if either one of them had to sacrifice. Both profited. Wealth was created.

One valued the candy bar more than the money. Another valued the money more than candy bar.

Wins all around.

[David M]

People who acquired alot of Bitcoins without much effort are supposed to deserve it because they got in early / had alot of spare fiat or generated them before the public knew about it.

"Without much effort"  is a very strange way to think.  

I can only grok this statement if I think time, ideas and risk are worthless.

---------------

The word "fair" is a relative word.  A definition that changes from person to person and act to act.

You're more than welcome to start your own digital currency.

+1

Capitalism isn't fair. Capitalism awards speculators, and their ne'er-do-well children, and their mistresses and sycophants and shills and hangers-on. It keeps hard-working people locked in debt, sometimes to people who don't have to work at all.

WTF?

Intervention, "wealth distribution" and central planning gives "mistresses and sycophants and shills and hangers-on" unearned wealth.

Capitalism gives you what you deserve.

I don’t think you understand, my point is that the market is struggling with this initial allocation and trying to spread it out, but in doing so lowering its usefulness.

Markets don't struggle.  Only the participants' emotional and financial status.

[evoorhees]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

 

A man trades his candy bar for some money. Another man trades his money for the candy bar.

Who lost out?

lol I guess using the simplest of transactions.
 
Using your example with the candy bar, allow to make another point. Not all the time does one actually know he's losing out, furthermore don't think of it as losing out but instead 1 of them got the better hand.

So, using your example there are alot of factors we dont know.
How much did the original owner pay for the candy bar?
Was it the same price he sold it for?
What did he value the candy bar at? Did its capitalistic value go up or down?

No matter how the questions are answered, someone had to of gotten the better deal.

They both got the better deal. They wouldn't of entered the transaction if either one of them had to sacrifice. Both profited. Wealth was created.

Ah thats were your mistaken my friend. They both may have 'thought' they are getting the better deal, but reality says someone had to have gotten the upper hand, even if they didnt know it.

[Harvey]

You cannot have capitalism without someone losing out and thats precisely why Im a capitalist!

 

A man trades his candy bar for some money. Another man trades his money for the candy bar.

Who lost out?

lol I guess using the simplest of transactions.
 
Using your example with the candy bar, allow to make another point. Not all the time does one actually know he's losing out, furthermore don't think of it as losing out but instead 1 of them got the better hand.

So, using your example there are alot of factors we dont know.
How much did the original owner pay for the candy bar?
Was it the same price he sold it for?
What did he value the candy bar at? Did its capitalistic value go up or down?

No matter how the questions are answered, someone had to of gotten the better deal.

They both got the better deal. They wouldn't of entered the transaction if either one of them had to sacrifice. Both profited. Wealth was created.

Ah thats were your mistaken my friend. They both may have 'thought' they are getting the better deal, but reality says someone had to have gotten the upper hand, even if they didnt know it.

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

You may think the money is worth more but that is only your perspective. It is not infallible, it is not objective. The fact is Bob wanted the candy bar over the money. He did not sacrifice. He only feels more pleasure and that's his damn right.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

Unfortunately, our system does have class. The factory work and his CEO boss are not in the same class. You couldn't have a factory worker without a CEO and a CEO without a factory worker.  

True, for arguments sake lets agree that all men produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability however, all men are NOT compensated equally for their work, and thats the beautify of capitalism right there.

[Harvey]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

Unfortunately, our system does have class. The factory work and his CEO boss are not in the same class. You couldn't have a factory worker without a CEO and a CEO without a factory worker.  

True, for arguments sake lets agree that all men produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability however, all men are NOT compensated equally for their work, and thats the beautify of capitalism right there.

No, you don't feel they are compensated equally. Somebody feels 2 dollars an hour if good enough for his work. You don't. It's only your perception of equality. It's not objective.

...and, no, the Marxist theory of value is not objective either.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

Unfortunately, our system does have class. The factory work and his CEO boss are not in the same class. You couldn't have a factory worker without a CEO and a CEO without a factory worker.  

True, for arguments sake lets agree that all men produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability however, all men are NOT compensated equally for their work, and thats the beautify of capitalism right there.

No, you don't feel they are compensated equally. Somebody feels 2 dollars an hour if good enough for his work. You don't. It's only your perception of equality. It's not objective.

...and, no, the Marxist theory of value is not objective either.

heh, ok if thats what you believe then come work for me!

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and be emotional, we lose the value of our discussion. Thanks

[Harvey]

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and get emotional I really dont wanna have a discussion with you.

You see, now you feel this exchange will cause you to sacrifice. You leave. You're not going to allow yourself to get shorted.

However, I feel you might be better off still talking to me. That doesn't really mean anything, does it?

In the end, you only know the fair price. You only know what's best for you. There is no objective value.

[bb113]

I know an alternative that wouldn’t have done so. It’s called a sigmoid curve ...

fair enough. indeed, Bitcoin could have been allocated differently.
but you do understand that the past is history, and that we are not going to change it, don't you?

No, and I’ve said so before, that would undermine the whole system, obviously. I don’t think we will ever have a chance besides with this block chain. It’s funny because it’s almost extortion when you think about it.

I think noone has discussed a sigmoid curve in 2009 or 2010. The people back then either knew their role in the system and didn’t want to decrease their individual piece of the cake (yay rational actors), or they just didn’t foresee possible "problems" the initial allocation might bring.

I bring it up because I don’t like the way people think it’s perfect, and I think it might be good to reflect and learn what could have made Bitcoin more robust, so that the market doesn’t have to go from 32 to 1.99 to (as I think, eventually) surpassing the former high.

As I’ve said the additional volatility it brought is actually decreasing usability and trust. I guess the only advantage this brings is that it attracts a whole lot of speculators who are now correcting what has gone "wrong" with the monetary policy. Maybe this leads to growth that exceeds the damage, but I doubt it.

This is really interesting... Do you think the large sell offs on the way down were the "markets" correcting for the faulty design?

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and get emotional I really dont wanna have a discussion with you.

You see, now you feel this exchange will cause you to sacrifice. You leave. You're not going to allow yourself to get shorted.

Again, please don't go off topic and make this personal. Im not going anywhere and if I am wrong I will gladly admit to it.
Your attempt to make my feelings hinder my point of view will not work. These immaturities do not affect me.

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and get emotional I really dont wanna have a discussion with you.

However, I feel you might be better off still talking to me. That doesn't really mean anything, does it?

Honestly, I dont care how you feel lol. I know nothing about you, nor do I care. The only reason we are conversing is because of this current discussion.

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and get emotional I really dont wanna have a discussion with you.

In the end, you only know the fair price. You only know what's best for you. There is no objective value.

Yes, exactly. I think we may be speaking about something different at this point.

I was responding to what Erik said, which had more to do with the Worker--Boss relationship and the classes in our current society.
Your points are more on the transactional basis, which forgive me, I dont know enough about to to make an accurate decision wether to agree or disagree with you.

I hope you were not insulted by me and can continue have this friendly discussion 

[Harvey]

The boss-worker relationship is a transaction. They both enter into it because they have something to gain from each other.

[bitcoinbear]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

The working class is those people who work to earn a living. This is compared to the poor, who cannot work for a living, and the monied class, who do not work because they have so much money they just live off the interest it generates.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

The boss-worker relationship is a transaction. They both enter into it because they have something to gain from each other.

Yes, but they are not on the same level. The worker does not have the power to make company wide decisions, does he?

Don't forget, in the factory worker case, the CEO has more to gain and less to lose then the worker does.

[evoorhees]

Ah thats were your mistaken my friend. They both may have 'thought' they are getting the better deal, but reality says someone had to have gotten the upper hand, even if they didnt know it.

Okay let's make this simpler...

Two cave men. One which is good at making straight spears out of wood. The other is good at making arrowheads out of rock. If they only use their own skills, both of them starve to death because the spear is incomplete.

However, a simple trade makes them both measurably better off.

Now, why do you still say that one of them is getting ripped off, that one is made worse? Please explain, because it seems quite clear to me that by trading wealth is being generated and both are made happier for it.

[Harvey]

The boss-worker relationship is a transaction. They both enter into it because they have something to gain from each other.

Yes, but they are not on the same level. The worker does not have the power to make company wide decisions, does he?

He doesn't fucking want it. He doesn't care.

[amencon]

Capitalism is fair.

No...its not.

Individuals are only free on the condition that the great mass of people taken collectively- are not. We could not have capitalism without a working class and they are not free within the capitalist system to cease being wage laborers. A people's capitalism is nonsense.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.

Unfortunately, our system does have class. The factory work and his CEO boss are not in the same class. You couldn't have a factory worker without a CEO and a CEO without a factory worker.  

True, for arguments sake lets agree that all men produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability however, all men are NOT compensated equally for their work, and thats the beautify of capitalism right there.

The president of my company was once an engineer and moved up.  One of the engineers in my company was once a factory worker.  In fact the engineering department lately has brought on another factory worker that taught himself CAD.  If a factory worker can become an engineer and then teach himself business and become the president where does that leave your point?

The crux of the argument lies in peoples' definition of "fair".  Fair isn't a universal absolute, it isn't tangible and is only as real as it is in the mind of the individual, like "good" and "bad".  As an extreme example let's take a mentally challenged person.  Does he deserve to make as much as the highest paid member of our society?  From one perspective you could argue that he produces/offers less worth to the society and it would be unfair for him to have the same access to resources as others that contribute more.  Conversely you could also argue that it wasn't his fault that he was born mentally deficient and as such should, in the name of fairness, earn the same as everyone else.

In nature the weak get weeded out.  Our "civilized" manners in modern society is but a thin veil covering the true animal reality we all still live in.  If things being "fair" were what was needed to survive and progress that would be the cornerstone of our history, but it's not.

[N12]

This is really interesting... Do you think the large sell offs on the way down were the "markets" correcting for the faulty design?

Yes. I believe the design led to disproportion in people with (much) more Bitcoins than they really want vs. people with less Bitcoins than they really want.

I’m afraid it’s not working very well though (perhaps the market cap is too low and it’s too easy to corner now?), because the selling volume is actually increasing, leading to this huge 380k volume spike to 1.99.

I guess this will go on as long as people haven’t made up their mind whether they want BTC or USD.

[ssaCEO]

There are no losers in this game unlike your literal zero-sum casino games. There are people that succeeded and there are those that did nothing. There was no real loss. It's just butthurt envy all around.

I'm agreeing with you. Read my whole post.

[Vandroiy]

Can anyone explain why the Bitcoin mines should produce the same amount of Bitcoins on day #1 where 3 guys on a cryptography mailing list know about it, as on day #1000 where tens of thousands do?

Because they made the rules, obviously. Of course, a sigmoid would have given better initial distribution, but nobody programmed Bitcoin with one at the time, so the makers could take more for themselves. Yes, this could have been distributed more evenly, but it's a thing of the past now.

This is really interesting... Do you think the large sell offs on the way down were the "markets" correcting for the faulty design?

Yes. I believe the design led to disproportion in people with (much) more Bitcoins than they really want vs. people with less Bitcoins than they really want.

I’m afraid it’s not working very well though (perhaps the market cap is too low and it’s too easy to corner now?), because the selling volume is actually increasing, leading to this huge 380k volume spike to 1.99.

Huh? Isn't this exactly showing that it does work out? The market became much more liquid, quite a few people sold their initial Bitcoin assets. The whole market liquidity is correcting things as we speak, and has been heavily for two months now. Volume can't rise forever, and so we end up with more stability.

And with each trade, Bitcoins end up with someone who wanted them, not for free years ago, but today at current price.

[ThiagoCMC]

Capitalism is fair.

I totally disagree with this.

Capitalism is the main root of the today world's most barbarous problems like: hungry, wars, diseases, poverty, pollution, waste, envy, competition, etc and etc...

I'm about to begin the end of capitalism. By starting a new, moneyless, society.

The Bitcoin / Litecoin / Namecoin will be heavily used during the transition of this sick society, to the new one.

Best!
Thiago

[ssaCEO]

Capitalism is fair.

I totally disagree with this.

Capitalism is the main root of the today world's most barbarous problems like: hungry, wars, diseases, poverty, pollution, waste, envy, competition, etc and etc...

I'm about to begin the end of capitalism. By starting a new, moneyless, society.

The Bitcoin / Litecoin / Namecoin will be heavily used during the transition of this sick society, to the new one.

Best!
Thiago

Good grief. Either you must be the most intelligent person ever, who's finally solved all the world's problems, or you've never read a book or newspaper in your life. You'd think 70 years of corrupt communists robbing, executing and torturing their citizens would give people pause before writing something as idiotic as "a new, moneyless, society." Apparently, there's an endless supply of stupid people who're willing believe in this ****.

There's never gonna be a moneyless society, dude. So stop wasting your time and go make some money. Money = proof of work. Bitcoin = proof of work. Even if you killed 99% of the people on earth, you'd still have to give the people who were left an incentive to do things for you, or for each other, because everyone works for themselves first. That's the Big Lesson of communism: No one wants to work for you or some other guy for free. The only moneyless society, ever, was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. And they starved and executed 1/4th of their population and put the rest into slavery for a bowl of rice a day to make them work. Is that what you call a healthy society? The opposite of the "sick" one we live in now? Go to Cambodia. Go to the museum at Tuol Seng and look at the bones, and think about whether any state has a right to dictate to other people how their freedom and labor should be used.

[barbarousrelic]

Any new digital currency is going to be worth right next to zero at the beginning. And therefore anyone who invests real money on a new highly speculative currency is going to make a lot of money if it succeeds.

[ThiagoCMC]

Capitalism is fair.

I totally disagree with this.

Capitalism is the main root of the today world's most barbarous problems like: hungry, wars, diseases, poverty, pollution, waste, envy, competition, etc and etc...

I'm about to begin the end of capitalism. By starting a new, moneyless, society.

The Bitcoin / Litecoin / Namecoin will be heavily used during the transition of this sick society, to the new one.

Best!
Thiago

Good grief. Either you must be the most intelligent person ever, who's finally solved all the world's problems, or you've never read a book or newspaper in your life. You'd think 70 years of corrupt communists robbing, executing and torturing their citizens would give people pause before writing something as idiotic as "a new, moneyless, society." Apparently, there's an endless supply of stupid people who're willing believe in this ****.

There's never gonna be a moneyless society, dude. So stop wasting your time and go make some money. Money = proof of work. Bitcoin = proof of work. Even if you killed 99% of the people on earth, you'd still have to give the people who were left an incentive to do things for you, or for each other, because everyone works for themselves first. That's the Big Lesson of communism: No one wants to work for you or some other guy for free. The only moneyless society, ever, was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. And they starved and executed 1/4th of their population and put the rest into slavery for a bowl of rice a day to make them work. Is that what you call a healthy society? The opposite of the "sick" one we live in now? Go to Cambodia. Go to the museum at Tuol Seng and look at the bones, and think about whether any state has a right to dictate to other people how their freedom and labor should be used.

I don't care. I'll make it happen.

Money is a FALSE incentive.

[Technomage]

Suddenly there are many threads about essentially the same thing. I love Bitcoin but I'm also an advocate of a resource-based economy. Please read the thread "Occupy Round Table on Bitcoin" for further information. Especially the people who can't even imagine a world without money need to read it.

[BkkCoins]

OMG - I just realized how unfair the US$ is because people had a chance to get in early before I was born. Not fair - I was born with nothing and there were people already with millions and billions of those dollar bills who had a better chance to make more when I had none.

We need to reorganize the world to be fair to each new born baby and Bitcoin isn't going to do that so I'm putting together a new one called "BabyCoin". Every new born baby gets assigned 1000000 BabyCoins so they start out rich and we all compete fair in this New World Order.

[ThiagoCMC]

OMG - I just realized how unfair the US$ is because people had a chance to get in early before I was born. Not fair - I was born with nothing and there were people already with millions and billions of those dollar bills who had a better chance to make more when I had none.

We need to reorganize the world to be fair to each new born baby and Bitcoin isn't going to do that so I'm putting together a new one called "BabyCoin". Every new born baby gets assigned 1000000 BabyCoins so they start out rich and we all compete fair in this New World Order.

Humans are the only species that pay to live on the Earth.

[714]

Any new digital currency is going to be worth right next to zero at the beginning. And therefore anyone who invests real money on a new highly speculative currency is going to make a lot of money if it succeeds.

Since you aren't offering any grounding for your assertion, I won't trouble myself to ground this one: Betting against bitcoin has a greater expectation of profit than "investing" in it. If you have a bitcoin, sell it now for your preferred currency, as bitcoins will eventually be of negligible value.

[evoorhees]

OMG - I just realized how unfair the US$ is because people had a chance to get in early before I was born. Not fair - I was born with nothing and there were people already with millions and billions of those dollar bills who had a better chance to make more when I had none.

We need to reorganize the world to be fair to each new born baby and Bitcoin isn't going to do that so I'm putting together a new one called "BabyCoin". Every new born baby gets assigned 1000000 BabyCoins so they start out rich and we all compete fair in this New World Order.

Humans are the only species that pay to live on the Earth.

Humans don't "pay to live on the earth."  They pay each other toward mutual benefit so that they don't starve and suffer in perpetual poverty and discomfort.

[LightRider]

All currencies and monetary systems exist to benefit the arbitrary few at the expense of the many. They are artificial contrivances that have no relationship to the real world, the interconnectedness of humanity and the symbiotic and emergent nature of the universe from which we spring. Bitcoin being the latest iteration of a contrived and purely artificial scarcity, but in so doing probably being the best example of what money really is and eventually showing how obsolete and unnecessary it has become.

[ThiagoCMC]

I'm sure that we, humans, do not need any kind of money to organize our society.

In fact, I'm so sure that we will live much better without money.
The technology will evolve much faster, for example...

[ThiagoCMC]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

[BkkCoins]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

Sounds like "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux and we know how that turned out.
But it sounds like a fun adventure for a while.

[ThiagoCMC]

....
Humans don't "pay to live on the earth."  They pay each other toward mutual benefit so that they don't starve and suffer in perpetual poverty and discomfort.

Yeah... THAT does not happen today. Right?!

You can grow food by planting money.

The poor people was created by "the system", by the establishment.

People who die of hunger today, die because they have no money, not because the Earth is not able to feed them.

So, the system we live today have a serious problem. It is totally WRONG! Unfair... Crap... Which leads us to wars... That is so stupid!!!

[bb113]

....
Humans don't "pay to live on the earth."  They pay each other toward mutual benefit so that they don't starve and suffer in perpetual poverty and discomfort.

Yeah... THAT does not happen today. Right?!

You can grow food by planting money.

The poor people was created by "the system", by the establishment.

People who die of hunger today, die because they have no money, not because the Earth is not able to feed them.

So, the system we live today have a serious problem. It is totally WRONG! Unfair... Crap... Which leads us to wars... That is so stupid!!!

So why did people die in the past?

[ThiagoCMC]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

Sounds like "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux and we know how that turned out.
But it sounds like a fun adventure for a while.

You are invited to live with us.

We'll start our project, the experimental city, using the open source tools called "Open Source Ecology - GVCS".

Any surplus produced in our city, such as food, clothing, open source industries products, will be sold out by Bitcoins / Litecoins.

Until the day that we will be the majoritary group, so, everyone else will be absorved by our new system. Which will take care of all of us.

ADDED: And the money, including the Bitcoin, will be left in our past.

Cheers,
Thiago

[BkkCoins]

You are invited to live with us.

We'll start our project, the experimental city, using the open source tools called "Open Source Ecology - GVCS".

Any surplus produced in our city, such as food, clothing, open source industries products, will be sold out by Bitcoins / Litecoins.

Until the day that we will be the majoritary group, so, everyone else will be absorved by our new system. Which will take care of all of us.

ADDED: And the money, including the Bitcoin, will be left in our past.

Cheers,
Thiago

I'd be tempted except for lack of travel funds and that I'm already living in a small village in Thailand. You should consider Thailand: the people are very tolerant of alternative world views and are peaceful due to Buddhist upbringing. Live and let live. There are already communities here that are doing well on their own self-sufficiency programs. They're very independent and also formed the back bone of the anti-government protests this year in Bangkok while providing free instruction on various topics related to self-sufficiency.

[westkybitcoins]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

Sounds like "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux and we know how that turned out.
But it sounds like a fun adventure for a while.

You are invited to live with us.

We'll start our project, the experimental city, using the open source tools called "Open Source Ecology - GVCS".

Any surplus produced in our city, such as food, clothing, open source industries products, will be sold out by Bitcoins / Litecoins.

Until the day that we will be the majoritary group, so, everyone else will be absorved by our new system. Which will take care of all of us.

ADDED: And the money, including the Bitcoin, will be left in our past.

Cheers,
Thiago

I feel compelled to ask...

Suppose this place is set up, and children are born there.

Suppose one day the settlers discover their children trading pretty sea shells for snacks, favors, toys, etc. Furthermore, suppose a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery have accumulated most of the shells, and that a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery, have almost none.

What would you do about the situation?

[Harvey]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

Sounds like "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux and we know how that turned out.
But it sounds like a fun adventure for a while.

You are invited to live with us.

We'll start our project, the experimental city, using the open source tools called "Open Source Ecology - GVCS".

Any surplus produced in our city, such as food, clothing, open source industries products, will be sold out by Bitcoins / Litecoins.

Until the day that we will be the majoritary group, so, everyone else will be absorved by our new system. Which will take care of all of us.

ADDED: And the money, including the Bitcoin, will be left in our past.

Cheers,
Thiago

I feel compelled to ask...

Suppose this place is set up, and children are born there.

Suppose one day the settlers discover their children trading pretty sea shells for snacks, favors, toys, etc. Furthermore, suppose a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery have accumulated most of the shells, and that a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery, have almost none.

What would you do about the situation?

Re-education camp for those ignorant fiends.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01678/Labour_Camp_1678487c.jpg

[westkybitcoins]

"If you build it, he will come"...

Never mind guys... I don't like to stay on words...

I'm saying this because I believe in something:

We do not need to compete each other, we must cooperate to make the Earth, the most amazing place of the Universe!

So, to start the development of this new society, I just bought a huge farm in here Brazil, with little rivers, wind, much solar light, etc... All the resources needed to develop a new, open source, society, without money.


"If you build them, they will come."

Best!
Thiago

Sounds like "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux and we know how that turned out.
But it sounds like a fun adventure for a while.

You are invited to live with us.

We'll start our project, the experimental city, using the open source tools called "Open Source Ecology - GVCS".

Any surplus produced in our city, such as food, clothing, open source industries products, will be sold out by Bitcoins / Litecoins.

Until the day that we will be the majoritary group, so, everyone else will be absorved by our new system. Which will take care of all of us.

ADDED: And the money, including the Bitcoin, will be left in our past.

Cheers,
Thiago

I feel compelled to ask...

Suppose this place is set up, and children are born there.

Suppose one day the settlers discover their children trading pretty sea shells for snacks, favors, toys, etc. Furthermore, suppose a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery have accumulated most of the shells, and that a few of the children, through no force, fraud, deceit or trickery, have almost none.

What would you do about the situation?

Re-education camp for those ignorant fiends.

The lack of direct, honest answers to all this does make one wonder.

[amencon]

OMG - I just realized how unfair the US$ is because people had a chance to get in early before I was born. Not fair - I was born with nothing and there were people already with millions and billions of those dollar bills who had a better chance to make more when I had none.

We need to reorganize the world to be fair to each new born baby and Bitcoin isn't going to do that so I'm putting together a new one called "BabyCoin". Every new born baby gets assigned 1000000 BabyCoins so they start out rich and we all compete fair in this New World Order.

Humans are the only species that pay to live on the Earth.

Nope.

We pay to live comfortably on the Earth.  Take a look at the alternatives.  I'll take money over hunting/gathering in the fucking mud.  In fact that image you posted is a great counter argument the to point I think you were trying to make.

[bitcoinbear]

If you hate money so much, I would gladly take yours from you. Then you can go out in the woods and have fun living without money.