A _new_ currency has to be fair

[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