Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family

[Etlase2]

Oh, and you know, the definition of early adopter is relative. Ok yeah, Satoshi had the chance to get a load of Bitcoins 2 years ago, but you know, in 10 years from now, there will be no more new Bitcoins. Those people in 10 years, when they'll enter the Bitcoin market, for them, WE'll be early adopters.

Because if I buy in right now I get to be more powerful than those that follow? Then I would be contributing to the system that I loathe.

..

Is your personal comfort more important than the oppression of the world?

You may be able to pander to many with this carrot, but this does not pander to me. The promise of wealth for nothing is not something I desire, because I know it comes at a cost to someone else.

Convince ME.

[1715250742]

1715250742

[1715250742]

1715250742

[1715250742]

1715250742

[Etlase2]

when in doubt, resort to strawman

[paraipan]

I stopped reading after you said that the people of Libya were "wealthy & happy" under Gadaffi. You been smoking to much of that shit from Silk Road  !

he said the truth so keep reading or research yourself

[niko]

While I may share some of the OP's concerns, I fail to see how these relate to Bitcoin. To asnwer the OP's question directly:

1. There is no "Bitcoin elite". It's a p2p system, open source, and open for anyone to jump on and off board as they please. Moreover, the majority of coins have not even been mined yet. I don't see the problem. You are free to mine, buy, sell and use coins as you please. You don't depend on any central authority to do so.

2. Even if there were "Bitcoin elite," they could never become the next Rothschild family, simply because they are not a family. My view is that, while generations of Rothschilds were born into wealth and therefore inevitably understand how wealth functions (better than an average Joe anyway), some fraction of this presumed "Bitcoin elite" are dysfunctional, paranoid trash who will - if by some coincidence their amassed  coins become significantly valued - quickly slide into a spiral of personal disasters related to addiction, lawyers, vanity, abuse, and stupidity.  All I hope is that they spent their coins on their way, instead of losing them irreversibly to a black hole. The other fraction may just be fine folks, who will do with their coins as they please, without causing much harm to themselves or others. Many members of this forum come to mind, and I am glad if they got wealthy. Good for them.



 

[cbeast]

quickly slide into a spiral of personal disasters related to addiction, lawyers, vanity, abuse, and stupidity.

Then they'll make a tv show about them. 

[Maria]

Silence please. Shhhhhhh!

Maria.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

I fully expect, if somehow "the state" as it is referred to here were to be done away with, anyone with sufficient resources would simply set up their own.

States only exist because people desire them. Similarly as slavery did in the past. Slavery has long been considered immoral (in most cases), but still existed because people thought that that's simply the way it is. The risk that it will return is not very high. Similarly, if sufficient amount of people realise that state is immoral and harmful and stop supporting it, it will stop playing a role in our lives.

There is plenty of anarchocapitalist literature dealing with all kinds of questions regarding stateless societies, for example Demoncracy the God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Myth of National Defense (ed. the same), Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy, Market for Liberty by Morris & Linda Tannehill, the video blogs of Stefan Molyneux, and so on. Pick whichever you like.

This is the internet, provide a link. This is the internet, bear with me for not necessarily agreeing with you and being aware that facts and opinions are often intertwined.

A summary is on the Bitcoin wiki. A discussion is on the Bitcoin wiki talks page, and continues on the forum. My forum posts also include references to support my claims.

[CoinHunter]

About a dozen people mined the first 2 million coins in Bitcoin, of which only 21 million will ever be created. The later you become aware of Bitcoin the worse off you are.

Regardless of the "top dozen guys" benefiting greatly it's obvious that Bitcoin is the definition of a pyramid. The earlier you get on the better ride you get. We have addressed these issues with SolidCoin so if you want a coin that is always going to be :-

1) Against the existing banking system
2) Against government control of your money
3) For freedom
4) Decentralized currency creation based on real work instead of invented numbers
5) Isn't a pyramid scheme

You know where to go.

[CoinHunter]

2) Against government control of your money

I think I would prefer the government from what I've read of solidcoin.

And, you didn't fix the "early adopter problem" with your alt chain. I've yet to see anyone that has. So I'm unconvinced it was a problem, and am still certain it was necessary for the bootstrapping of Bitcoin. Those early coins used to be worthless to people, and I'd bet the farm many of them have been lost forever. And many that weren't have been sold for a pittance. It's nice to say in hindsight that it's a pyramid, but from what I've read none of the early adopters ever dreamed Bitcoin would get as far as it already has. In my mind, it seems like Satoshi designed it correctly and this "problem" has much more to do with envy than anything else.

You'd really prefer the government? I think this is where fanaticism comes into it.

You are right that the first 2.7 million coins in SolidCoin weren't "fair" compared to the next coins created. However unlike Bitcoin those 2.7 million coins are owned by thousands of people. I've spent the most effort in SolidCoin and I only have 1.5% of the coins, so put that in perspective.

If anyone tried starting what SolidCoin is "right now" it would fail. You need to do things in baby steps so that it is acceptable to the people using the system in the context of "what they know". An analogy would be like trying to get someone to understand algebra before addition.

[Hawker]

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. ...

No they don´t! Especially the Rothschilds do not! They have sperad their wealth very widely. Let all money get worthless, but they are still pretty well off. Let gold or diamonds get worthless, they care less than you do.
Like them or not, its a winning strategy.

p.s.
I don´t think they got Bitcoins. Probably maybe be they better should have.

And they got that wealth by controlling the money supply.

Basically, you're just bothered by the fact that some people are insanely rich? Should the title of the OP then be: "convince me that the bitcoin early adopters won't become really rich". personally, I don't really care as long as they can't rob me by printing money.

Historically that isn't true.  The Rothschilds got money as bankers long before fiat money was normal.  The made a fortune when England won the Battle of Waterloo.

[Killdozer]

About a dozen people mined the first 2 million coins in Bitcoin, of which only 21 million will ever be created. The later you become aware of Bitcoin the worse off you are.

Regardless of the "top dozen guys" benefiting greatly it's obvious that Bitcoin is the definition of a pyramid. The earlier you get on the better ride you get. We have addressed these issues with SolidCoin so if you want a coin that is always going to be :-

Please...
It's you who are building a pyramid and a trying to make a quick buck. The original bitcoin is the innovation and is worth something. It has actual beneficial properties that are making it valueable. Solidcoin on the other hand is just an attempt to make money off the same concept, off the people that don't know any better. You didn't invent anything, you didn't give the world anything, you've just tried to become an "early adopter" of a new thing, because you were too late to be that for the old thing, and seem to have missed, or chose to miss the fact that "early adopters" phenomenon is not the point of Bitcoin, nor an important part of Bitcoin, it's just a side-effect of the fact that coins have to be generated somehow and that blocks have to be generated somehow.

You are the reason people think that cryptocurrency is a scam.

[finway]

Interesting post.

[CoinHunter]

About a dozen people mined the first 2 million coins in Bitcoin, of which only 21 million will ever be created. The later you become aware of Bitcoin the worse off you are.

Regardless of the "top dozen guys" benefiting greatly it's obvious that Bitcoin is the definition of a pyramid. The earlier you get on the better ride you get. We have addressed these issues with SolidCoin so if you want a coin that is always going to be :-

Please...
It's you who are building a pyramid and a trying to make a quick buck.

Sorry, if you knew the code in SolidCoin you would know how ridiculous this sounds. As more miners join, more coins are created.  This is the exact opposite of a pyramid. In Bitcoin as more miners join the blocks get harder to make but they are still worth the same number of Bitcoins. It means that Satoshi generating them on his CPU (and who made about a million or so) did so at a cost of only a cent a coin vs about 50c a coin now. You think this is fair?

And unlike Bitcoin we use real metrics like electricity to determine how much a block is worth.

The original bitcoin is the innovation and is worth something. It has actual beneficial properties that are making it valueable. Solidcoin on the other hand is just an attempt to make money off the same concept, off the people that don't know any better. You didn't invent anything, you didn't give the world anything, you've just tried to become an "early adopter" of a new thing, because you were too late to be that for the old thing, and seem to have missed, or chose to miss the fact that "early adopters" phenomenon is not the point of Bitcoin, nor an important part of Bitcoin, it's just a side-effect of the fact that coins have to be generated somehow and that blocks have to be generated somehow.

Bitcoin has innovated over its competitors (which were none) more than SolidCoin has over Bitcoin, no one can deny that. However SolidCoin is a better product than Bitcoin technically speaking. Banks and governments cannot take us down by mining SolidCoin like they can Bitcoin.

If a bank can spend 5 million dollars and shut down Bitcoin do you think Bitcoin is that secure? You may argue that it's 10 million or 20 million, but 3 years ago banks were given over 5 trillion dollars just to keep running. 20 million is nothing if it means shutting down a true competitor to their system. Zimbabwe could should shut down Bitcoin if they wanted. It isn't hard and it's entirely legal. Put as much faith into such a system as you want but we offer people a safer solution at SolidCoin.

I make no secret I am against banks, governments and the "elite" from messing with SolidCoin. Our supporters know this. Meanwhile check the video below to see Gavin (the leader of bitcoin) admitting he wouldn't care if Bank of America was running Bitcoin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0ljx4bbJrYE#t=1894s

[hazek]

My Point is: History prooves you wrong, wherever you take a closer look.

The history is irrelevant.

We had oh so many huge wars in our history and yet, we know today, after the atomic bomb, we are not going to have another world war ever again, because if we are, it's going to be the last one. Technology changed used forever on that issue. Once every place on earth has a few nuclear missiles to defend themselves meaning a deterrent, who the fk is going to attack anyone anymore?

Same goes for individuals. Your body strength and physic used to be pivotal for you to able to defend yourself against one stronger or multiple attackers. More and more sophisticated weapons have eliminated that requirement. And as these weapons become cheaper and cheaper and more available they'll pose the same deterrent functionality as nuclear weapons do on the national scale. Once every single person has a gun and a machine gun, who's going to try and and kill anyone? I know! Only crazy people and suiciders, which is far less violence than we have today and there will be no more state, no more oppression, no more coercion.

History is irrelevant because technology we'll introduce such strong deterrents that using violence will guarantee death for the perpetrator and no one will use violence anymore.

[hazek]

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. ...

No they don´t! Especially the Rothschilds do not! They have sperad their wealth very widely. Let all money get worthless, but they are still pretty well off. Let gold or diamonds get worthless, they care less than you do.
Like them or not, its a winning strategy.

Riiiiiight, is that why they say this?:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

[Killdozer]

You think this is fair?

Absolutely. There is no such thing as "absolute cost". There isn't even a "price of bitcoin", it's just an abstraction of the market, a general consensus of series of pairs of people deciding on exchanging certain amounts of things with each other.

However SolidCoin is a better product than Bitcoin technically speaking.

Not really. Bitcoin is a truly free market currency that cannot be controlled, and has limited predictable supply, which makes it valuable. Solidcoin is not even a currency based on what you are describing. It would not even work economically, which is difficult to prove of course, because it has not gained and I don't think will gain any widespread acceptance. Controlling money supply based on some subjective norms of "fair", "cost" of things, and other incentives is exactly what governments are doing and what is wrong with the american monetary system for example. Thank god the bitcoin is free from that.

If a bank can spend 5 million dollars and shut down Bitcoin do you think Bitcoin is that secure? You may argue that it's 10 million or 20 million, but 3 years ago banks were given over 5 trillion dollars just to keep running. 20 million is nothing if it means shutting down a true competitor to their system. Zimbabwe could should shut down Bitcoin if they wanted. It isn't hard and it's entirely legal. Put as much faith into such a system as you want but we offer people a safer solution at SolidCoin.

What exactly makes solidcoin more secure for any governmental or other agency with enough resources to shutdown? Faster retargets? Anyone with enough resources to disturb bitcoin could make solidcoin and everyone using it dissapear from the face of the earth if there was every any point for that.

[terrytibbs]

Mr. Butch just hit the nail on the head. That is all.

[Kettenmonster]

...

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I don´t get you. Do you blame them for having a clear view on reality plus making use of it?
Ok, making use of it is probably unethical, but that is just mine and pretty unlikely their opinion.

The history is irrelevant.

Ok for me if that is your assertion. But it fails on my perception.

Better weapons do not stop violence:
Look at India and Pakistan, both whilst having the bomb are on war (for decades now).

[hazek]

Better weapons do not stop violence:

Not by themselves alone, no. But you forgot I also spoke about their availability. If EVERYONE has a weapon, no one will use violence anymore. Why would they if they are guaranteed to die.

[paraipan]

Better weapons do not stop violence:

Not by themselves alone, no. But you forgot I also spoke about their availability. If EVERYONE has a weapon, no one will use violence anymore. Why would they if they are guaranteed to die.

+1