What happens when *WE* are the wealthy elite?

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

More of the same says with a sarcastic snide look

To be honest it would probably be a bit better than you presume these early adopters are closer to technocrats than inexperienced gamblers
One they would need to have a high level understanding of crytography and computer science to be early miners in Bitcoin and second they hold strong political views on how to develop society so it might even be an improvement.

If we look at our current financial system we can easily point out to bailouts of companies in the United States deemed to big to fail and increasing cronyism in politics with retired politicians getting cushy paying jobs as CEO's of large companies when they leave, but if a rich individual who was not raised in that type of culture was to rise to power and finance the worlds economy we might get a substantially different type of system and outcome out of it.

Thinking more along the lines of people like Hal Finney running the government etc.

From the OP

What happens when *WE* are the wealthy elite?

"WE" being the early early bitcoin adopters. The pioneers. Back when this forum was full of hackers, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. What happens when bitcoin wins, and the wealthy elite hold very anti-establishment, anti-state points of view?

I wouldn't have anything against technocrats, but most of the technocrats in the bitcoin community aren't holding the majority of bitcoins. They prefer to concentrate on the technical development, not on earning with speculating the unit price.
Most of the bitcoins are held by gamblers, whose only interest is to buy low and sell high. These are the people who see bitcoin as an easy fix to become rich.
Technocrats are about fair wealth distribution, so that there wouldn't be a new elite class, who actually don't contribute anything important to the society. The gamblers are different kind of people who don't dream of improving the world by upgrading finance. Only thing they wish to do, is to trade places with the present elite leeches.

[1715099414]

1715099414

[1715099414]

1715099414

[1715099414]

1715099414

[Swordsoffreedom]

More of the same says with a sarcastic snide look

To be honest it would probably be a bit better than you presume these early adopters are closer to technocrats than inexperienced gamblers
One they would need to have a high level understanding of crytography and computer science to be early miners in Bitcoin and second they hold strong political views on how to develop society so it might even be an improvement.

If we look at our current financial system we can easily point out to bailouts of companies in the United States deemed to big to fail and increasing cronyism in politics with retired politicians getting cushy paying jobs as CEO's of large companies when they leave, but if a rich individual who was not raised in that type of culture was to rise to power and finance the worlds economy we might get a substantially different type of system and outcome out of it.

Thinking more along the lines of people like Hal Finney running the government etc.

From the OP

What happens when *WE* are the wealthy elite?

"WE" being the early early bitcoin adopters. The pioneers. Back when this forum was full of hackers, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. What happens when bitcoin wins, and the wealthy elite hold very anti-establishment, anti-state points of view?

I wouldn't have anything against technocrats, but most of the technocrats in the bitcoin community aren't holding the majority of bitcoins. They prefer to concentrate on the technical development, not on earning with speculating the unit price.
Most of the bitcoins are held by gamblers, whose only interest is to buy low and sell high. These are the people who see bitcoin as an easy fix to become rich.
Technocrats are about fair wealth distribution, so that there wouldn't be a new elite class, who actually don't contribute anything important to the society. The gamblers are different kind of people who don't dream of improving the world by upgrading finance. Only thing they wish to do, is to trade places with the present elite leeches.

We are starting to see the diffusion of Bitcoins into the mass populace but a large amount are still either in the hands of technocrats or innovators.
From a 100% concentration when Satoshi first held them to a more diverse set of users.

What we do know is that there are a certain fixed number of Bitcoins and 13 million are presently in existence with 21 million total.
There are still a lot of coins to be generated, so bitcoin can be acquired by gamblers and investors and ends with the people who can afford them getting these new coins. The part about gamblers holding a lot of coins therefore is partially true depending on how you view it.

But the gamblers are weaker than the technocrats and the ones who want to innovate Bitcoin.
The Winklevoss Twins holds a large amount of Bitcoins, the FBI assuming they have access to Ross and his coins from the Silk Road hold a large percentage, Tim Draper recently can be added to this list with his intentions to build up more Bitcoin based technologies and finally we can't forget Satoshi whoever they are who has around 1 million of the 21 million coins.

I don't think there is a comprehensive list but a lot of groups and large organizations that store and hold bitcoins are not speculators, such as VC companies etc but ones that want to develop the infrastructure.

From this we can see that they may be gamblers among them but at the same time they are trying to ensure that Bitcoin will continue to grow and remain reasonably stable because they want to follow supply and demand and move from 1000's to tens to hundreds of thousands of transactions in the future as their value goes up, it is an experiment in progress and we will need to see how this evolves into the future.

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top500
From the top 100 we know that they presently hold 5% of all coins in circulation
From the top 500 it is  32.77%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgFUAhz7h2U&feature=youtu.be

Yet that diffusion is still occurring even now so it will be interesting to see how it turns out as an economic experiment into the development of digital currencies.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

We are starting to see the diffusion of Bitcoins into the mass populace but a large amount are still either in the hands of technocrats or innovators.
From a 100% concentration when Satoshi first held them to a more diverse set of users.

Could you please name those technocrats who have publicly claimed their bitcoin holdings?

But the gamblers are weaker than the technocrats and the ones who want to innovate Bitcoin.

I agree that the gamblers are weaker and slower, and they won't be able to run along with the development.
But the technocrats aren't obsessed about Bitcoin, that is a specific product represented by a specific brand name, and that has a specific unit value. Bitcoin is not important, what is important is the idea and the technology that bitcoin brought forward. Bitcoin is like the first popular Apple's personal computer model, it had it's importance in history, but the entire idea brought forward a new wave of improvements in the form of new and improved examples. Cryptocurrencies in general is the future of this idea. A world where the dominant coin will be decided by it's technical qualities and by fair competition.
The bitcoin fanatics are mostly dreaming that the world would be stagnant and the field wouldn't evolve past bitcoin. They do that because they are afraid that they can't keep up with the changes, so no easy riches for them. True technocrats aren't these kinds of fanatics.

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top500
From the top 100 we know that they presently hold 5% of all coins in circulation
From the top 500 it is  32.77%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgFUAhz7h2U&feature=youtu.be

Yet that diffusion is still occurring even now so it will be interesting to see how it turns out as an economic experiment into the development of digital currencies.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

These lists don't show anything when a person can have unlimited amount of different addresses. As far as we know, the majority of top500 addresses could belong to only one person, right?

[Swordsoffreedom]

We are starting to see the diffusion of Bitcoins into the mass populace but a large amount are still either in the hands of technocrats or innovators.
From a 100% concentration when Satoshi first held them to a more diverse set of users.

Could you please name those technocrats who have publicly claimed their bitcoin holdings?

I would love to but that is what pseudo anonymity is we can't really know who they are and they won't reveal themselves publically since that is what a crypto anarchist is

That said we do have a rough idea of it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.msg3440829#msg3440829
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0

Chart note 2013* could have changed
http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12

The list is dynamic and it does change hands now and then example Karpeles and Tim Draper are examples of this but there are still a fair amount in the hands of these technocrats if you look at the names on the list.

But the gamblers are weaker than the technocrats and the ones who want to innovate Bitcoin.

I agree that the gamblers are weaker and slower, and they won't be able to run along with the development.
But the technocrats aren't obsessed about Bitcoin, that is a specific product represented by a specific brand name, and that has a specific unit value. Bitcoin is not important, what is important is the idea and the technology that bitcoin brought forward. Bitcoin is like the first popular Apple's personal computer model, it had it's importance in history, but the entire idea brought forward a new wave of improvements in the form of new and improved examples. Cryptocurrencies in general is the future of this idea. A world where the dominant coin will be decided by it's technical qualities and by fair competition.
The bitcoin fanatics are mostly dreaming that the world would be stagnant and the field wouldn't evolve past bitcoin. They do that because they are afraid that they can't keep up with the changes, so no easy riches for them. True technocrats aren't these kinds of fanatics.

That and the fact that the gamblers will likely speculate and sell their fortunes before they become significantly large impacts this metric as well
Consider the movement from 90 to 250 if the speculators sold at 250 and re-bought at 90 they would have made a profit and nearly tripled there coins. However on the inverse the ones who bought at the previous peak likely sold their coins at a loss and took a burn for it only to have those coins rebought again by new speculators.

The same can be said of those who bought bitcoins over 1000 dollars and still have not broken even yet if you don't have a large capital base to rely upon it still is possible to burn yourself at the same time if you go on a buying spree the market will also push the price up unless you buy at a steady rate so it does impact the power of speculators. Without a contract for difference or an efficient shorting mechanism its harder to leverage without owning any coins unless your willing to take a large spread.

As for Bitcoin being the first of many I agree it could become napster but it likely has a good 10 to 20 years before it gets superseeded by another technology or it could be longer if the developer team is still strong and able to keep Bitcoin up to date with competing ideas and currencies that said the idea of a digital payment system is here to stay and we need one to succeed before we can build up others. That is why Bitcoin will likely still be around for at least the medium term to prove to the world that a digital payment system based on cryptography is useful convenient and an alternative payment system that people can use.

The bitcoin fanatics are mostly dreaming that the world would be stagnant and the field wouldn't evolve past bitcoin. They do that because they are afraid that they can't keep up with the changes, so no easy riches for them. True technocrats aren't these kinds of fanatics.

Not true one technology can connect to another those same cryto anarchists are not known to leave projects alone they tend to develop other things example some are looking at Ethereum or Darkcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 protocols its just a movement forward.

One can look back at Hal Finneys development of PGP which helped lead to Adam Backs hashcash then see that it was that idea of a payment system that uses proof of work that leads to Bitcoin which added cryptography and a ledger to it, the future is full of connections to the past its just how we make them that matters.

As long as it develops privacy and open new usages for technology people will move to develop it and it is the policy of the cypherpunks.

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top500
From the top 100 we know that they presently hold 5% of all coins in circulation
From the top 500 it is  32.77%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgFUAhz7h2U&feature=youtu.be

Yet that diffusion is still occurring even now so it will be interesting to see how it turns out as an economic experiment into the development of digital currencies.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

These lists don't show anything when a person can have unlimited amount of different addresses. As far as we know, the majority of top500 addresses could belong to only one person, right?

It is possible there are large holders we do not know of that keep small balances in multiple wallets but in answer to your question if they all belong to one person, we can say no to that since we at least know there are 50 unique users with balances and those balances are not connected to other large accounts.

Re this one
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.msg3440829#msg3440829

[burekzastonj]

Well there is a lot of people having bitcoins so there is no centralised power, which is good, but keep in mind that there is a long way to achieve that and gov can anytime put bitcoin users on the blacklist, you are not as anonymous as you think you are.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Well there is a lot of people having bitcoins so there is no centralised power, which is good, but keep in mind that there is a long way to achieve that and gov can anytime put bitcoin users on the blacklist, you are not as anonymous as you think you are.

@ Define Blacklist
Coins can be confiscated but they can't be blacklisted per-se as that affects fungibility.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential/ and the update
http://www.coindesk.com/government-sale-bitcoin-establishes-fungibility-precedent/

Simply put A bitcoin is a bitcoin

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

I would love to but that is what pseudo anonymity is we can't really know who they are and they won't reveal themselves publically since that is what a crypto anarchist is

That said we do have a rough idea of it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321265.msg3440829#msg3440829
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0

Chart note 2013* could have changed
http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12

The list is dynamic and it does change hands now and then example Karpeles and Tim Draper are examples of this but there are still a fair amount in the hands of these technocrats if you look at the names on the list.

To me personally, that list of people aren't the ones who I would trust. I still see a lot more gamblers then technocrats.

That and the fact that the gamblers will likely speculate and sell their fortunes before they become significantly large impacts this metric as well
Consider the movement from 90 to 250 if the speculators sold at 250 and re-bought at 90 they would have made a profit and nearly tripled there coins. However on the inverse the ones who bought at the previous peak likely sold their coins at a loss and took a burn for it only to have those coins rebought again by new speculators.

The same can be said of those who bought bitcoins over 1000 dollars and still have not broken even yet if you don't have a large capital base to rely upon it still is possible to burn yourself at the same time if you go on a buying spree the market will also push the price up unless you buy at a steady rate so it does impact the power of speculators. Without a contract for difference or an efficient shorting mechanism its harder to leverage without owning any coins unless your willing to take a large spread.

As for Bitcoin being the first of many I agree it could become napster but it likely has a good 10 to 20 years before it gets superseeded by another technology or it could be longer if the developer team is still strong and able to keep Bitcoin up to date with competing ideas and currencies that said the idea of a digital payment system is here to stay and we need one to succeed before we can build up others. That is why Bitcoin will likely still be around for at least the medium term to prove to the world that a digital payment system based on cryptography is useful convenient and an alternative payment system that people can use.

The thing is that an quality currency has to have an unit value, that isn't attractive as an speculative investment. A stable currency is unattractive as an investment, but stability is the most important quality of an currency. And stability won't be achieved here with wider use. Wider use would only invite stronger players. Even if BTC costs 100k or more per coin, then the manipulation would be done by large corporations or governments to hit their opponents.
Only thing that would bring proper stability would be an dynamic coin supply system. Static coin supply is currently only used because an autonomous dynamic supply system would be a lot more complex to create. But I'm pretty sure that this complexity is the future.
This field would suffer from extreme stagnation if it would take 20 years for bitcoin to be replaced. Remember, that bitcoin code isn't especially complex. The main value was the innovation and the idea that were unprecedented, not the complexity of the code.

Not true one technology can connect to another those same cryto anarchists are not known to leave projects alone they tend to develop other things example some are looking at Ethereum or Darkcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 protocols its just a movement forward.

One can look back at Hal Finneys development of PGP which helped lead to Adam Backs hashcash then see that it was that idea of a payment system that uses proof of work that leads to Bitcoin which added cryptography and a ledger to it, the future is full of connections to the past its just how we make them that matters.

As long as it develops privacy and open new usages for technology people will move to develop it and it is the policy of the cypherpunks.

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

I agree that bitcoin has contributed a lot to the scene, but I think that now it's development is stagnant, because further devolopment is needed in the core parts that are considered as unchangeable with bitcoin. Static coin supply is the best example for this.

Privacy could only be innocent in individual few hands. In the larger business, privacy is only used for one thing and that is corruption. Do you think that Swiss banking privacy was used to evade prosecution of financial crimes, or were everyone just innocently shy? I still believe that the future of finance isn't in increased privacy, but in increased transparency. Criminals have most to gain with increased privacy and most to lose with increased transparency.

I have to point out that I haven't met an bitcoin enthusiast for a long time, that can be calm and constructive, when expressing their point of view. It's not like that with you, so thank you for a pleasant read.

[Erdogan]

Rich people not being politicians or cronies? Not lacking empathy, not killing everybody around, what the current elites expect others to do if they can? Respecting other peoples rights?

[sarcasm] Sounds creepy.

[arbitrage001]

To become the true elite, someone probably need to raise an army using their newly found wealthy to fight the existing power.

[twiifm]

What happened when ideological youth become rich and powerful? 

Steve Jobs was a hippie
The Clintons were hippies

Id say you elite gentlemen would become part of the part of the status quo you bitch about so much

[Ron~Popeil]

To become the true elite, someone probably need to raise an army using their newly found wealthy to fight the existing power.

This is a peaceful revolution. We don't need bullets, we just need to opt out of their system and it will collapse on it's own.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

The younger generations will be bitching about how they hate everything we do.

That always happens throughout history, but envy or better said, evolution, always make us old generations stay still, stronger, inmortal...

We haven't invented immorality yet I'm sure their is a large demand for it especially among the wealthy elite
Maybe that is what the early adopters will create to mess with the new generation and become the immortal wealthy elite...
Yah that would be a bit weird.

Not yet, but it's in the works ....  
http://sens.org/

[burekzastonj]

Well there is a lot of people having bitcoins so there is no centralised power, which is good, but keep in mind that there is a long way to achieve that and gov can anytime put bitcoin users on the blacklist, you are not as anonymous as you think you are.

@ Define Blacklist
Coins can be confiscated but they can't be blacklisted per-se as that affects fungibility.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential/ and the update
http://www.coindesk.com/government-sale-bitcoin-establishes-fungibility-precedent/

Simply put A bitcoin is a bitcoin

I didn't get what you wanted to say, sorry.

[lyth0s]

When you say "WE" do you think we are still in an early adoption phase? I mean how early in the game are we still?

[LazerSMS]

doom

[Justin00]

You won't. You spend the money on a Lambo and your wife runs off with half eventually.
Not my fault thats what willl happen.... to everyone

[Swordsoffreedom]

Well there is a lot of people having bitcoins so there is no centralised power, which is good, but keep in mind that there is a long way to achieve that and gov can anytime put bitcoin users on the blacklist, you are not as anonymous as you think you are.

@ Define Blacklist
Coins can be confiscated but they can't be blacklisted per-se as that affects fungibility.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential/ and the update
http://www.coindesk.com/government-sale-bitcoin-establishes-fungibility-precedent/

Simply put A bitcoin is a bitcoin

I didn't get what you wanted to say, sorry.

Oh simply Bitcoins can't be blacklisted
The people can be caught but a Bitcoin is the same whether used to buy a TV or Drugs but a blacklist of users would not work in practice unless they monitored everyones IP addresses etc.

[Erdogan]

The younger generations will be bitching about how they hate everything we do.

That always happens throughout history, but envy or better said, evolution, always make us old generations stay still, stronger, inmortal...

We haven't invented immorality yet I'm sure their is a large demand for it especially among the wealthy elite
Maybe that is what the early adopters will create to mess with the new generation and become the immortal wealthy elite...
Yah that would be a bit weird.

Not yet, but it's in the works ....  
http://sens.org/

"The new elites" will not need to shed their humanity, respect for all beings, their non-violent attitude. This is among the advantages of the new economy we envision.

If being elite means someone which is different, with the special privilege to extract wealth from others using force: We are not going to be elites, the topic is wrong.

[arbitrage001]

"The new elites" will not need to shed their humanity, respect for all beings, their non-violent attitude. This is among the advantages of the new economy we envision.

If being elite means someone which is different, with the special privilege to extract wealth from others using force: We are not going to be elites, the topic is wrong.

Being an idealist is good. If history is any guide, revolution doesn't happen without violent. And the new group of elite will not be any different than the current group of elite as time passes on.

[cuddaloreappu]

after we become wealthy elite

I will buy a Lamborghini and you buy a ferari...then we will spend lavishly thus stimulating the economy...then we shall invest the remaining into global problem solutions like alternate energy, cancer research etc.