bitcoin distribution

[erre]

Every government in the world have some form of welfare, payed by taxes proportioned to wealth/income. That should be why btc distribution is bad even if compared to usd or eur.

If it was distributed fairly along the world, who knows? Surely every money (crypto of fiat) NEED a change in its distribution in order to work (people who pay, people who gain), and in an unfair world that would lead to an unfair distribution, but i think you would need ages for a filth like this to " naturally"  happens.

I am surely a supporter of btc, but becausr i'm a supporter of a FREE ECONOMY. As now, btc is not an economy, it seems more a manipulated commodity.. it's lIke the 1% of people owned 50% of gold before a gold economy was even established ... There was maybe a btc economy linked to the black market, but as far as I know it's very tiny now.

[1715425890]

1715425890

[1715425890]

1715425890

[1715425890]

1715425890

[1715425890]

1715425890

[1715425890]

1715425890

[1715425890]

1715425890

[pitham1]

This is not about BTC design, but about the very nature of money and capitalism. Even if the initial distribution was made in such a way that everyone started with the same amount, it would eventually return back to a few people.

Right, the capital distribution in the world is only slightly different because of government control, so that the poor are not too poor. But since there is no control for the bitcoin world, the poor will be extremely poor, and the rich will be extremely rich.
[/quote]

I am sure implementation of tax laws with respect to bitcoin will get stringent very soon.

[wangxinxi]

This is not about BTC design, but about the very nature of money and capitalism. Even if the initial distribution was made in such a way that everyone started with the same amount, it would eventually return back to a few people.

Right, the capital distribution in the world is only slightly different because of government control, so that the poor are not too poor. But since there is no control for the bitcoin world, the poor will be extremely poor, and the rich will be extremely rich.

I am sure implementation of tax laws with respect to bitcoin will get stringent very soon.

[/quote]

That's possible. But the government needs a better way to track the transactions.

[odolvlobo]

Bad. I hoped more than some whale had cashed out during the " falling"  of price...
I think that unfair distribution of wealth is the biggest flaw of btc design.

This is not about BTC design, but about the very nature of money and capitalism. Even if the initial distribution was made in such a way that everyone started with the same amount, it would eventually return back to a few people.

Though I agree that the distribution of bitcoins will eventually mirror the distribution of wealth, I don't believe that the current distribution has anything to do with it.

The people that currently have the most bitcoins are risk takers, entrepreneurs, visionaries, and nerds. The characteristic they have most in common is access to information and technology.

I also don't think the distribution of bticoins is unfair. Everyone that owns them paid for them with money or effort.

[jbrnt]

Bitcoin is a currency, it is not about distribution or fairness. The distorted distribution is caused by capitalism, not by bitcoin itself.

[zinger]

Bitcoin is a currency, it is not about distribution or fairness. The distorted distribution is caused by capitalism, not by bitcoin itself.

I agree but is it necessary/a must? I mean capitalism, is it helpful for bitcoin too?

[teukon]

Right, the capital distribution in the world is only slightly different because of government control, so that the poor are not too poor. But since there is no control for the bitcoin world, the poor will be extremely poor, and the rich will be extremely rich.

Are you suggesting that wealth is a zero-sum game?

[erre]

Wealth could be not a zero-sum game if we consider the time variant, but sure it is during a single point in time: x resources for n people.
During a short time a large amount of bitcoin was distributed to satoshi and a few thousand first-world well-educated tech-saviours " visionaries"  who knows about, for the cost of some hours of a standard pc work or, rarely, a few dollars.

Now the street man (not to mention the poors) have only the option to buy btc for hard-owned fiat, and he's constantly exposed to price manipulation by the " visionary" whales.

How can I consider btc a currency and not an investment if it vary its value of 10% overnight?

[sandykho47]

Bitcoin distribution is not fair at all 
A lot people have less than 1 BTC, while some people have huge amount of BTC

But, i think it's right.
Because they have a lot of bitcoin with hard work, not stealing

Even if you had given all the people in this world 0.001 BTC on day 1, after a period of time the distribution of bitcoins would change and become 'unfair'.

That's right

[erre]

Bitcoin distribution is not fair at all  
A lot people have less than 1 BTC, while some people have huge amount of BTC

But, i think it's right.
Because they have a lot of bitcoin with hard work, not stealing

Even if you had given all the people in this world 0.001 BTC on day 1, after a period of time the distribution of bitcoins would change and become 'unfair'.

That's right

I can't stop to think an inequality like that is not good, not inevitable, and not necessary at all...

researchers from the International Monetary Fund published work which indicated that income equality increased the duration of countries' economic growth spells more than free trade, low government corruption, foreign investment, or low foreign debt.[4]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

[pattu1]

Wealth could be not a zero-sum game if we consider the time variant, but sure it is during a single point in time: x resources for n people.
During a short time a large amount of bitcoin was distributed to satoshi and a few thousand first-world well-educated tech-saviours " visionaries"  who knows about, for the cost of some hours of a standard pc work or, rarely, a few dollars.

Now the street man (not to mention the poors) have only the option to buy btc for hard-owned fiat, and he's constantly exposed to price manipulation by the " visionary" whales.

How can I consider btc a currency and not an investment if it vary its value of 10% overnight?

BTC is not the only asset class. A street man doesn't have to buy btc. He can live without it.

[teukon]

If it was distributed fairly along the world, who knows? Surely every money (crypto of fiat) NEED a change in its distribution in order to work (people who pay, people who gain), and in an unfair world that would lead to an unfair distribution, but i think you would need ages for a filth like this to " naturally"  happens.

I am surely a supporter of btc, but becausr i'm a supporter of a FREE ECONOMY.

I don't follow you at all.

Let's suppose we have another cryptocurrency called "faircoin".  Initially, everyone in the world gets 100 faircoins.

Let's suppose you want to go to the airport and I offer to take you and your luggage in my car for 5 faircoins.  You agree.  I take you, you catch your flight and are satisfied.  I now have 105 faircoins and you have only 95 faircoins.

Now that I am rich and you are poor is this unfair?  Is this the naturally occurring "filth" which you refer too?  Should I be forced to give the 5 faircoins back now to make things fair again?

[erre]

If it was distributed fairly along the world, who knows? Surely every money (crypto of fiat) NEED a change in its distribution in order to work (people who pay, people who gain), and in an unfair world that would lead to an unfair distribution, but i think you would need ages for a filth like this to " naturally"  happens.

I am surely a supporter of btc, but becausr i'm a supporter of a FREE ECONOMY.

I don't follow you at all.

Let's suppose we have another cryptocurrency called "faircoin".  Initially, everyone in the world gets 100 faircoins.

Let's suppose you want to go to the airport and I offer to take you and your luggage in my car for 5 faircoins.  You agree.  I take you, you catch your flight and are satisfied.  I now have 105 faircoins and you have only 95 faircoins.

Now that I am rich and you are poor is this unfair?  Is this the naturally occurring "filth" which you refer too?  Should I be forced to give the 5 faircoins back now to make things fair again?

As I said, every coin need a change in its distribution in order to word. But if you start fairly, who knows?

I have paid you 5 fair coins,  but after that I could sell my services too, in order to regain them back.

Now we're in a whole different situation: " you"  have a billion of unfaircoins (because you started early, not 'cos you sold your services), and you can buy my services for " a fraction of the cost , if I accept unfaircoin. Why is that supposed to be better than fair distribution?

[teukon]

I don't follow you at all.

Let's suppose we have another cryptocurrency called "faircoin".  Initially, everyone in the world gets 100 faircoins.

Let's suppose you want to go to the airport and I offer to take you and your luggage in my car for 5 faircoins.  You agree.  I take you, you catch your flight and are satisfied.  I now have 105 faircoins and you have only 95 faircoins.

Now that I am rich and you are poor is this unfair?  Is this the naturally occurring "filth" which you refer too?  Should I be forced to give the 5 faircoins back now to make things fair again?

As I said, every coin need a change in its distribution in order to word. But if you start fairly, who knows?

I have paid you 5 fair coins,  but after that I could sell my services too, in order to regain them back.

Now we're in a whole different situation: " you"  have a billion of unfaircoins (because you started early, not 'cos you sold your services), and you can buy my services for " a fraction of the cost , if I accept unfaircoin. Why is that supposed to be better than fair distribution?

Aha, now we're getting somewhere.  You perceive that early adopters have a disproportionate advantage over late users.  I assume that you see that these early adopters have input work and taken on risk that latecomers have not but still feel that this does not adequately justify their resultant wealth.

I feel that it does.  There are two factors which are quite easily overlooked or underestimated.

Firstly, an early adopter that still has thousands of bitcoins today has taken on a huge amount of risk.  Each day they hold a lot of wealth in Bitcoin and choose to continue holding.  A person which buys a million dollars worth of bitcoin and holds them for a month before selling has taken on significantly less risk than a long-term holder has in total.

The second factor is even more subtle, that these early adopters have done something highly valuable.  The first few 1000 people that supported the project may well have done something extremely valuable for mankind.  The free market does not assign wages to such people arbitrarily, they reap benefits based purely on voluntary exchange, based purely on the fact that Bitcoin is being used by over a million people worldwide and many people are freely willing to part with things of great value for these bitcoins.

Of course, part of this free-market way of rewarding the early adopters comes quite rightly from critics such as yourself.  You're certainly under no obligation to support Bitcoin.  There are altcoins which attempt a "fairer" initial distribution and I honestly encourage you to seek them out and lend them your support.  If none of them are satisfactory and you have an idea for something better then you might consider building or commissioning a "fairest of them all" cryptocurrency.

[odolvlobo]

We can fix the early adopter problem by allowing each person to create and mine their own alt coin. Everyone could be an early adopter and have millions of their coins. Then in five years or so, everyone would be millionaires.

[erre]

I don't follow you at all.

Let's suppose we have another cryptocurrency called "faircoin".  Initially, everyone in the world gets 100 faircoins.

Let's suppose you want to go to the airport and I offer to take you and your luggage in my car for 5 faircoins.  You agree.  I take you, you catch your flight and are satisfied.  I now have 105 faircoins and you have only 95 faircoins.

Now that I am rich and you are poor is this unfair?  Is this the naturally occurring "filth" which you refer too?  Should I be forced to give the 5 faircoins back now to make things fair again?

As I said, every coin need a change in its distribution in order to word. But if you start fairly, who knows?

I have paid you 5 fair coins,  but after that I could sell my services too, in order to regain them back.

Now we're in a whole different situation: " you"  have a billion of unfaircoins (because you started early, not 'cos you sold your services), and you can buy my services for " a fraction of the cost , if I accept unfaircoin. Why is that supposed to be better than fair distribution?

Aha, now we're getting somewhere.  You perceive that early adopters have a disproportionate advantage over late users.  I assume that you see that these early adopters have input work and taken on risk that latecomers have not but still feel that this does not adequately justify their resultant wealth.

I feel that it does.  There are two factors which are quite easily overlooked or underestimated.

Firstly, an early adopter that still has thousands of bitcoins today has taken on a huge amount of risk.  Each day they hold a lot of wealth in Bitcoin and choose to continue holding.  A person which buys a million dollars worth of bitcoin and holds them for a month before selling has taken on significantly less risk than a long-term holder has in total.

The second factor is even more subtle, that these early adopters have done something highly valuable.  The first few 1000 people that supported the project may well have done something extremely valuable for mankind.  The free market does not assign wages to such people arbitrarily, they reap benefits based purely on voluntary exchange, based purely on the fact that Bitcoin is being used by over a million people worldwide and many people are freely willing to part with things of great value for these bitcoins.

Of course, part of this free-market way of rewarding the early adopters comes quite rightly from critics such as yourself.  You're certainly under no obligation to support Bitcoin.  There are altcoins which attempt a "fairer" initial distribution and I honestly encourage you to seek them out and lend them your support.  If none of them are satisfactory and you have an idea for something better then you might consider building or commissioning a "fairest of them all" cryptocurrency.

Yep, you got my point: too much advantage for early adopters, the vast majority of them didn't risk more than some hours of pc work or a few bucks.... now they speack about selling the coins to Africa. .. for some hundred dollars each.
I have supported some coins like auroracoin in the past, but they all turned out to be scams 

[FattyMcButterpants]

We can fix the early adopter problem by allowing each person to create and mine their own alt coin. Everyone could be an early adopter and have millions of their coins. Then in five years or so, everyone would be millionaires.

This is happening, just look at the alt coin section and see how many shitty atlcoins there are. People are creating a lot of alt coins that have no value and getting people to invest in their coin.

The only difference is that most altcoins will almost certainly end up having zero value while bitcoin will most likely continue to retain it's value

[teukon]

Yep, you got my point: too much advantage for early adopters, the vast majority of them didn't risk more than some hours of pc work or a few bucks.... now they speack about selling the coins to Africa. .. for some hundred dollars each.
I have supported some coins like auroracoin in the past, but they all turned out to be scams  

Excellent, I'm glad I understood you.

I'm sorry to hear that you've been burnt before by altcoins; please be careful.  There are many scams but there are also some genuine efforts.  I vaguely recall NEM which might be of interest to you (haven't done enough research to tell you whether or not it's a scam but it has been around for a year or so).  Here's a taster:

To compare with others, in short NEM is the first crypto-coin that no wealthy person or early adopters can obtain a significant percentage of by using money to buy-in or by using a huge mining rig. That to me symbolizes a great sense of fairness and egalitarianism.

Good luck!

[worle1bm]

Is an egalitarian coin really a good investment, though?

[odolvlobo]

Yep, you got my point: too much advantage for early adopters, the vast majority of them didn't risk more than some hours of pc work or a few bucks.... now they speack about selling the coins to Africa. .. for some hundred dollars each.
I have supported some coins like auroracoin in the past, but they all turned out to be scams  

What they got for their "hours of pc work or a few bucks" was worth a few bucks. Why does that seem unfair?

Suppose Auroracoin didn't fail and it was now worth $1000 each. Wouldn't that be unfair to the people that didn't get in early? How would you handle your guilt?