thanks for making me reread that article. i remember blowing past thru it not really thinking about the implications.
i don't think the Ultimatum Game applies to Bitcoin. the scenarios put forth by all the researchers involve a spontaneous, out of the blue, monetary offer btwn 2 individuals for fiat USD's
. putting myself in the shoes of the one receiving the offer, i could very well see myself turning down $1 out of $100. after all, the one doing the offering and I are mired in the same shithole USD fiat system and we both know those fiat USD's might be worthless down the line so i wouldn't give a hoot to turn down the offer just to spite the guy making the offer.
otoh, if i were offered 1 BTC out of 100 BTC, i might very well accept knowing full well that if i don't, we both won't get anything. why? b/c if i took the time to evaluate the future prospects for 1 BTC, i might come to the conclusion that its a revolutionary and great idea. why, that 1 BTC could turn into $100,000! i wouldn't care less about the fact that miners might get coins with subsidized electricity costs or that early adopters have more coins than me b/c they were around sooner. i would come to the conclusion that the system is inherently fair
and unbiased which is much better than the system i am stuck in now and that while some may view those attributes as unfair, i would know that the majority wouldn't.edit
: as an example, i cannot believe what ppl are willing to do around here to get there hands on 1 BTC. i've had major work done on my website for instance for 1 BTC that would've cost me hundreds of USD's equivalent. ppl can see that the inherent fairness in the Bitcoin system may have long term ramifications for the global monetary system.
while i can understand that the strict definition of the word "fair" might not play well with you, i also think it is not an unfair
term to describe Bitcoin much like the term "democratic" that we disagreed upon previously.