How can Bitcoin be a society changer with current distribution of wealth?

[Crypty3]

Possession is not ownership.  The major exchanges hold a lot of coins but those coins (legally) belong to the depositors. This can't be reflected by looking at the address distribution.  Using the graph you used to illustrate a point would be like graphing where all the US dollars are and showing that 5 "people" (BofA, Citibank) have 90% of the dollars.

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post?

What I like the most about your numbers are that that large percentage of bitcoin holders were here early on. They actually took the risks because they believed in Bitcoin and what it stands for.

The people who want to bring in regulations and redistribution belong to the small percentage. The longer that is true, the better. You really should try freicoin...that sounds like a better currency for you.

I have no problem with BTC. I don't really see how their risk would justify having 50% plus of the wealth if we were to convert to a bitcoin society (the risk was miniscule up to 2011, low hashing rates, low cost of coins). This is my main point. If BTC was to replace fiat how would it benefit mankind? Thoughts regarding this question are much appreciated. Telling me which coins I would or wouldn't like is not.

Just because I am talking about bitcoin benefiting mankind does not mean I am calling for regulation. Again putting words in my mouth is not actually appreciated one bit. I understand that its a topic you feel strongly about, but could you try approaching the subject in a non-arrogant, non-judgmental way . Ta

[Crypty3]

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post?

I do understand what you are saying. But why did YOU let this happen? Many who have a lot of coins have them because they took a big risk buying early. They had no guarantee that their $5 bitcoins would not drop to $0.02. They risked more and now they have more. Sure, now that they are hundreds of dollars each everyone wants $5 bitcoins. This relationship between risk and reward exists in all markets. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy an apartment in Dubai. I didn't take that risk and it would be unfair of me to demand an apartment now.

Spending $50 to purchase 5000 bitcoins in 2010 is high risk, but low cost. Buying an apartment in Dubai is substantially more risk as it could ruin your whole financial future. Show me one guy who chucked his life savings into BTC in 2010? 

[Flashman]

I am surprised this has got less attention.

We get some socialist on here about once a month bringing up their insanity. For them I say...Bitcoin is not for you. Stick with your notes.

I feel that that graphic has a tendency to misrepresent what's actually going on, I think that broad band of orange is including pool mined coins that go out to miners fairly quickly, it representing the expansion of pools, and the first hop of distribution rather than "spending" per se.

There was another study that said that 70% of bitcoins were sitting unused for months, that seemed to be "truthier" to me.

[Elwar]

Possession is not ownership.  The major exchanges hold a lot of coins but those coins (legally) belong to the depositors. This can't be reflected by looking at the address distribution.  Using the graph you used to illustrate a point would be like graphing where all the US dollars are and showing that 5 "people" (BofA, Citibank) have 90% of the dollars.

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post?

What I like the most about your numbers are that that large percentage of bitcoin holders were here early on. They actually took the risks because they believed in Bitcoin and what it stands for.

The people who want to bring in regulations and redistribution belong to the small percentage. The longer that is true, the better. You really should try freicoin...that sounds like a better currency for you.

I have no problem with BTC. I don't really see how their risk would justify having 50% plus of the wealth if we were to convert to a bitcoin society (the risk was miniscule up to 2011, low hashing rates, low cost of coins). This is my main point. If BTC was to replace fiat how would it benefit mankind? Thoughts regarding this question are much appreciated. Telling me which coins I would or wouldn't like is not.

Just because I am talking about bitcoin benefiting mankind does not mean I am calling for regulation. Again putting words in my mouth is not actually appreciated one bit. I understand that its a topic you feel strongly about, but could you try approaching the subject in a non-arrogant, non-judgmental way . Ta

I was not responding to you.

If you don't know the benefits of Bitcoin, why are you here? Have you read the white paper?

[Soros Shorts]

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post or have they just read wealth distribution and already made their minds up?

Partaking in the Bitcoin economy is not the same as being a member of society in a particular nation state. If you find that you cannot use it in an empowering way you could always bail out - the choice is yours.

[Elwar]

There was another study that said that 70% of bitcoins were sitting unused for months, that seemed to be "truthier" to me.

The graphic and 70% unused can both be true. If a wallet is unspent, how would it be included in a graphic about bitcoins being spent?

[Crypty3]

I was not responding to you.

If you don't know the benefits of Bitcoin, why are you here? Have you read the white paper?

I understand fully well that BTC is and how a system like this could benefit society. What I am asking is how in its current form would it benefit society? In case you missed his ending statement, here it is one more time for you:

I personally don't see how BitCoin can revolutionise the currency scene anytime soon. To me its just new monopolies with new faces, but no real fundamental change. That's not to say I don't think BitCoin is revolutionary, or something quite spectacular, as I do. But I struggle to see how BTC in this format really stand to change society for the better.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Partaking in the Bitcoin economy is not the same as being a member of society in a particular nation state. If you find that you cannot use it in an empowering way you could always bail out - the choice is yours.

That is the reality.   Bitcoin is voluntarism at its finest.  People can't be forced to use it.  So people only use it IF it is better than the alternatives.  People are forced to use fiat and that forced use in the fiat world directly contributes to the unequal advantage a tiny minority have over the super majority.   That unearned and unfair advantage is what drives and reinforces the unequal wealth distribution.  
Unequal wealth distribution in the fiat world isn't the problem it is the symptom.   The problem is a system which gives the privileged (forget the 1% we are talking the 0.01%) a benefit and that benefit isn't free it is fully paid by the unprivileged and the worst part is you are forced into that system through a monopoly on violence.

(Edited for clarity)

[General_A]

Partaking in the Bitcoin economy is not the same as being a member of society in a particular nation state. If you find that you cannot use it in an empowering way you could always bail out - the choice is yours.

That is the reality.   Bitcoin is voluntarism at its finest.  People can't be forced to use it.  So people only use it IF it is better than the alternatives.  People are forced to use fiat and that forced used directly contributes to the unequal advantage a minority have over the super majority in the fiat world.   That unearned and unfair advantage is what drives and reinforces the unequal wealth distribution. 

The problem isn't unequal wealth distribution in the fiat world.   That is merely the symptom.   The problem is the forced system which lead to that unequal wealth distribution.   Of course the "everyone should be equal" people can't see the forest from the trees.

I like both these answers a lot.

[Elwar]

I was not responding to you.

If you don't know the benefits of Bitcoin, why are you here? Have you read the white paper?

I understand fully well that BTC is and how a system like this could benefit society. What I am asking is how in its current form would it benefit society? In case you missed his ending statement, here it is one more time for you:

I personally don't see how BitCoin can revolutionise the currency scene anytime soon. To me its just new monopolies with new faces, but no real fundamental change. That's not to say I don't think BitCoin is revolutionary, or something quite spectacular, as I do. But I struggle to see how BTC in this format really stand to change society for the better.

There you go then. If you know how it can benefit society, you have your answer.

If you don't like its current distribution, do something about it if you want, or not. Start a new alt coin and start distributing it evenly to everyone. They did that in Iceland with Auroracoin. Didn't work out as people had hoped.

[General_A]

There you go then. If you know how it can benefit society, you have your answer.

If you don't like its current distribution, do something about it if you want, or not. Start a new alt coin and start distributing it evenly to everyone. They did that in Iceland with Auroracoin. Didn't work out as people had hoped.

I must ask you this. Do you think that monopolies are beneficial to society?

[Elwar]

There you go then. If you know how it can benefit society, you have your answer.

If you don't like its current distribution, do something about it if you want, or not. Start a new alt coin and start distributing it evenly to everyone. They did that in Iceland with Auroracoin. Didn't work out as people had hoped.

I must ask you this. Do you think that monopolies are beneficial to society?

A monopoly cannot exist without force.

[RodeoX]

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post?

I do understand what you are saying. But why did YOU let this happen? Many who have a lot of coins have them because they took a big risk buying early. They had no guarantee that their $5 bitcoins would not drop to $0.02. They risked more and now they have more. Sure, now that they are hundreds of dollars each everyone wants $5 bitcoins. This relationship between risk and reward exists in all markets. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy an apartment in Dubai. I didn't take that risk and it would be unfair of me to demand an apartment now.

Spending $50 to purchase 5000 bitcoins in 2010 is high risk, but low cost. Buying an apartment in Dubai is substantially more risk as it could ruin your whole financial future. Show me one guy who chucked his life savings into BTC in 2010? 

Perhaps gold is a better example then. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy $50 worth of gold. Or had I joined an investment pool to get that apartment I would have profited.

[General_A]

A monopoly cannot exist without force.

Okay then. How about for sake of discussion we take the dictionaries definition of monopoly - not personal definitions?

[General_A]

The truth for fiat is that around 35% of the top 1% own all the money. 70% for the top 10%. (In the USA). Regardless of the exchanges its clear to see that distribution is actually worse for BTC. Has anyone actually read my first post?

I do understand what you are saying. But why did YOU let this happen? Many who have a lot of coins have them because they took a big risk buying early. They had no guarantee that their $5 bitcoins would not drop to $0.02. They risked more and now they have more. Sure, now that they are hundreds of dollars each everyone wants $5 bitcoins. This relationship between risk and reward exists in all markets. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy an apartment in Dubai. I didn't take that risk and it would be unfair of me to demand an apartment now.

Spending $50 to purchase 5000 bitcoins in 2010 is high risk, but low cost. Buying an apartment in Dubai is substantially more risk as it could ruin your whole financial future. Show me one guy who chucked his life savings into BTC in 2010?  

Perhaps gold is a better example then. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy $50 worth of gold. Or had I joined an investment pool to get that apartment I would have profited.

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly. According to many members of this board BTC should not be an investment, therefore I don't want to compare it to an investment. I want to compare it to currency.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly.

There is no monopoly.  You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.    You can mine new coins right now.  You can sell goods or services for Bitcoins.   You can take some of your non crypto wealth and trade it for Bitcoins.   There is no monopoly to access.

[General_A]

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly.

There is no monopoly.  You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means.    You can mine new coins right now.  You can sell goods or services for Bitcoins.   You can take some of your non crypto wealth and trade it for Bitcoins.   There is no monopoly to access.

Lets continue at 10-100 the number of wallets stands at 115,281 and a combined wealth of 94.49%. This staggering wealth is owned by just 7.11% of the Bitcoin world.

Standard oil got called a monopoly with 70% of US oil production under its thumbs. If everyone was to switch to BTC tomorrow, for all extents and purposes a few would have a monopoly on the entire system.

Evidently Standard Oil was just one company. And the owners of BTC are individuals and I have no proof (and I don't suspect) they collude to form a monopoly. All the same, if all 7 billion people on planet earth decided to switch to BTC tomorrow then these few would have an extortionate advantage on the rest of us.

Again - I will refer to this line: If everyone was to switch to BTC tomorrow, for all extents and purposes a few would have a monopoly on the entire system.

[Elwar]

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly. According to many members of this board BTC should not be an investment, therefore I don't want to compare it to an investment. I want to compare it to currency.

Ok, I see that you are not really here to discuss the benefits of Bitcoin so I will leave you to your fiat. But if you look at any monopoly, their only existence is due to government force. I believe the solution you seek is guns and violence. Those are the only ways to bring "fair" distribution (and by fair, I mean fair as defined by the people with the guns).

Bitcoin is not a monopoly owned by a single entity. You could buy a bitcoin right now and no one person would own 100% of it.

I re-post my initial reaction to your OP with the appropriate image:

[Flashman]

BTW, I'm not a "coin aggregator" I've got maybe 50 addresses counted in categories an order of magnitude below my total holding.... oh and a fraction on some exchanges, so probably part of one of the megawallets. Also a portion of Bitminters megawallet is "mine", that I can transfer at will, empty it about weekly usually.

edit: and I just realised that Satoshi probably isn't in the top 3 there, last I heard his holdings were all in single address 50 coin units, so he would account for some 19,000 or so of the wallets in the 10-100 range.

[General_A]

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly. According to many members of this board BTC should not be an investment, therefore I don't want to compare it to an investment. I want to compare it to currency.

Ok, I see that you are not really here to discuss the benefits of Bitcoin so I will leave you to your fiat. But if you look at any monopoly, their only existence is due to government force. I believe the solution you seek is guns and violence. Those are the only ways to bring "fair" distribution (and by fair, I mean fair as defined by the people with the guns).

Bitcoin is not a monopoly owned by a single entity. You could buy a bitcoin right now and no one person would own 100% of it.

I re-post my initial reaction to your OP with the appropriate image:

In my opinion - and I don't mean any offense - but its exactly this kind of attitude from BTC adopters that is actually going to stop BTC becoming mainstream. The points I made are extremely valid, that is if the world was to adopt BTC tomorrow, how could BTC help the little man with such distribution? You would surely end up with a few people with all the power and the rest without?

BTC adapters often point to BTC benefits for society and how it can help us rid the world of the evil fiat system. All I have done is turned this argument back on its head and said so how could this current system of BTC change the problems associated with the existing system. This is a question that has to be addressed and competently by adopters of this community if we actually want BTC to lead to real change. Its fine if you don't answer or don't want to answer or don't feel its any one duties to answer and innovators should sort all the nitty gritty stuff out, but that's not going to cut it with 97% of the population out there.

So fine, if you want to just ignore obvious questions that people would have about the implementation of BTC so be it, its no hair of my back. But I really wouldn't go around betting that BTC is going to take on the world if your not prepared to take on the responsibility of BTC taking on the world.  

~ Rant Over