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

[General_A]

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.

Interesting to note, thank you. Is there anyway to confirm if Satoshi has not sold?

[odolvlobo]

I frequently see a confusion between wealth and money.

If a single person owned all the money in the world, they would be quite wealthy, but they would only own a small fraction of all the wealth in the world. Money is a store of value, but it doesn't store all the wealth in the world. FYI, a person owning all the bitcoins would be wealthy, but they would not be the wealthiest person in the world.

[odolvlobo]

If the goal is an equitable distribution of wealth through money, then the value of a currency would have to be proportional to the wealth of the person owning it. That way as money is exchanged, the wealth distribution is re-balanced to be equitable.

You should consider the ramifications: For example, wealthy people would only trade with other wealthy people in order to maintain their wealth. A more likely outcome would be that wealthy people would simply use a different currency.

[General_A]

If the goal is an equitable distribution of wealth through money, then the value of a currency would have to be proportional to the wealth of the person owning it. That way as money is exchanged, the wealth distribution is re-balanced to be equitable.

You should consider the ramifications: For example, wealthy people would only trade with other wealthy people in order to maintain their wealth. A more likely outcome would be that wealthy people would simply use a different currency.

Just for your information, I had no disillusions, the primary reason for writing is after reading numerous books on the subject. My argument focuses in on a scenario where a fiat society transfers to a btc society. In the aftermath the owners of mass fortunes can in effect buy out the world.

Irrespective of this you make some excellent points, I will let them digest and sink in and I will let you know what I think.   

[Flashman]

For example, we might say Bill Gates has Billions of Dollars, but he may actually only own a thousand in actual issued circulating US currency at this particular point in time, he might have a few hundred thousand on a bank ledger somewhere, but still the bulk of his "wealth" is in the share valuation of Microsoft still, one would think, though he may have other holdings.

[odolvlobo]

Just for your information, I had no disillusions, the primary reason for writing is after reading numerous books on the subject. My argument focuses in on a scenario where a fiat society transfers to a btc society. In the aftermath the owners of mass fortunes can in effect buy out the world.

If the owners of mass fortunes can buy out the world in a BTC society, why can't they do it now? Or, do you consider it already done, and are looking for a way to return to an equitable distribution?

[Ibistru]

I would like to be a champion of equality in terms of wealth distribution but sadly there is no such thing in this world. The world that we live in, in reality rewards those that seek opportunities, took the risk, be early adopters, smart, innovative and like it or not that is how it goes. Nevertheless, rather than trying to focus on wealth distribution just concentrate on the technology and innovation and how we can use bitcoin to our advantage.

Is this honestly how we are going to sell BTC to society? People are looking for real change.

I am not trying to sell BTC to society. Society is what got us here in the first place.

Bitcoin is for me. It makes my life easier. If this is not true for you, do not use it. Enjoy your notes.

+1

I believe those commies should get a bit of their own medicine, i.e. guns and theft. That would cure them. Or perhaps it wouldn't.

[Flashman]

Some people tell me that the 44 million impoverished "average joes" there would be better served by a proof of stake model....

[RodeoX]

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.

Exactly. The US dollar is a monopoly. If you want to use dollars (you can't own them, just use them) then you MUST get them from the federal reserve. There is no other option. The fed controls how you may use them, where you may use them, they can change the value, they can increase circulation or reduce production. Why because it is a monopoly. Bitcoin is the opposite.

[General_A]

Everyone's making interesting points - now I am off to the pub. First round is on me.

[Elwar]

how could this current system of BTC change the problems associated with the existing system. ... 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.

- Poor people are those, who pay the highest fees. With Bitcoin everybody pays the same(small) fees.
- A bank can freeze your account. If you don't have the money to pay a lawyer, there is not much you can do about it. Nobody can freeze your Bitocoin.
- A country can increase inflation by printing money. Most of the time the rich are better informed about it and they have a lot of their money in assets anyways. It's the poor, who get hit by that, not so with Bitcoin.

I live in Germany working for a US company that pays me in dollars. Thanks to bitwage.co I can get paid in bitcoins. Thanks to localbitcoins I can turn those bitcoins into euros. This conversion actually nets me more money than I am paid in dollars because of the high demand for bitcoins for cash. I like the ease of buying things online with bitcoins instead of giving all of my credit card information, making sure I use whatever address they need to match up to my credit card, make sure my credit card isn't cancelled because I used it in some foreign country without calling the credit card company.

I like that my bitcoins are not run by a central authority who needs war and violence to continue its operation. That my bitcoins are not a currency that is on the hook for over $18 trillion in debt and climbing. I like that I can go to Prague for the weekend and spend bitcoins without paying for the high conversion cost to the local currency.

There is no scenario where Bitcoin will be worth tens of trillions of dollars and the same x people control 62% (your claim) of that.   It is a self solving problem.

[erre]

I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good. If you see bitcoin as a commodity this is acceptable, it is not if u see it as an aspiring global currency.

Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.

I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.

[Flashman]

I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good.

Did it occur to you that the "dabblers" might think they own coin by having some in an exchange account, thus contributing to a megawallet somewhere. Then the enthusiastic adopters have been giving out 0.001-0.1 BTC paper wallets and tips all over the place, thus expanding the ranks of the BTC "poor" rather than BTC destitute (having none).

So with the possibility that multi thousand BTC wallets represent the combined holdings of several thousand people, and also that one person may control thousands of wallets, I don't see why it should bother me at present.

A couple of years back if you gave 100 BTC to a wealthier guy and a poorer guy, what do you think happened? The wealthy guy said gee thanks, and put it away, the poorer guy needed the money shortly afterward and cashed it in for a couple of hundred bucks. So even if you GIVE it out equitably it doesn't stay equitable.

[jbreher]

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:

Dude. The answer is obviously 42.

All Hitchhiker's Guide jokes aside, both you and General_A continue ranting rather than respond to the excellent points made in response #42 of this thread made by Death and Taxes. Until you digest those points and figures, and respond to them specifically, you'll likely get nothing but that same answers you find unsatisfying -- because you keep harping on the exact same whine.

[odolvlobo]

I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good. If you see bitcoin as a commodity this is acceptable, it is not if u see it as an aspiring global currency.

Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.

I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.

Minimal risk? There has never been a point in Bitcoin's history where the risk of failure was less than it is now. If the price of a bitcoin rises to $3000, are you going to give away 90% of your bitcoins? After all, you got them with minimal risk.

I suggest that you create a coin whose distribution is fair and gains by early adopters are limited. If you are correct, then everyone will abandon Bitcoin and invest in your coin because it is better for them and everyone else.

[erre]

I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good.

Did it occur to you that the "dabblers" might think they own coin by having some in an exchange account, thus contributing to a megawallet somewhere. Then the enthusiastic adopters have been giving out 0.001-0.1 BTC paper wallets and tips all over the place, thus expanding the ranks of the BTC "poor" rather than BTC destitute (having none).

So with the possibility that multi thousand BTC wallets represent the combined holdings of several thousand people, and also that one person may control thousands of wallets, I don't see why it should bother me at present.

A couple of years back if you gave 100 BTC to a wealthier guy and a poorer guy, what do you think happened? The wealthy guy said gee thanks, and put it away, the poorer guy needed the money shortly afterward and cashed it in for a couple of hundred bucks. So even if you GIVE it out equitably it doesn't stay equitable.

That's why it would had been better to start denominating things in bitcoin before wide adoption, not using it from the start as a speculative asset

The distribution could be not exactly what the OP showed, but I think it is unquestionable it is largely unequal among users. Few people detain a lot of the total purchasing power that bitcoin could ever have, this is not good imo. I'm not saying that I have a simple solution, only that this is the aspect that I less like about bitcoin.

[Muuurrrrica!]

the wealth distribution is worse than in any other currency, correct.

I didn't read Elwar's comments but i believe it's safe to put him on ignore.

[jbreher]

That's why it would had been better to start denominating things in bitcoin before wide adoption, not using it from the start as a speculative asset

You figure out a way to do that, and the world will beat a path to your door. Oh yeah - I see the smiley now.

The distribution could be not exactly what the OP showed, but I think it is unquestionable it is largely unequal among users.

Yet unlike fiat, no one is, nor ever has been, barred from participating. Can't get any more egalitarian than that.

[Bitmore]

I really don't see the problem here. 

Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter?  Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed. 

 If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around.  It is all good.

And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities.  And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally.  Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.


Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.

[erre]

I really don't see the problem here. 

Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter?  Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed. 

 If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around.  It is all good.

And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities.  And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally.  Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.


Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.

The problem is not the price, or the divisibility: the matter is that few people control more than 50% of the purchasing power that the whole btc economy will ever have.
I do not like this centralization of purchasing power.