Did Satoshi make any comments about the initial 'imbalance' of Bitcoin wealth?

[Possum577]

He had a lot to say about the imbalance of wealth. He said it with the bitcoin protocol. There is no imbalance of wealth in BTC. The poorest or wealthiest people in the world are free to jump in. Being rich gives you no advantage the way it does with fiat.

When fiat was created there was no advantage to rich or poor. Now that fiat exists for hundreds of years and people have held onto that wealth and used it to make more wealth is not a feature unique to fiat currency, its a feature common among any capitalist society, therefore bitcoin will also have the same result.

There's nothing that keeps an imbalance of bitcoin wealth except for a government like intervention that siphons bitcoin from the wealthy to the poor. The poorest and the wealthiest people the US, Europe, and China are free to jump in to earn Dollars, Euros, or Yuan...

[Wandererfromthenorth]

OP:


This is the closest I can find about the topic:

"In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value"

"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"


They were talking about it here:


http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

[btcbug]

if he wanted to actually create an egalitarian currency of the people and wanted it to be as widely distributed and as fairly distributed as possible ... it would have been possible to ... for example ... just using a simplified number ... make the initial blocks worth 1 btc per 10 minute block and have that double , rather than halve , every 2 years until reaching a certain cutoff point to accomplish the same number of total coins and assuring a much fairer distribution in the process ... with this example this would have allowed for 6 coins per hour , 144 coins per day , and 52,560 coins per year produced for a total of 105,120 in the first 2 years , 210,240 produced in the next 2 years , 420,480 produced in the next 2 years , etc etc ... that would have allowed for today there be less than 1 million coins in existence with the remaining 20 million still yet to be mined and at a predictable rate and with the same total number of coins (more or less , depending on the cutoff point chosen and programmed into the software) ... it would also allowed for all of the coins to be created a helluva lot sooner than 2140 or whatever it's supposed to be for all of them to come into existence as in within our lifetimes ... how it was setup was instead 300 coins per hour , 7200 coins per day , 2,628,000 coins per year at the start ... which seems like a fair distribution method allowing for public awareness and evenly distributed coins ? ... 52,560 produced at the start per year or 2,628,000 produced at the start per year ? ... he knew exactly what he was doing in terms of assuring imbalance ... and since it was supposedly an experiment and they were valued so low / at zero value , what would have been the harm doing it that fairer way ? ... initial value argument is irrelevant flawed logic in terms of distribution imbalance ...

Go create "Faircoin" then! It's that simple. The market will decide, but of course you know better than the market right?

[Slaxt]

OP:


This is the closest I can find about the topic:

"In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value"

"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"


They were talking about it here:


http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

The kicker is everyone goes on about how fair it is when you look more closely its just changing the bankers for the lucky early adopters which is a shame. Do not get me wrong i am in it either way as it is better than the old system but it is far from ideal

[btcbug]

The kicker is everyone goes on about how fair it is when you look more closely its just changing the bankers for the lucky early adopters which is a shame. Do not get me wrong i am in it either way as it is better than the old system but it is far from ideal

Well what would be "ideal"? There is no such thing I'm afraid.

You can't just disconnect money (a medium of exchange) with goods/services that it represents. Imagine a barter system, how would you prevent the motivated and business savvy from accumulating wealth? I think the answer is that you can't and that's perfectly ok. What is needed is take away the power of law to legally force a currency on people. That is what BTC represents, the decentralization of power, not the complete removal of wealth from those who are driven enough in life to accumulate it. You can be powerful by accumulating assets, but that is a huge difference from using state power in tandem with your wealth. Cronyism is what I'd like to see diminished.

[koelen3]

He did made many posts , starting with the very first post and thread(public) on this very forum
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.0

Dude, the thread you link to, while historic, has about 3 posts after Satoshi started it and NONE of the replies or discussion beyond the OP are from Satoshi. Why do you think this offers any insight into what Satoshi thought about the prospective growth of bitcoin and how the potential for wealth inequality?

I do understand that bt i was just stating what he posted if you see further you can see i have also posted

Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

No, don't "bring it on".

The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.

I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy.  You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.

Which shows what Satoshi thought of Bitcoin

[odolvlobo]

Four years ago, $43 worth of bitcoins were distributed every 10 minutes. Currently, $7,000 worth of bitcoins are distributed every 10 minutes.

That seems extremely unfair to the "early" adopters.

This doesn't make sense to me, perhaps you can explain. What's the volume of coins distributed every ten minutes? If it's not the same between the four years ago reference and the currently reference the comparison is meaningless....like comparing apples to horses.

Four years ago, the subsidy was 50 BTC, worth only $0.86 each. Compare that to the present subsidy of 25 BTC, worth $280 each. The value of the distribution was nothing in the early days compared to how much it is now.

[dewdeded]

he was quite happy with it as he told early members that they would all be rich

Source?

[Beliathon]

And, considering that no one complains about continuous imbalance of fiat money ownership (central banks own every newly created fiat money, thus 100% of base money belongs to them originally), why should we care about bitcoin's small imbalance

This is the major difference that some people in this thread seem to be missing. Tomorrow the FED could decide to print 100 million dollar bills and effectively rob the wealth of all holders of dollars worldwide via massive inflation of the supply of dollars.

Bitcoin makes that an impossibility,  it represents a true democratization of money,  and that property is extremely valuable - I would argue priceless - to every human being not in control of fiat printing press.

It's worth having a poorly distributed wealth concentration if it means we get A global money supply with democracy baked into the code as eternal law. We can and will solve the inequality problem later.  Got to cross that bridge when we come to it, mass global adoption.

[Bitware]

This thread is not intended to bash (or spread fear about) the next generation of elite humans who will (probably) attain staggering wealth with their pile of Bitcoins:
Did Satoshi make public comments about the initial distribution of Bitcoins? I am curious if he addressed the subject, and I know we have some great historians and "Satoshi experts" around here. Also, If there are any quotes, please feel free to discuss the content.

Edit: To be more specific:
I'm not asking if Satoshi gave technical mining tips.
Did he discuss the fact that some early users would become "elite" with large amounts of Bitcoins and the affects that could have later?

There is no "imbalance" of Bitcoin wealth. Those who work hardest and risks the most first, generally reap (read: earn) the greatest rewards from their risk, investment and work, just like wealth creation and management outside of Bitcoin world. If you want the potential of increased Bitcoin wealth, work harder, risk more and invest more for it. People who talk about Bitcoin/wealth "imbalance" act like irrational, spoiled and entitled people. We are entitled to nothing, People using this language all to often are simply jealous because they failed to self start and lack drive, ambition, hard work ethic and are to fearful to dive into risky endeavors.

[dewdeded]

Your comment is insulting and stupid.

"Work hardest" .... HAW HAW HAW

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Satoshi was no doubt a genius of moderm times, but even him couldn't predict Bitcoin's outcome, otherwise he would have thought about what the current to fork or not to fork problem for it to never arise.

[thejaytiesto]

The kicker is everyone goes on about how fair it is when you look more closely its just changing the bankers for the lucky early adopters which is a shame. Do not get me wrong i am in it either way as it is better than the old system but it is far from ideal

Well what would be "ideal"? There is no such thing I'm afraid.

You can't just disconnect money (a medium of exchange) with goods/services that it represents. Imagine a barter system, how would you prevent the motivated and business savvy from accumulating wealth? I think the answer is that you can't and that's perfectly ok. What is needed is take away the power of law to legally force a currency on people. That is what BTC represents, the decentralization of power, not the complete removal of wealth from those who are driven enough in life to accumulate it. You can be powerful by accumulating assets, but that is a huge difference from using state power in tandem with your wealth. Cronyism is what I'd like to see diminished.

There's no such thing as ideal distribution, unless you are a Communist...
What's needed is fair rules that cannot be bended and transparency on those. This is what the blockchain is. For the first time in history, a form of capitalism where insiders cannot change the rules behind the veil has been created: Bitcoin.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

This thread is not intended to bash (or spread fear about) the next generation of elite humans who will (probably) attain staggering wealth with their pile of Bitcoins:
Did Satoshi make public comments about the initial distribution of Bitcoins? I am curious if he addressed the subject, and I know we have some great historians and "Satoshi experts" around here. Also, If there are any quotes, please feel free to discuss the content.

Edit: To be more specific:
I'm not asking if Satoshi gave technical mining tips.
Did he discuss the fact that some early users would become "elite" with large amounts of Bitcoins and the affects that could have later?

There is no "imbalance" of Bitcoin wealth. Those who work hardest and risks the most first, generally reap (read: earn) the greatest rewards from their risk, investment and work, just like wealth creation and management outside of Bitcoin world. If you want increased Bitcoin wealth, work harder and invest more for it. People who talk about Bitcoin/wealth "imbalance" act like irrational, spoiled and entitled people. We are entitled to nothing, People using this language all to often are simply jealous because they failed to self start and lack drive, ambition, hard work ethic and are to fearful to dive into risky endeavors.

What kind of risk did the folks that mined tens of thousands of coins in the early days with CPU mining take?

[teukon]

What kind of risk did the folks that mined tens of thousands of coins in the early days with CPU mining take?

Initially, they risked basically nothing.  The investment of time, effort, and electricity was done out of curiosity and/or to support a cool little project.  The bitcoins themselves were practically valueless.

However, an early user that held a stack of bitcoins for many years has absorbed a huge amount of investor risk.

Consider:
Amy, Wilson, and Daniel are bitcoiners:

• Amy mined 20 000 bitcoins in 2009 and held them until today.
• Wilson mined 20 000 bitcoins in 2009 and sold them 6 months ago.
• Daniel bought 20 000 bitcoins in the market 6 months ago and held them until today.

Which of Amy, Wilson, and Daniel has taken on the most risk?

[dewdeded]

From my POV, Daniel has taken the most risk, because he haid to invest the most (by miles).

[odolvlobo]

From my POV, Daniel has taken the most risk, because he haid to invest the most (by miles).

But at the same time that Daniel invested in 20,000 bitcoins, Amy was also invested in 20,000 bitcoins. Their risk at that point is identical.

Some may argue that since Amy's risk is lower because she paid very little for those bitcoins many years ago. But if Daniel inherited the money that he used to buy the bitcoins, does that mean his risk is lower? After all, the bitcoin effectively cost him nothing.

[teukon]

From my POV, Daniel has taken the most risk, because he haid to invest the most (by miles).

But has not Amy taken on as much risk as Wilson and Daniel combined?  Does whether or not she mentally sold her 20 000 bitcoins to herself 6 months ago change anything?

Do you debate this additive property or do you claim perhaps that Wilson has taken on negative risk?  Or something else entirely?

But if Daniel inherited the money that he used to buy the bitcoins, does that mean his risk is lower? After all, the bitcoin effectively cost him nothing.

Good point.  Perhaps "easy come, easy go" plays a part in this common disagreement.  Perhaps there's a feeling that Amy's 20 000 bitcoins weren't truly earned.

[tss]

he was quite happy with it as he told early members that they would all be rich

Source?

sorry i don't bookmark alot on mobile.  but as an example see above.
"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"

[teukon]

he was quite happy with it as he told early members that they would all be rich

Source?

sorry i don't bookmark alot on mobile.  but as an example see above.
"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"

Those were the words of one Sepp Hasslberger, not Satoshi.