Topic: At what point does Bitcoin become protestable? (Read 6572 times)

The OP argument turns up a lot in different forms.  

It is, essentially, this: "bitcoins will never become successful, because if they are successful then a small number of people will hold all the value".

To translate: being successful will mean they aren't successful.  You'll forgive me if I find that argument... odd.

The fundamental fallacy here is the fallacy of the distributed middle.  Essentially the argument is that there are only two states for bitcoin: success or failure.  With success being defined as bitcoin being the only currency on the planet.

It's nonsense.  Bitcoin price can be any number of dollars.  If it truly is the case that the more successful it becomes, the less people will want bitcoins then that will be reflected in the exchange rate.  An equilibrium will always be found (even if it is short lived on any particular day).

For a more practical definition of success, bitcoin just needs to be in common use.  Paypal transmits $100 billion a year.  That is well within bitcoin's grasp and could easily be argued to be "success".

This thread has been dead for long, but that doesn't mean that the original post doesn't have merit. I don't mean for people to keep posting in this thread, but to read the OP and understand why most people would never consider BTC a serious alternative.

One of the big differences between Bitcoin and the current government-controlled fiat currencies that rarely gets mentioned, is that use of Bitcoin is entirely *voluntary* whereas the government currencies are *not*.

If you live in the US you *have* to pay taxes and you *have* to pay them im in US$. You will be forced at gunpoint if necessary to do this. That is what we should really be protesting about.

Don't like Bitcoin? Then don't use it. Make your own currency.

I think in order for bitcoin to replace currency then it will have to be more accepted by stores or emerchants as a method of payment, Its getting there but its not there yet IMHO.

It is not so much a "fear" but a obvious potential perception among the folks who have not yet adopted Bitcoin. I only say "obvious" because I've seen dozens of posts here commenting on that particular perception. I also ran into random YouTube videos exposing the same sorts of perception. I wasn't even searching YouTube!



Not to be flippant, but there is unarguable certainty that the first (X) Bitcoin adopters control 100% of all generated coins. These (X) individuals currently control 35.5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be generated. All future potential Bitcoin adopters will realize this instinctively.

I'm not really concerned with how the current 35.5% of BTC is distributed among the current (X) bitcoin adopters.



So the perceptions I'm specifically worried about are:
1) How do newcomers to the Bitcoin concept perceive the magnitude of (X)? Do they see it as 10, 100, 1000, 10000, a million?
2) How do newcomers perceive the ratio (35.5%)/(X) versus the ratio (65.5%)/(population-X) as population tends toward 6 billion.
3) How do newcomers perceive the ratio between
    the value/$/goods brought into the Bitcoin economy by (X) in exchange for their 35.5%
versus
    the value/$/goods brought into the Bitcoin economy by (population-X) in competition for a minor share of other's 35.5%.
Specifically, if newcomers bring only $1 worth of value, but there are six billion of them, do they perceive their contribution as dwarfing the contribution of (X)?
4) Do perceptions change psychologically when the number of generate coins reaches 50%?
Specifically, do newcomers see an issue with (X) receiving 50% over 4 years, while (population) has to wait 100+ years to benefit from the remaining 50%.

My hypothesis is:

If (X) is perceived, by newcomers, as large (say one million) by the time generation reaches 50%. Then Bitcoin has hopes for a geometric growth rate that can lead to universal adoption.

If (X) is perceived, by newcomers, as small (say one thousand) at the 50% point, there will be significant psychologic barriers to broad adoption. Bitcoin from that point on best see niche (linear) growth.


As Perceptual evidence I submit:

1) The Satoshi has 1.5 million BTC debacle. This perception seemed to affect even true Bitcoin believers. It seems likely a generalization of that perception will effect each and every potential new adopter.
2) Endless pre-occupation with BTC speculation vs endless references to early adopter Ponzi schemes. Clearly the perception exists.
3) The Occupy Wall Street movement. These folks are busy chanting we are the 99%. (X) seems much less than 1%. Rich people and bankers are bad. This is more an extrapolation then evidence. But still I expect skepticism.


Keep in mind I'm not saying anything in Bitcoin should change technically, monetarily or otherwise. It is more a matter of how do you generate the perception that, "Bitcoin is the currency of the 99%?" You know... Marketing!

That's what interested me in Bitcoin.

So let's go back to your first post. I understand that you believe due to the nature of Bitcoin's finite monetary base and front loaded distribution, there is the fear that early adopters will control a significant portion of the money. Are you personally of the opinion that such a scenario is likely (given widespread adoption), or is it merely that you think that perception will never allow Bitcoin to become adopted at all?

I'm completely convinced I'm delusional for even wanting to try it. My delusions are only supported by about 5 people so far. It is a wacko thing to even propose. I'm just hoping my delusion might become infectious among the masses. But for the life of me, I'm not really sure why I care. I won't directly profit. I'm not trying to replace anything.

Really, I just want internet cash that is not easily profiled. It is more a privacy issue than anything. I hate that every company gathers every detail about my life. Then the government/and others ask them for all the information in mass, so we can all be profiled, or targeted for re-education.



I buy into that delusion in the same way I buy into gravity. All theories about why it should function seem completely implausible. But it seems invaluable in getting me through my day.

Red, labeling things that you don't like as "delusions" is not an intellectually honest debate method. I could just call you "we need a stably valued money" delusional and be done with it...

I'm curious though, do you still buy into the delusion that is national fiat currencies?

You are absolutely correct. This is true even for *Gold!*

That is why companies pay great sums of dollars to run "Gold Exchange", "Buy Gold Now!" "Gold had never been worth zero!" ads everyday, all day. They are maintaining the delusion.

Delusion maintenance is very important. That is why, "Refinance Now!", "Rates have never been cheaper", "Home Prices are skyrocketing" were all the rage a few years back. It was delusion maintenance. Now that real estate delusion fever has broken, there is really no point in trying to maintain that delusion. But that doesn't stop lots of people from trying. "This apartment once sold for 1.2 million! I got it for only 800K! I got such a deal!" The rest of us however rest secure in knowing that guy who bought the apartment for 200K and sold it for 1.2 million got "the deal".



The point of this thread was that very little is being done in the way of Bitcoin delusion maintenance. Everyone here seems to be saying, "The delusion is strong in me! So screw the delusion resistant. When they finally come around they'll be sorry they didn't listen to me. And anyone who thinks *we all* could become post-delusional at once us... Poppycock!"



That is the problem of the moment for Bitcoin. However I don't think that is the medium term existential danger to Bitcoin.

The real danger is that the other 6 billion people on the planet go from pre-delusional to post-delusional before they ever actually ever become delusional.

That happened for me with housing and with *Gold!* I never even got to participate in those delusions. I just became post-delusional. There isn't the least bit of draw for me to go rushing into those delusions now.

Well, that's a good point...

I could come up with several possible features a cryptocurrency could do better like a damped early adaption curve, better hardware utilization and the inconvenience of pooled mining.
But it still would be a only a copy.

The problem is it is not unique, that is anybody can start another hashchain. What would be required of a successor to bitcoin is something where the proof of work consists of a unique mathematical property.

For example the task of finding certain numbers with an unique property where there is a mathematical proof that exactly a certain amount of these numbers exist.

There exist for example only a few prime numbers for which you can construct a regular polygon but there are also supposedly completely finite series of certain primes. If the only way of finding these numbers consists of sieving it could easily serve as a transaction system.
So the only way someone can come up with a competing solution would be to find another finite series which can be tested this way.
This would be way less trivial than simply changing a few numbers in the source code of satoshis software.

So? The same can be said for any form of money.


It's possible, but not likely unless something better comes along, or there's a significant security flaw in the protocol itself. Otherwise, it will still serve a use for some people. If it is a medium of exchange, it has demand. If it has demand, it has value. If it has value, it can store value.

Currently the problem with using Bitcoin as a store of value, is the "global shared delusion" hasn't come to a strong consensus on the value of a Bitcoin in relation to fiat currencies.

You don't have to convince me. You have to convince the one billion people you want to come into bitcoin next.
Their opinion will be influenced by the magnitude of folks holding the initial 10.5 million and the quantity and quality merchants.

If Bitcoin hits the 10.5 million mark and a million people are spending 10 BTC each every month at thousands of merchants. Then the next billion, people rewarding the first million a little will seem fair and reasonable.

If Bitcoin hits the 10.5 million mark and a 100 people are hoarding 100K BTC each. And one thousand people are spending 30 BTC each month at a dozen silk road merchants. Well then your argument is going to be a really hard sell.

That's why a say the next year is Do or Die for bitcoin. All roads do not lead to the Orient. There are dead end paths and gaping chasms.



Bitcoin doesn't actually STORE value. It is critical to remember this. Bitcoin's value is based on the strength of a global shared delusion. Currently one BTC is worth precisely zero to most folks on the planet. It is possible, in the future, for BTC to be worth zero to every person on the planet.

And the holders and buyers of those 10,500,000 coins created the infrastructure and network of bitcoin users that's in place. Without that pre-existing infrastructure and network, bitcoin would be nothing but data. It would have no value.

Yes, the early adopters, meaning any one holding bitcoins now, will profit if bitcoin becomes successful, but they will only profit once. Once you've sold your cheaply acquired bitcoin, you can't sell it a second time. A one-time profit off of a good investment pick that's associated with a facilitation of global commerce, is more than fair in my opinion.

Any way, the point of currency is to store value. Changing the pre-agreed and pre-set quantity of bitcoin would diminish trust in bitcoin's ability to store value.

Actually, yes I can. I have a concept discussion thread here if you are interested.


It's not about how far bitcoin has come. I'm interested in how much farther it will go. The initial Darpa grand challenge was very impressive. However, no car got to the intended goal line. The second grand challenge seemed less astonishing after the first. However, cars actually got to the goal.


Perhaps you'll consider commenting on my above thread?

I'm not really opposed to fiat currency either. I do however agree that there are a few flaws with that system. If you could eliminate those flaws in a new system while keeping things that work and not introducing new major flaws, I'd join that. If this is done through fiat or some other means really doesn't matter to me.

Bitcoin is still sinking in for me but I think you are all being impatient. Bitcoin has only existed as a open-source project for two years. It has done very well in comparison to similar open-source innovations. I don't get the fuss over "a lack of adoption" when it's doing just fine.

Isn't that Bitcoin, after the subsidy is reduced to nothing? Can you think of a better way to perform the initial distribution of p2p money? I can't.

While I'm not as opposed to "fiat" currency as most people, I do look forward to a reasonable p2p alternative. I have been intrigued by bitcoin for going on two years now. However, from the beginning I have thought its monetary policy was flawed. "Flawed" of course is an argument word, but in this case the flaw I saw was that it would lead exactly to this current dynamic.

Lots of others saw the same "flaw". There was a French guy here arguing bitcoin should pay a Universal Dividend. It is a fascinating twist of logic. Morality in his view dictates that every living human receive and equal share of all new money created. The money supply itself should grow 5% a year in order to provide this universal dividend. When pressed the logic for this was to make up for the penalty of having been born later than your predecessors. Ostensibly, some people where here when all that money got created. "They got it for free! So we want some too!"

I just wanted a stable currency. One that wouldn't inflate or deflate over time. Indeed it looks possible to create. It was just that nobody was interested in such a currency two years back. What would be the point? Everyone was going to get rich on the bitcoin plan.

I think this is a fair summary of why I started this thread. I don't think there is any such thing as "fair" in this situation. There is the state in which we start (the current state) and the state to which we want to achieve (universal acceptance). My question is, "Is there a plausible path between the two?"

There is no point in telling the six billion people who haven't adopted bitcoin yet, that they are just jealous they didn't get here first. You have to persuade them there is some personal value for them in the proposition of their using bitcoin. The argument of, "Think how rich you'll be when the rest of the six billion people get here," only holds for so long.

I don't remember when primates became the objective standard of economic equality. As a strong advocate of evolution, I also know that we came from an ancestor to primates and not directly from them.

Anyways, fairness is arbitrary. The fact is people who hold Bitcoins aren't hurting anybody.








Yes, they only hurt themselves.

What a single person do the best for himself, but the whole group act in the same way, they just hurt themselves. As they hold the bitcoin which get at such a low price, ppl don't agree that this is a good enough money system.

Yes, maybe you early smart holders can say that you hurt nobody, but the ppl who get to know bitcoin late feel "jealous" (some of ppl' word) or "unfair" (my description) is not hurting anybody, too. But it's pointless, and the point is, as the money is a group accepted opinion on something, if most of the ppl feel bad about it, then most of the ppl will feel disagree that this is a money, and so it will NOT be a wide adopted money.

Do you understand? smart early adopters who hurt nobody?