Topic: At what point does Bitcoin become protestable? - page 2. (Read 6572 times)

Some ppl are still talking as dreamers that they mine bitcoin at very early stage, and they should own such big amount of big bitcoin, WoW, how smart they are!

the fact is that, the money itself is nothing but an opinion, yes, it's an opinion. Gold worth something, it's an opinion, which is widely accepted.

if ppl don't feel this right, they are jealous or not is not important, but they just address their opinion that it's not the MONEY they want, which 100 ppl like you hold 80% of the total money in the system. and if most of ppl don't agree the situation, then bitcoin is not a MONEY, as "bitcoin worth something" cannot be widely accepted.



So I guess it will be only you several players play with the bitcoins, as you are the several ppl think such situation is agreeable.

but it won't be too agreeable, I guess.

P.S

This ID is new, but I have catch up bitcoin not too recently, I have another old ID.

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.

Tell you what. When you give away everything you don't need to absolutely sustain your life to those who have 1/100th of your wealth throughout the rest of the world, then we can talk about "fairness" without hypocrisy.

The early adopters you're talking about are ones that haven't significantly liquidated their bitcoins, so this is by definition incorrect.


Fault? This really sounds like pure jealousy.

"maybe it's not Google's founders' (or their early investors') fault to have such a big fortune" - it makes no sense


That's one man's opinion. One man that can give away 99% of his wealth and still live happily, yet only gives away a tiny portion.


You've still not defined "too much".

we human being are created from monkey (maybe God works step by step, too), and monkey know about "fairness", too.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html


the distribution of bitcoin is not fair.

Those who say that they deserve every coin they mine are not honest enough, if they at the same time consider bitcoin is an alternative currency system to our traditional fiat money system.

the units of bitcoin mutiplied by the exhchange rate roughly described how much the early adopters are paid, if we don't consider the shock the early hoarders bring to the market. maybe it's not the early adopters' fault to have such a big fortune, but you have to be honest enough as Warren Buffett admit that they billionaires don't deserve to paid sooooooooooo much. and Red's OP have told everyone enough, that if

1) you just put your 5000 USD investment of bitcoin away,
2) bitcoin were somehow "widely" adopted

how much you're paid. You have to admit that, you're paid toooooooooooooooooo much.


P.S.  "You" in my post maybe not personally about BitterTea, maybe include myself. 

No, I am saying they necessarily deserve every Bitcoin they have mined or traded for.

How do you propose that "too much" or "too little" is determined?

You're saying that the bitcoin early adopter should be paid. OK, maybe right, but don't you think you're planning pay yourself toooooooOOOoOOooooooo much?

In principal I see nothing wrong with early adopters and them holding more coins than others.  Most everyone that would have had interest in mining had an equal chance to do as they did.  I found out about it MUCH too late to make any appreciable profits but I don't at all begrudge others that did.

However I agree that the system doesn't have to be "wrong" for it to fail due to poor perception from jealous new adopters.  I don't think a new bitcoin that panders to insecure people will ever be the answer though.

Spot on.

I'd gladly join a system better than the current(fiat) one. I don't think Bitcoin is that system, although the idea intrigues me.  In a few iterations perhaps BitcoinX could be a fair system that doesn't have the same economic flaws as the current(fiat) one does.

Please don't contribute to that fallacy: Litecoin isn't designed for CPU mining, it is designed to be unfavorable for current GPU architectures, that's all.

Should it get popular, a suitable FPGA design will be developed and the FPGA miners will compete with the botnets for 99.9% of the coins. The mining disparity will therefore be even worse than with Bitcoin today.

http://blockchain.info/

Bitcoins cost roughly $3.41 in electricity to mine. They sell for $3.67. That is a 26 cent profit if you mine and sell today. But in general the prices have been falling. If you don't sell immediately, you risk losing any profit.

With Bitcoin, you are competing against the owners of 7,479,400 BTC. Most of these owners bought there BTC for pennies a BTC. Say for example, knightmb who bought 371,000 BTC for $5,000. That is (1.35 cents/BTC) if you are keeping score. So basically, the early adopters are still making piles of money selling their hoards. There is no solid bottom to BTC prices at the moment.

If you mint and sell immediately, you are not really doing much to support bitcoin as a growing economy. If you buy with cash you are basically enabling the speculators and early adopters to sell off their hoards at a profit. (Good for them!) If you hold these coins you will likely lose value (at least for a while). In that case you would be better to hold off your purchase until BTC bottoms. If you spend these coins immediately on goods, you are building the economy. (Go Bitcoin!) Convince enough people to do this and the early adopters will cease selling there coins because their wealth is increasing and hoarding is preferable again. BTC prices will spike and you still won't have any.

---

Litecoin is the same as bitcoin in everyway, except it is designed for CPU mining so you aren't competing with the big boys. You are also not selling against giant hoards. It is like a "do over" for bitcoin. Might as well test all your theories at your lowest cost, and highest potential profit.

Why does it matter if I am early? I am looking at LiteCoin and it seems like a complete copy of Bitcoin with little differences. Isn't a more popular crypto-currency more secure anyways?

I suggested the same thing 18 months or so ago. I was soundly shouted down by the existing folks who thought it was the greatest idea ever. Very Austrian. I turned away because the consequences seemed obvious. I should have bought up a few and held until the boom though. I always see the future too soon!

I do, however, still want an anonymous digital cash to be used over the internet and elsewhere. I'm even OK with the quasi-anonymous nature of nakamoto chained transactions. I'm actually in favor of the FBI catching major criminals. I just want a currency that is not broadly and needlessly profiled.


Yes this seems to have failed. The major problem was, merchants and goods purchasers should have been the focus of the currency. However, many were turned off by the excessive philosophizing.


In all honesty, litecoin is probably the fairer bet for you. If you started today with it, you would be an early adopter. With bitcoin, you are way behind the curve.

First I was compared to a child. Now something about trolling?

Anyways, to address the argument, I have yet to see an issue with users having a large portion of the credits. Bitcoins went up to 7 or 8 decimal points, if I recall correctly. There is more than enough supply to go around. I can't see any constraints when it comes to getting more users.

Also, isn't this project only two years old? It's a bit early to be saying this project has failed. I just discovered Bitcoin two weeks ago.

"Ragnar Redbeard", btw, is an obvious SA troll, please ignore him. Though he does accurately parody many libertarians in here. I almost took him seriously.

I just think Satoshi fucked up the first part of the curve. The very first adopters are those who are interested in the tech etc., the ones who build the system and gather knowledge. They don’t need financial incentive, and certainly not one that equals Peak Bitcoin Rate/number of earliest adopters. I think this created a disparity that only strengthened the perception of a "pyramid scheme".

My first reaction to Bitcoin was that I thought it’s really cool – this NEW p2p digital currency was a novel idea. Then I found out that such a large portion of it was already distributed, and coupled with the extreme disparity where 6 months make such a huge difference and the runup to 1.1$, I almost turned away from it.

The early adopters aren’t important, they come anyway because they are genuinely interested. What’s important is reaching the EARLY MAJORITY, crossing the chasm. We almost managed to do that, but it is apparent now that we have failed.

I think Satoshi picked a fine incentive to encourage early adopters. However, the early adopters didn't manage to translate the excitement outside of the crypto-anarchist libertarian community.

If there were 5 million daily bitcoin users today with a geometrically increasing goods transaction rate, then the incentive he chose would have seemed brilliant. It looked like that might be the case earlier in the summer. However, it now appears the early adopters have failed at their promotional duties. If this remains the case, they are really only failing themselves.

However, I still don't see why the masses will come around once the early adopters have even more advantage. Everyone seems to be hoping it gets easer to push boulder up a steeper hill.

Wealth has never been about risk or what somebody "deserves". It's what people are willing to throw money at. If people happen to value your Bitcoins at $10,000 a piece a few years from now just from you mining, who's to say this should come into question? What evil are you imposing by earning wealth, even if you didn't do all that much?

Opinion of course. You may, like many people, hail the people who got in with a mere CPU in 2010 as the great early adopters who took the incredible risk of volatile exchange rates, exchange hacks, MyBitcoin, b-OH WAIT. That’s right, it’s the latecomers (May+) who took the true risk and got nothing in this system!

Another difference between Gold and Bitcoin I forgot to mention:

When the Gold Rush happened, the people who made the real money were not the first miners, but the merchants who supplied goods and enabled commerce. In Bitcoin, it is apparent that whoever now steps up and supplies goods/services will never be able to catch up with people like Satoshi or knightmb, or less extreme, someone who mined 30k BTC.

It is also worth thinking about "marginal utility of BTC incentive" vs. "disincentive for latecomers" due to how the system is made up. There probably is some sweet point in between where the transition becomes most fluent and non-problematic, but I believe that Bitcoin has had such overkill incentive that it degenerated into a pyramid-scheme like thing. For the sentiment this has caused, check https://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea

Is this a fact or an opinion?