If it does become widely adopted, should all the work done up until this point be dismissed as useless? Were it not for this work, would it ever become adopted in the first place?
Donating some CPU cycles to a project before the world knows about it is not work. Difficulty was 1 for a whole year: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.pngPeople do the same for free for folding@home etc. It’s certainly not work that ought to be rewarded with 1% to 0.1% of the money supply.
The truth is that the Bitcoin generation curve does not model a natural resource in that we started out with "Peak Bitcoin" rate in 2009. Now guess the relation of how many people there were in 2009 and how many people there are now - that’s the ROI. Normally, the extraction of ressources models a sigmoid curve where the Peak production is approached as the extraction becomes more efficient.
In Gold, an equivalent to Satoshi et al. would have been the first gold miner who doesn’t even own a pickaxe, but just finds and carries 1% of the Gold supply home with his own hands. Laughable.
Donating some CPU cycles to a project is also, at least for most people in the first world, not risk.
I have mentioned this many times, and the generation curve enhances the disparity by the quickness of "Internet Speed" and the fact that the pool of users was very small to begin with.
10/10 