Topic: Bitcoin as a socially fair currency (Read 4327 times)
I donot consider bitcoin as a currency.If it were a currency it would have some centrally controllable dynamics which would have controlled it's volatility and this peak level of price that we are witnessing wouldn't be a reality.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
You dont need to own entire BTC, you can own 1 dollar in BTC, so where's the problem? In future, BTC will be like elite, we will talk in terms of mBTC or whatever.
I think what is being talked about as 'unfair' is the possible distribution of bitcoins, with a few holding large amounts. Of course, everybody would be still be able to purchase ubtc or satoshis.
I would not worry about the other 7 billion. What if bitcoin failed would they bail you out? Unlike the dollar it is never too later to bitcoin. The only socially fair currency is one with zero inflation or deflation.
I found very interesting article about it. It's called "What If We Build It And Nobody Came?" you can google it and read something you may agree with.
I would not worry about the other 7 billion. What if bitcoin failed would they bail you out? Unlike the dollar it is never too later to bitcoin. The only socially fair currency is one with zero inflation or deflation.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
You dont need to own entire BTC, you can own 1 dollar in BTC, so where's the problem? In future, BTC will be like elite, we will talk in terms of mBTC or whatever.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
They wouldn't be excluded, they can get them like everyone else, by selling goods and services in exchange of them.
Those who get in at the fag end of mass adoption will have only a few satoshis, even if they sold goods and services n exchange for them.
Yes, but those satoshis will be worth much more than now. So it's the same.
I dont know maybe they will but that is long term. Most of newcomers want fast so i dont think that they will succeed in this.
The newcomers do not have the belief or patience to buy and hold bitcoins for a long time.
Many newbies believe that the massive rally in end-2013 will be repeated sooner or later.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
They wouldn't be excluded, they can get them like everyone else, by selling goods and services in exchange of them.
Those who get in at the fag end of mass adoption will have only a few satoshis, even if they sold goods and services n exchange for them.
Yes, but those satoshis will be worth much more than now. So it's the same.
I dont know maybe they will but that is long term. Most of newcomers want fast so i dont think that they will succeed in this.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
They wouldn't be excluded, they can get them like everyone else, by selling goods and services in exchange of them.
Those who get in at the fag end of mass adoption will have only a few satoshis, even if they sold goods and services n exchange for them.
Yes, but those satoshis will be worth much more than now. So it's the same.
Whats fair is money doesnt get created randomly, thats what you could say is fair about btc.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
They wouldn't be excluded, they can get them like everyone else, by selling goods and services in exchange of them.
Those who get in at the fag end of mass adoption will have only a few satoshis, even if they sold goods and services n exchange for them.
Quote
please help me, how to invest in bitcoin. whether there is a secure wallet.
You can invest in altcoins or in some other thing.
Meaning you can open account on some cryptomarket and try to ear by investing in some altcoin that looks promising or you can invest in some other thing like gold, silver, oil ....
You pick one and choose wisely.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What about in the future? Let's say that a fraction of a percent of the world's population become very wealthy by having bought bitcoins early. The price of one bitcoin has become extremely high. Would that be a fair monetary system? Could be!
Why? Price/performance is progressing exponentially for information technology, and as Ray Kurzweil has pointed out, even material goods are becoming information technology.
This means that within a few decades people will be able to 3D print a Big Mac for free. And a decade after that, a flying Ferrari can be 3D printed for free. And then how many bitcoins you own will not matter that much. Ha ha.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What about in the future? Let's say that a fraction of a percent of the world's population become very wealthy by having bought bitcoins early. The price of one bitcoin has become extremely high. Would that be a fair monetary system? Could be!
Why? Price/performance is progressing exponentially for information technology, and as Ray Kurzweil has pointed out, even material goods are becoming information technology.This means that within a few decades people will be able to 3D print a Big Mac for free. And a decade after that, a flying Ferrari can be 3D printed for free. And then how many bitcoins you own will not matter that much. Ha ha.
I don't really see what point you are trying to make here.
Are you saying bitcoin is not fair because most people do not know what it is and hence not able to invest in it?
please help me, how to invest in bitcoin. whether there is a secure wallet.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
They wouldn't be excluded, they can get them like everyone else, by selling goods and services in exchange of them.
Bitcoin as a social currency that is fair, I agree with that statement, as we know that the currency now in circulation in the world, many dominated by conglomerates and government authorities, so that it can be said that a rich man can be richer while the poor people who can add poor , is called the capitalist economic system
bitcoin present gives new hope, that can be fairly evenly bitcoin circulation to the entire population of the world, because bitcoin itself does not have a physical form such other currencies, bitcoin is only a cryptocurrency that have prices, depending on usage in the market ...
so bitcoin can not be controlled by a single party, distribution of bitcoin premises more evenly than other currencies ...
bitcoin present gives new hope, that can be fairly evenly bitcoin circulation to the entire population of the world, because bitcoin itself does not have a physical form such other currencies, bitcoin is only a cryptocurrency that have prices, depending on usage in the market ...
so bitcoin can not be controlled by a single party, distribution of bitcoin premises more evenly than other currencies ...
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
I Agree for that
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
What's "fair" got to do with it? Where does Satoshi say that Bitcoin is supposed to be fair and distributed evenly to everyone on the planet?
I can't seem to find that when I read the white paper.
Also,
If Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world then surely everyone will be paid in Bitcoins.
Then everyone will have Bitcoins. Problem solved.
its only unfair if you expect everyone who uses it to become rich by just owning some, but thats not what currencies do
The deflationary nature of bitcoin may make the price rise a lot if many big investors will start buying bitcoins. If the big investors compete. They (the big whales) could manipulate the price, so it's not a guarantee that the price will rise a lot. If there will be a huge interest in bitcoin then the sheer mass of investments will likely make the bitcoin price to skyrocket.
Investments are fair, but what may happen is that the really big investors don't want those who own bitcoins today to become more wealthy than themselves.
bitcoin is high inflationary and when the inflation drops under 3% a year in 15 year, there will be a different and better crypto monetary unit. I guess the success for wealth will be to jump from one to the other over decades and betting for the right horse. The dogma is here, that we dont use Netscape anymore neither Altavista, but instead Chrome and Google.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
The only difference is that Porsche is a consumption asset. If a majority of the people have to do without Porsches, it would be considered acceptable. In the scenario that Bitcoin becomes the de-facto currency of the world, excluding a large part of the world from holding bitcoins (because they are priced out) may be considered unfair.
Of the world's over 7 billion people, how many can today afford or even practically buy bitcoins? Not many percentage wise. And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
What's wrong with that? Neither can everyone have a Porsche. But everyone is free to buy it, they just need to give goods or services in exchange.
Jump to: