Topic: Bitcoin as a socially fair currency - page 3. (Read 4359 times)
Sometimes in the history people didn't knew about Gold either,does that mean now they don't accept/adopt it as a payment option.It's the matter of time
Very little wealth (at a personal level) is held in currency.
So if bitcoin does stabilize, is adopted everywhere, the distribution won't really matter. The early adopters will be rich, but they won't be the only ones.
It is just that assets will be denominated in btc. Nothing else will change.
So if bitcoin does stabilize, is adopted everywhere, the distribution won't really matter. The early adopters will be rich, but they won't be the only ones.
It is just that assets will be denominated in btc. Nothing else will change.
So how is that fair?
How do you define the word "fair"? What would you consider to be "fair", and how would this "fairness" be measured?
Few people own bitcoins today. A tiny percent of the world's population. I think it's totally fair from an investment point of view. The problem is that the really big investors, almost all of whom have zero bitcoins today, would not start to invest in bitcoin today when more than half of all bitcoins have already been mined. That would be like giving their power away to the current bitcoin owners who already have invested.
I see what you mean, but I'm betting against it happening that way. My reasons are these:A professional investor is thrilled if he/she can make 10% a year. There is a huge growth potential in bitcoin that is far, far beyond the growth of something like Face Book stock. It is not unrealistic to think bitcoin could grow another 200% by the end of the year. That kind of potential is not going to get left on the table.
Those people who are going to try "investing" in bitcoin may think they are late to the game. So what, they can't just make their own coin. They have no choice. They can buy bitcoin or they can get nothing. It does not matter how many coins are mined. All that matters is growth potential. That IS the game.
Ok, you mean the medium size investors. Yes, they will invest in bitcoin. I was thinking about the really huge investors who trade with billions of dollars. They, the mega whales, want to keep dominating the markets and not let today's bitcoin owners become more powerful and wealthy than the mega whales. And those big traders can easily launch their own cryptocurrency once legal regulations are in place.
They, the mega whales, want to keep dominating the markets and not let today's bitcoin owners become more powerful and wealthy than the mega whales. And those big traders can easily launch their own cryptocurrency once legal regulations are in place.
Hey! I came to think of another possibility. Governments will not allow any independent cryptocurrency to become too big. They will therefore introduce an official cryptocurrency.
Easier said than done. How do you propose they not allow bitcoin to become too big? And why would anyone else use their cryptocurrency?
Too much people hold BTC these days. We need fairer distribution.
Mega BTC whales should be making Giveaways in this forum or something. 
Hey! I came to think of another possibility. Governments will not allow any independent cryptocurrency to become too big. They will therefore introduce an official cryptocurrency.
Wouldnt "BTC credit cards" defeat the purpose?
Few people own bitcoins today. A tiny percent of the world's population. I think it's totally fair from an investment point of view. The problem is that the really big investors, almost all of whom have zero bitcoins today, would not start to invest in bitcoin today when more than half of all bitcoins have already been mined. That would be like giving their power away to the current bitcoin owners who already have invested.
I see what you mean, but I'm betting against it happening that way. My reasons are these:A professional investor is thrilled if he/she can make 10% a year. There is a huge growth potential in bitcoin that is far, far beyond the growth of something like Face Book stock. It is not unrealistic to think bitcoin could grow another 200% by the end of the year. That kind of potential is not going to get left on the table.
Those people who are going to try "investing" in bitcoin may think they are late to the game. So what, they can't just make their own coin. They have no choice. They can buy bitcoin or they can get nothing. It does not matter how many coins are mined. All that matters is growth potential. That IS the game.
Ok, you mean the medium size investors. Yes, they will invest in bitcoin. I was thinking about the really huge investors who trade with billions of dollars. They, the mega whales, want to keep dominating the markets and not let today's bitcoin owners become more powerful and wealthy than the mega whales. And those big traders can easily launch their own cryptocurrency once legal regulations are in place.
Few people own bitcoins today. A tiny percent of the world's population. I think it's totally fair from an investment point of view. The problem is that the really big investors, almost all of whom have zero bitcoins today, would not start to invest in bitcoin today when more than half of all bitcoins have already been mined. That would be like giving their power away to the current bitcoin owners who already have invested.
I see what you mean, but I'm betting against it happening that way. My reasons are these:A professional investor is thrilled if he/she can make 10% a year. There is a huge growth potential in bitcoin that is far, far beyond the growth of something like Face Book stock. It is not unrealistic to think bitcoin could grow another 200% by the end of the year. That kind of potential is not going to get left on the table.
Those people who are going to try "investing" in bitcoin may think they are late to the game. So what, they can't just make their own coin. They have no choice. They can buy bitcoin or they can get nothing. It does not matter how many coins are mined. All that matters is growth potential. That IS the game.
Bitcoin isn't about fair global wealth distribution. Never was and never will be.
It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
it is true. Only a small number of people have great proportion of BTC. As crypto currencies are developing, something new probably will fairly distribute and replace BTC.It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
I think so to. Also the internet isn't fairly distributed. Only a few companies control the majority of the provided services on the net. I think something more fair will replace internet as well.
Bitcoin isn't about fair global wealth distribution. Never was and never will be.
It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
it is true. Only a small number of people have great proportion of BTC. As crypto currencies are developing, something new probably will fairly distribute and replace BTC. It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
Bitcoin isn't about fair global wealth distribution. Never was and never will be.
It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
It's a great piece of technology but unfortunately it can't do miracles.
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.
As someone else (I don't remember who) said, the 20th century (1900's) was defined by the rule of people who bought and hoarded oil - basically oil barons with the resulting Exxons, BPs, and related subsidies, extortions, and wars for oil. The 21st century may be largely defined by the rule of people who bought and helped launch Bitcoin - basically libertarian computer nerds. We shall see who creates a better outcome for the world. Personally, I think computer nerds are nicer/safer, although
@Anders
I do think that Satoshi's idea was to address the problem of unfair distribution. It would be disastrous to just pick a few people and give them coins. In the bitcoin protocol you could see mining as a reward for work system. As miners process transactions and strengthen the network they are paid with the possibility of a block reward. Without such an incentive, they would likely not run their computers all day and use their electricity.
It does not lead to an egalitarian utopia. But it is far better than the federal reserve system we have in the U.S. And unlike most fiat currencies no one can control supply, price, distribution, etc. It is a brutal unregulated market. Still, I like it better than a rigged system.
-cheers mate
I do think that Satoshi's idea was to address the problem of unfair distribution. It would be disastrous to just pick a few people and give them coins. In the bitcoin protocol you could see mining as a reward for work system. As miners process transactions and strengthen the network they are paid with the possibility of a block reward. Without such an incentive, they would likely not run their computers all day and use their electricity.
It does not lead to an egalitarian utopia. But it is far better than the federal reserve system we have in the U.S. And unlike most fiat currencies no one can control supply, price, distribution, etc. It is a brutal unregulated market. Still, I like it better than a rigged system.
-cheers mate
Few people own bitcoins today. A tiny percent of the world's population. I think it's totally fair from an investment point of view. The problem is that the really big investors, almost all of whom have zero bitcoins today, would not start to invest in bitcoin today when more than half of all bitcoins have already been mined. That would be like giving their power away to the current bitcoin owners who already have invested.
But wouldn't that next currency backed buy really big investors have to have a fair distribution in order for the coin to compete and become better then Bitcoin. I think the real issue is that Bitcoin is better then the system we have now. Which is beyond poorly distributed and many people don't have access to it. Everyone may not be able to buy a whole Bitcoin but they can buy a portion of a coin and accumulate the amount of Bitcoin they hold. People that buy stocks at different places don't say it isn't fair when those before them bought the same stock for cheaper or they shouldn't IMO.
When people first heard about Bitcoin they paid it no attention for whatever reasons. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone has had a chance at cheap Bitcoin whether they realized it or not. This is early stages of Bitcoin's growth and like years back their is no reason not to invest into Bitcoin. If anything this is a sale price after the MTGOX debacle.
When people first heard about Bitcoin they paid it no attention for whatever reasons. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone has had a chance at cheap Bitcoin whether they realized it or not. This is early stages of Bitcoin's growth and like years back their is no reason not to invest into Bitcoin. If anything this is a sale price after the MTGOX debacle.
If big investors will launch their own cryptocurrency, then they could grab a huge share before the smaller investors would have time to react. They could do a premining and only share those initial coins with their super rich buddies. That would be a more uneven distribution than bitcoin, but it would be legal as far as I know.
The reason for why the big investors would do that is that they don't want to invest in bitcoin when more than half of the total amount of bitcoins have already been mined. Because that would make those who already own bitcoins today wealthier than the big investors. Money is power. Most of the very big investors today have zero bitcoins.
@Anders
I do think that Satoshi's idea was to address the problem of unfair distribution. It would be disastrous to just pick a few people and give them coins. In the bitcoin protocol you could see mining as a reward for work system. As miners process transactions and strengthen the network they are paid with the possibility of a block reward. Without such an incentive, they would likely not run their computers all day and use their electricity.
It does not lead to an egalitarian utopia. But it is far better than the federal reserve system we have in the U.S. And unlike most fiat currencies no one can control supply, price, distribution, etc. It is a brutal unregulated market. Still, I like it better than a rigged system.
-cheers mate
I do think that Satoshi's idea was to address the problem of unfair distribution. It would be disastrous to just pick a few people and give them coins. In the bitcoin protocol you could see mining as a reward for work system. As miners process transactions and strengthen the network they are paid with the possibility of a block reward. Without such an incentive, they would likely not run their computers all day and use their electricity.
It does not lead to an egalitarian utopia. But it is far better than the federal reserve system we have in the U.S. And unlike most fiat currencies no one can control supply, price, distribution, etc. It is a brutal unregulated market. Still, I like it better than a rigged system.
-cheers mate
anyone with a penny can buy and use bitcoin. The price is completely irrelevant. If you own one dollar, you can buy one dollars worth of bitcoin. Same as when they were $0.06.
A too disproportional distribution of bitcoins may prevent a success on a mainstream scale. The bitcoin price can become very high without much use for ordinary transactions. Then bitcoin will remain largely an investment vehicle rather than being a general currency. That may be ok too if some other cryptocurrency can replace things like fiat credit/debit card payments. What I'm curious about is if bitcoin can become a general currency. It will be a long time before 1 satoshi becomes too valuable for use in an ordinary transaction. Anyway, in order to get there, bitcoin will have to have gone mainstream already.
Yes, and for bitcoin to become mainstream it will need to be regulated by governments. And when regulations are in place then other cryptocurrencies will have the same opportunity. Yikes! Then the really big investors will launch their own cryptocurrency! Because they want to be the first investors before the price goes to the moon. They will not invest in bitcoin so late in the game.
But wouldn't that next currency backed buy really big investors have to have a fair distribution in order for the coin to compete and become better then Bitcoin. I think the real issue is that Bitcoin is better then the system we have now. Which is beyond poorly distributed and many people don't have access to it. Everyone may not be able to buy a whole Bitcoin but they can buy a portion of a coin and accumulate the amount of Bitcoin they hold. People that buy stocks at different places don't say it isn't fair when those before them bought the same stock for cheaper or they shouldn't IMO.
When people first heard about Bitcoin they paid it no attention for whatever reasons. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone has had a chance at cheap Bitcoin whether they realized it or not. This is early stages of Bitcoin's growth and like years back their is no reason not to invest into Bitcoin. If anything this is a sale price after the MTGOX debacle.
Bitcoin can be future, but not everyone in this world has access to internet. Even today, many people rely on real physical cash, not online payments like paypal, payza, skrill etc. So it will take lot of time, probably 10 years.
Mobile internet access is being implemented very quickly all over the world. I'm not sure about the total time frame though. Maybe within 5 years!
Jump to: