Topic: Bitcoin as a socially fair currency - page 4. (Read 4359 times)

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.

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.

At some point, the rise in the value of bitcoin will diminish and it will no longer be useful as an investment.

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 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.

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.


But will bitcoin become successful in terms of mainstream adoption? Bitcoin is already a huge success, as a proof of concept, not yet as a general currency able to replace fiat currencies. I wonder what will happen. It feels like a 50/50 chance that bitcoin will reach mainstream adoption. I think even big investors today sitting on trillions of dollars and zero bitcoins may be reluctant to invest in bitcoin because they have missed the innovators phase and don't want to make those who own bitcoins today become wealthier than themselves. So the big players may be planning to use another cryptocurrency to invest in.


The point Ray Kurzweil has made is that even material things will become information technology with the price going down to zero. This will happen within just a few decades from now. In the near future things will of course cost money. It's not until perhaps in the 2030s when the price will significantly go down. But that's very soon, historically speaking. Check out "technological singularity".

its only unfair if you expect everyone who uses it to become rich by just owning some, but thats not what currencies do

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.

Early adoption of any successful enterprise is more profitable. That is just the way it works. The internet, stocks, start-ups. All favor early adoption. Those in early also take on much greater risk. It was not at all clear that bitcoin would work out and if their money had been lost would you be willing to share your money to cover their losses?
Except that you will not be able to print for free. Things cost money and you will buy the software to print your hamburger then buy the stock material used to print it. Perhaps you will buy that stuff with bitcoin?

Just to be clear, no one was "excluded from early investments".  Bitcoin has been open to everyone since it launched.  Just like investing in Intel in the 1970s-1980s would've paid off.  Or Google in the early 2000s, or Apple in the 1990s or 1980s.  Or IBM in the 1930s etc. 

As far as "investments" goes, it seems like only during the last year or so have many people been calling buying and using the currency an "investment". 

:-)

Anyone that wants to own bitcoins can own them. You cannot get any more fair than that. The fact that some people have more bitcoins than others has very little to do with the fairness of Bitcoin.

On a related topic, don't you think it is unfair that you are wealthier than 90% of the people in the world? What did you do to deserve that? What are you going to do to make it fair?

Yes! It can be seen as unfair that in a time where we have entered the information age, that a severely disproportional distribution of bitcoins becomes a reality just because most people have been excluded from early investments. At the same time, if bitcoin had been launched with some kind of model for even distribution it would likely have failed miserably. So I think the bitcoin model, with deflation and all that, has been the correct approach.

What I'm wondering now is if bitcoin is socially fair enough to become mainstream. And I think it may be fair enough! Sure, there is a risk of a very disproportional distribution of bitcoins, but at the same time bitcoin has to compete with all the other cryptocurrencies and fiat money. So there is a chance that bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency in a socially acceptable way.

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?

Yes, the social aspect of bitcoin is tricky since most people haven't even a basic understanding of bitcoin. I myself feel frustrated because I haven't grasped or 'grokked' bitcoin yet. It's still a mystery to me what will happen with bitcoin. So I want to investigate bitcoin from a broad perspective including the social implications long term.

Nanobots will be able to automatically extract raw materials from waste products. Ultimate recycling. I think a $0 Ferrari will become a reality.

The ownership of bitcoins could become disproportionally distributed. With a few bitcoin zillionaires, some billionaires and 95% of the population with very few bitcoins. My point is that such lopsided distribution may still be socially ok, since it could generate a very efficient bitcoin economy. And in the long run everybody will be wealthy because of the exponential progress of technology. And competing cryptocurrencies will prevent bitcoin from becoming too unfair.

Yesterday , today and tomorrow and probably in 10 years people will still be able to purchase 100$ worth of bitcoins.
They will purchase indeed less bitcoin but still people will be able to purchase them.

As for the part with printing a Ferrari , you will still need the materials for it , it's not just plugin in the printer put a few papers in the feeder and there goes your Ferrari.

The main problem right now is that the 'average' person doesn't understand Bitcoins, or cryptocurrency as a whole at all. If is hard to accept something you don't properly understand. The media frenzy that happened recently didn't inform the public enough on the function of Bitcoins and how they can be important, they just published stories about Silk Road or about how the value of Bitcoin hit an all time high. In my opinion this is the issue. People need to be informed more.

From February this year:

"So that means an absolute maximum of around 2.5 million people own bitcoins right now." -- https://bitscan.com/bitnews/item/how-many-people-really-own-bitcoins-and-why-does-it-matter

This means the innovators phase in the diffusion of innovations curve. Very early stage! But yeah, the growth rate of bitcoin may be accelerating quickly. It will be interesting to follow the development in the near future. And to see how the social fairness part plays a role.

 Bitcoin is growing at a very high rate and i believe its awareness haven gotten to continents as far as Africa means a greater percentage of the world is probably make use of Bitcoin in their day to day exchanges.

For the entire world, that figure may be correct, I don't know. That would mean that we are still in the innovators phase in the diffusion of innovations curve:



"Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Everett Rogers, a professor of communication studies, popularized the theory in his book Diffusion of Innovations; the book was first published in 1962, and is now in its fifth edition (2003).[1] Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the participants in a social system." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

If bitcoin becomes mainstream, will that be socially fair? Maybe not in the short term, but on the other hand bitcoin can lead to great improvement in social progress in the long run. Plus if bitcoin becomes too disproportionally distributed, some other cryptocurrency may become more popular. So it's a fair competitive game at least.

I think that the percent of the people who doesn't know anything about bitcoins is much more high, about 95%.

Bitcoin debit cards could happen even sooner than in 10 years I think. And bitcoin may lead to less uneven distribution of wealth than fiat currencies. And true free market bitcoin economies can lead to great progress. And in the long run it will lead to a socially fair society (because of exponential progress of technology).

So an uneven distribution of bitcoin wealth may be socially acceptable. And perhaps even necessary.