Topic: Bitcoin as a socially fair currency (Read 4324 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.
The problem of the unfairness of bitcoin is not only about the distribution of the coins (some people don't have the knowledge or the information to buy it cheap), but also on the potential impact of bitcoin on the value of fiat if bitcoin becomes generally accepted.
In certain countries with high inflation, a general adoption of bitcoin will increase the dumping of the national currency, making things even worst for the ones that don't have bitcoin.
In certain countries with high inflation, a general adoption of bitcoin will increase the dumping of the national currency, making things even worst for the ones that don't have bitcoin.
It is the large fiat holders who would be impacted by high inflation. That is not so bad for wealth distribution, is it?
It's actually quite amazing how many people do not know about bitcoins to be honest and I agree it does make it unfair to those who are unable to understand who to start, where to buy and how to keep what they own safe. Many jumped on the wagon when bitcoin was first released and quickly became rich just by investing. I personally would love to see a world where everyone knew about and understood bitcoin, it's a shame that kind of world is too far off yet as I feel it would help a lot of people greatly if they had the chance to at least try and invest.
"Citigroup currency analyst Steven Englander is out with a long Sunday note talking about everyone's favorite topic: digital currency.
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Articles like these are very dishonest, because they don't take into account that bitcoin is a brand new technology just starting to be dispersed. A month after Bitcoin launched, only about 3 or 4 people owned it in total, with one of them owning almost all of it. Since Bitcoin isn't a central bank type system (where a privileged few keep making money for themselves), or a proof of stake system (where money gets concentrated to whoever has most of it by default), it's expected that bitcoin will keep getting dispersed among more and more people. Those who have a lot of it will keep spending it, and the only ones who will get more and more of it will be those who actually work to earn it.
There are also issue of lose wallets for those with huge balance. Those coins should considered gone forever and not to be taken into equality/distribution study.
The problem of the unfairness of bitcoin is not only about the distribution of the coins (some people don't have the knowledge or the information to buy it cheap), but also on the potential impact of bitcoin on the value of fiat if bitcoin becomes generally accepted.
In certain countries with high inflation, a general adoption of bitcoin will increase the dumping of the national currency, making things even worst for the ones that don't have bitcoin.
In certain countries with high inflation, a general adoption of bitcoin will increase the dumping of the national currency, making things even worst for the ones that don't have bitcoin.
Socially fair is a broad term and as misleading as any usage of it in media.
The only socially fair currency is a populist pipe dream, because the 'wealth' accumulated from bitcoin is entirely a reflection of market forces. Since in free markets there are winners and losers (gains and losses), in your reflections the losers are ones who didn't know or didn't invest neither risking or truly losing anything.
The only socially fair currency is a populist pipe dream, because the 'wealth' accumulated from bitcoin is entirely a reflection of market forces. Since in free markets there are winners and losers (gains and losses), in your reflections the losers are ones who didn't know or didn't invest neither risking or truly losing anything.
Fair and social = everyone is rich happy and goodlooking.
It may be lucky that many are not involved in bitcoin.
If they buy at peak. they would have lose more than half of the money at today price. Odd is also high of getting scammed by scammer or invested in pump and dump coins.
Securing wallet may not also be that easy for the non-techie. There are many reasons why they may be the lucky group and we are the unlucky group.
If they buy at peak. they would have lose more than half of the money at today price. Odd is also high of getting scammed by scammer or invested in pump and dump coins.
Securing wallet may not also be that easy for the non-techie. There are many reasons why they may be the lucky group and we are the unlucky group.
I would change the title to Bitcoin as a socially unfair currency
The way future technology is introduced to mitigate the recognized unfairness has nothing to do with bitcoin.
Of course, this unfairness doesn't affect my feelings for bitcoin (my nick says it all), but our emotions shouldn't cloud us about its imperfections.
The way future technology is introduced to mitigate the recognized unfairness has nothing to do with bitcoin.
Of course, this unfairness doesn't affect my feelings for bitcoin (my nick says it all), but our emotions shouldn't cloud us about its imperfections.
"Citigroup currency analyst Steven Englander is out with a long Sunday note talking about everyone's favorite topic: digital currency.
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Articles like these are very dishonest, because they don't take into account that bitcoin is a brand new technology just starting to be dispersed. A month after Bitcoin launched, only about 3 or 4 people owned it in total, with one of them owning almost all of it. Since Bitcoin isn't a central bank type system (where a privileged few keep making money for themselves), or a proof of stake system (where money gets concentrated to whoever has most of it by default), it's expected that bitcoin will keep getting dispersed among more and more people. Those who have a lot of it will keep spending it, and the only ones who will get more and more of it will be those who actually work to earn it.
There are also issue of lose wallets for those with huge balance. Those coins should considered gone forever and not to be taken into equality/distribution study.
"Citigroup currency analyst Steven Englander is out with a long Sunday note talking about everyone's favorite topic: digital currency.
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Articles like these are very dishonest, because they don't take into account that bitcoin is a brand new technology just starting to be dispersed. A month after Bitcoin launched, only about 3 or 4 people owned it in total, with one of them owning almost all of it. Since Bitcoin isn't a central bank type system (where a privileged few keep making money for themselves), or a proof of stake system (where money gets concentrated to whoever has most of it by default), it's expected that bitcoin will keep getting dispersed among more and more people. Those who have a lot of it will keep spending it, and the only ones who will get more and more of it will be those who actually work to earn it.
The WhaleCoin
or what to call it would be just like bitcoin, a decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency with anonymity etc.Then it would be no different from any other altcoin, except with an obvious pump-and-dump backing, and severe lack of developers (all the best cryptocoin devs are working on bitcoin)
Quote
I am not sure what you mean by the "fiat exchange"....if you mean the foreign exchange market then I would have to disagree with you. The "players" in the foreign exchange market are central banks that are looking after their own economy. Central banks generally wants to make their national currency first stable and after that somewhat weak. A stable, but weak currency will make the exports less expensive in other countries, and imports more expensive making goods that are produced inside their country more favorable.
I totally agree with you. To many "players" are in this but not just the banks other big companies ass well.
And yes they have to create stable there's currency or product then they go to btc.
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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
"Citigroup currency analyst Steven Englander is out with a long Sunday note talking about everyone's favorite topic: digital currency.
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
In it, he makes an important observation about the extreme inequality in the Bitcoin world:
Best estimates are that there are about one million holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
...
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like that of a workers’ paradise. There are estimates of a Gini coefficient of 0.88 for Bitcoin, but if anything the estimates are low if big holders own multiple wallets and the overall concentration of Bitcoin wealth is greater than in the sample used to estimate the coefficients" -- http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents. This is the most commonly used measure of inequality." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
OK, so they spend a bunch of money to create a currency that they control. Then they put it up on an exchange, that they also control, and as people trade it, start buying MASSIVE amounts for billions of dollars, to pump up the price to Bitcoins level. But, all they really did is create another PalPal, with a floating exchange rate, while having none of the benefits offered by Bitcoin, since their currency is not decentralized, not anonymous, not politically neutral, is entirely backed by their company (as opposed to not depending on engine), and completely closed off to development and innovation. As soon as they stop dumbing billions of their own dollars to pump it, that currency will crash back down to almost nothing, as people exit back to the only currency that actually has the features they were looking for in the first place.
This whole exercise would be as if Microsoft were to make their own Linux, pump it by PAYING you touy it, but leave everything that makes Linux competitive out of Linux (bad security, closed source, etc.).
The WhaleCoin
or what to call it would be just like bitcoin, a decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency with anonymity etc. 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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
OK, so they spend a bunch of money to create a currency that they control. Then they put it up on an exchange, that they also control, and as people trade it, start buying MASSIVE amounts for billions of dollars, to pump up the price to Bitcoins level. But, all they really did is create another PalPal, with a floating exchange rate, while having none of the benefits offered by Bitcoin, since their currency is not decentralized, not anonymous, not politically neutral, is entirely backed by their company (as opposed to not depending on engine), and completely closed off to development and innovation. As soon as they stop dumbing billions of their own dollars to pump it, that currency will crash back down to almost nothing, as people exit back to the only currency that actually has the features they were looking for in the first place.
This whole exercise would be as if Microsoft were to make their own Linux, pump it by PAYING you touy it, but leave everything that makes Linux competitive out of Linux (bad security, closed source, etc.).
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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
Problem for bitcoin right now is it doesn't support smart contract.
Unless someone develop and integrate smart contract into btc, it will probably be left behind once smart contract coin emerges.
Ethereum is interesting but it seems to be more about technology waiting for practical use rather than something being practically used today.
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?
I mean fair in the sense that bitcoin could function as a general currency. Money is like the blood flow in the body. If the money is too disproportionally distributed or being hoarded and squatted on too much, then that will lead to something similar to a cardiovascular disease where the blood is being clogged up and with too little flow to some tissue. A modern information currency has the potential to be much more efficient and inclusive than that.
It's also about power distribution. Will governments and populations around the world accept that the tiny percentage of people who own bitcoins today become super wealthy and the most powerful people in the world? Maybe, but there is a chance that some other cryptocurrency will dethrone bitcoin just because of its potential towards very skewed wealth distribution. Maybe even replaced by another cryptocurrency that's even more disproportionally distributed! (See my previous post about the cryptocurrency for the big traders.)
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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
Problem for bitcoin right now is it doesn't support smart contract.
Unless someone develop and integrate smart contract into btc, it will probably be left behind once smart contract coin emerges.
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?
The total value of bitcoin today is puny compared to the trillions of dollars being swapped around on the fiat exchanges. If some of the really big players decide to cooperate and issue their own cryptocurrency they can easily and quickly pump up the price of that currency, and then the smaller investors would start to follow in order to gain on the massive upward momentum. In this way their cryptocurrency could match bitcoin within a couple of months and then go up much further leaving bitcoin behind like pocket change.
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!
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.
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.
At some point, the rise in the value of bitcoin will diminish and it will no longer be useful as an investment.
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 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.
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. Quote
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?
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.
Quote
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?
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
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.
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.Quote
So how is that fair? It isn't. Because the opportunity to buy early is very lopsidedly distributed in society.
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?
Quote
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.
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? 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.
...because most people have been excluded from early investments...
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
I think that the percent of the people who doesn't know anything about bitcoins is much more high, about 95%.
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.
And someone said that 70% of the U.S. population today don't even know what bitcoin is.
I think that the percent of the people who doesn't know anything about bitcoins is much more high, about 95%.
Take this for example, yes there are more people that dont know what btc is. But in time all will addopt this ass payment.
More and more places in world are accepting btc ass payment in real life time (a mean some restaurant in some countries that are accepting btc).
Further more are are some bit companies that are involved in this for example Microsoft and Dell, in decade there will be more.
This currency is in my opinion like the internet when was adopted for us mortal users so I think that btc will have the same fate.
Maybe in 10 year or so we will have btc credit and debit card.
More and more places in world are accepting btc ass payment in real life time (a mean some restaurant in some countries that are accepting btc).
Further more are are some bit companies that are involved in this for example Microsoft and Dell, in decade there will be more.
This currency is in my opinion like the internet when was adopted for us mortal users so I think that btc will have the same fate.
Maybe in 10 year or so we will have btc credit and debit card.
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.
Take this for example, yes there are more people that dont know what btc is. But in time all will addopt this ass payment.
More and more places in world are accepting btc ass payment in real life time (a mean some restaurant in some countries that are accepting btc).
Further more are are some bit companies that are involved in this for example Microsoft and Dell, in decade there will be more.
This currency is in my opinion like the internet when was adopted for us mortal users so I think that btc will have the same fate.
Maybe in 10 year or so we will have btc credit and debit card.
More and more places in world are accepting btc ass payment in real life time (a mean some restaurant in some countries that are accepting btc).
Further more are are some bit companies that are involved in this for example Microsoft and Dell, in decade there will be more.
This currency is in my opinion like the internet when was adopted for us mortal users so I think that btc will have the same fate.
Maybe in 10 year or so we will have btc credit and debit card.
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.
Jump to: