Topic: Bitcoin distribution vs Bitcoin adoption (Read 4033 times)
If someone owns 10 000 BTC (for example) then it means he (or she) contributed to the bitcoin community (by adoption/distribution/popularization/providing liquidity/etc.) and his contribution value is higher than 10 000 BTC (or at least equal). If Bitcoin is adopted worldwide it will be such a great service to the humanity that I am ok with few multibilionaries rewarded for this for their vision and will to risk in the right time.
Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"
This is so foolish. It's not "60% of the coins are already gone" it's "60% of the coins have already been mined."
It's like saying you shouldn't buy gold because most of the gold has already been mined--it's just false. Maybe you shouldn't go pan for gold if the river has already been panned out, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether you should buy gold or not.
Same with coins. How many have been mined or haven't doesn't influence whether or not you should buy them, only whether or not you should try to mine them. And mining's not the point, it's the means to an end--it's just to get the coins into existence, from there on out they can get distributed by other mechanisms like commerce and speculative trading.
Bitcoins need to be distributed somehow and it comes with a lot of risk for the early adopers just like all new technologies. High risk / High reward. I don't see any problem with this. Tons of people are still not ready to jump in the bitcoin bandwagon just because they don't want to take any risk and are simply waiting for the system to proves that it works in the long run. Low risk / low return. It's a choice that anybody is free to take.
Absolutely correct.
Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
I agree with this. Now try to put yourself in a different character, that would hear about bitcoin for the first time tomorrowThe rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
That is 99% of the population.
Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"
Bitcoins need to be distributed somehow and it comes with a lot of risk for the early adopers just like all new technologies. High risk / High reward. I don't see any problem with this. Tons of people are still not ready to jump in the bitcoin bandwagon just because they don't want to take any risk and are simply waiting for the system to proves that it works in the long run. Low risk / low return. It's a choice that anybody is free to take.
Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
I agree with this. Now try to put yourself in a different character, that would hear about bitcoin for the first time tomorrowThe rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
That is 99% of the population.
Can you really beleive they will say "ok, 60% of the coins are already gone, but I'll be happy with 0.6x0.01"
Maybe we should take about how banks and governments distribute fiat?
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
The rules of mining bitcoin are known by everybody and open to anyone willing to take part of it (in a competitive but fair environment).
I have a feeling that if you look at the entire ecosystem, then its not so much about the 'BitCoin' itself, but the BlockChain, then slowly the beauty reveals itself.
First is the confusion of the fungibility of BitCoin, and although for most transactions right now a BitCoin is a BitCoin is a BitCoin (Just like an oz of gold). That is about to change soon. Look at ColoredCoin, BitShares, MasterCoin.
When you couple this with the idea of a Distributed Identity (like KeyHoteeID, NameCoin) etc and all the other services being developed on top of it, you soon realize... its not so much about the Bit"Coin".
First is the confusion of the fungibility of BitCoin, and although for most transactions right now a BitCoin is a BitCoin is a BitCoin (Just like an oz of gold). That is about to change soon. Look at ColoredCoin, BitShares, MasterCoin.
When you couple this with the idea of a Distributed Identity (like KeyHoteeID, NameCoin) etc and all the other services being developed on top of it, you soon realize... its not so much about the Bit"Coin".
One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters. So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.
In the early stages Bitcoins were worth so little I don't see how it would have been an issue.
I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
I'm OK with becoming the new elite. I'd like to retire in 2 years, pay for college for my kids, some nice weddings, travel the world, have the freedom to try some ideas that I've been thinking of without the pressure of having to "make money" for somebody else, etc.
I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
I'm OK with becoming the new elite. I'd like to retire in 2 years, pay for college for my kids, some nice weddings, travel the world, have the freedom to try some ideas that I've been thinking of without the pressure of having to "make money" for somebody else, etc.
I don't know if we're from different planets or if you have the blinders on for the sake bitcoin argument, but you stated under your own presumptions that 500 people now control value equal to a quarter of the world's gold supply--and you call "a small group of people having vast amounts of control" a hyperbole under this scenario? Is based on the caveat you added that they "refuse to ever sell"? Because that is pretty meaningless. Wall Street doesn't "sell" their dollars, they use them to make more dollars.
If you reread my post you'll notice that my comparison was with our very own world and its current pool of billionaires. As I said, wealth is already centralized to the extent that wild success of Bitcoin would just be a perturbation of the existing paradigm. That Bitcoin might spawn a few more billionaires just doesn't keep me up at night.
I agree that wealth inquality as a result of trade is only natural.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
Yet I completely understand whoever is left with a foul taste at the thought that 50% of all BTC were mined while barely anyone heard of it, all the while proclaiming this is the global digital currency. It does leave the impression that our goal is at least in part to simply become the new elite. Let's call it an aesthetic or a marketing issue.
One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters. So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.
I know of that argument, but consider for a moment the profile of people who were here in 2009-2010 and why they were interested. They would've come anyway and built stuff just because it's awesome tech.But yes, who knows what it would have been like. I do wonder about Satoshi's motives to not introduce a curve of natural resource depletion.
Bitcoin was a proof of concept. It had never been done and the subsidy was only one tiny part. My guess was simplicity. One school of thinking is that the initial distribution matters very little. Miners sell coins, trade them, lose them to thieves, buy goods with them. All of that is secondary distribution.
Bitcoin =/= Mining
Hell even with a perfect distribution, give every single human on the planet 1 BTC (as if this could be done decentralized) you would see disparity of Bitcoin wealth within a decade. It just is human nature. Some people can't hold only to money, others have a talent (either honestly or dishonestly) of aggregating fortunes in a small period of time.
One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters. So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.
I know of that argument, but consider for a moment the profile of people who were here in 2009-2010 and why they were interested. They would've come anyway and built stuff just because it's awesome tech.But yes, who knows what it would have been like. I do wonder about Satoshi's motives to not introduce a curve of natural resource depletion.
One could argue that curve is superior on the other hand it is possible Bitcoin would have never got off the ground without a benefit to early adopters. So technically superior but dead on arrival still loses out to "good enough" Bitcoin.
The problem with the distribution is that the block generation curve started out at 100% speed in the beginning even though there were hardly any miners at all. Compare it to gold. You don't get to search for gold without a pickaxe and carry home 1% of all the gold reserves on earth. What would have been more natural is a sigmoid curve. First, the production rate is curbed, and as new people come, it is increased until it's 100% and begins to decrease again.
The reason I introduced some numbers was to show that (2) is hyperbole.
I don't know if we're from different planets or if you have the blinders on for the sake bitcoin argument, but you stated under your own presumptions that 500 people now control value equal to a quarter of the world's gold supply--and you call "a small group of people having vast amounts of control" a hyperbole under this scenario? Is based on the caveat you added that they "refuse to ever sell"? Because that is pretty meaningless. Wall Street doesn't "sell" their dollars, they use them to make more dollars.
Does the dramatic draw to bitcoin essentially boil down to "you save visa/mc/forex fees"? It's fine if that is enough for you, but it most definitely does not address the topic--I would almost say it is a red herring.
But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US). Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell. As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T. So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Argument appears to be thus:
1) Create a new monetary/banking system
2) Give a small group of people vast amounts of control
3)
4) World is saved by innovative idea completely unlike FRB/fiat.
(I know you did not make the point 4 implication, but it is certainly a common theme.)
But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US). Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell. As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T. So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Argument appears to be thus:
1) Create a new monetary/banking system
2) Give a small group of people vast amounts of control
3)
4) World is saved by innovative idea completely unlike FRB/fiat.
(I know you did not make the point 4 implication, but it is certainly a common theme.)
Thanks for the input, D&T and others, I'm still unsure if my concern was fully grasped, but I got your point.
I'm being too impatient, and bitcoin will remain a toy for rich people to get richer long before it becomes a real alternative for people to quit using fiat.
I'll just do my best to prove you wrong.
I'm being too impatient, and bitcoin will remain a toy for rich people to get richer long before it becomes a real alternative for people to quit using fiat.
I'll just do my best to prove you wrong.
There will always be a strong tendency for early adopters to diversify out of bitcoins as they grow to dominate the portfolio. People tend not to be comfortable putting all their eggs in one basket. Even Gavin mentioned doing this during the last run up.
But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US). Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell. As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T. So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Note that this rough analysis ignores the fact that this rise of Bitcoin would probably bump some billionaires like Charlie Munger off the list
But lets assume wild success - Bitcoin grows to a total value of $10T (roughly gold's, or M2 in the US). Say a quarter of the bitcoins ($2.5T worth) remain held by 500 die-hards, roughly evenly distributed, who refuse to ever sell. As of March 2013 there were 1426 billionaires holding onto a total of $5.4T. So Bitcoin will have grown the billionaire population by ~35%, and increased their overall net worth by just less than 50%.
Meh. With a world GDP of ~$70T, a 2% annual savings (rough guess) on transaction fees, cash handling fees, bypassing of forex fees, lack of need for options to hedge FX risk, etc. due to Bitcoin adoption would pay this same $2.5T out to "society" in the form of savings every two years.
Note that this rough analysis ignores the fact that this rise of Bitcoin would probably bump some billionaires like Charlie Munger off the list
Jump to: