Bitcoin Is Not A Democracy. Then What It Is?

antagonist

full member

Activity: 211

Merit: 100

Quote from: krishnapramod on July 05, 2017, 01:43:23 AM

According to Antony Antonopoulos, Bitcoin isn't a democracy, some people call it cypherpunk or crypto-anarchy, https://youtu.be/TC3Hq76UT5g

Quote

I don't think Bitcoin is a democracy - rather it is a flat, network-based, collaborative system of super-majority consensus among five constituencies (users, developers, exchanges, merchants, miners), which makes change very difficult. It is a radical decentralization of power. Some people call the politics of this system "cypherpunk," "crypto-anarchy," and other words we don't yet have.

Is bitcoin a meritocracy?

It is holding of power by people selected according to merit. They wield the power.

Quote

Rodolfo Novak: Bitcoin is a true technical meritocracy. Cry/Kick/Scream as much as you like, but if your shitty code & ideas aren't good they wont make it

Is bitcoin a plutocracy?

It is the holding of power by the wealthy, elites.

Is bitcoin anarchy?

It is absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

it does no matter what bitcoin is , it make every person whom i know personal wealth ppls so who care if democracy or not at this time today more than 17 thousands dollar for one coin which some ppls collect free from faucet in 2015 bitcoin is currency from god . imagine it that faucet ppl were most poor people in this place now today more money they have evn more than united states ppls

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Vik87 on December 18, 2017, 09:45:14 AM

You can´t define a political system for a currency, but the my best shot would be aristocracy, because on popular voting sites you vote with your BTC. One could argue this is democracy, but it is not, it is a vote based on wealth.

I agree that a political system is not the same as a monetary system

That said, I guess I still should point out that some monetary systems suit some political systems better. For example, you wouldn't really expect an authoritarian or even dictatorial government to adopt a decentralized monetary system like Bitcoin. How come? For very simple reason really. Authoritarian systems are trying to control everything, and still more so they are trying to control the money that people use since through money they can easily control people. You either obey or die under the bridge, as simple as that. Democratic rules, on the other hand, are more agnostic about a monetary system. That basically explains why we see Bitcoin prohibited, either directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, in such authoritarian states as Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and China, to a degree

Vik87

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

You can´t define a political system for a currency, but the my best shot would be aristocracy, because on popular voting sites you vote with your BTC. One could argue this is democracy, but it is not, it is a vote based on wealth.

piter66

member

Activity: 294

Merit: 16

Quote from: Lorilikes on July 07, 2017, 04:48:49 AM

Some likevfo think it is a semi-autonomous self governed peer-to-peer system of digital money.
Decentralized and "not governed" are very different things. Good topic but you have stumped me. I will watch this topic! 🙂

its not self-represented shared framework and its not advanced cash. Vote based system says by the general population and for the general population as is bit coin it is for the group thus it is controlled by the group in general as is genuine popular government. One all the more thing it isn't advanced cash, you can change it get it and offer it.

fasdorcas

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 527

Quote from: Lorilikes on July 07, 2017, 04:48:49 AM

Some likevfo think it is a semi-autonomous self governed peer-to-peer system of digital money.
Decentralized and "not governed" are very different things. Good topic but you have stumped me. I will watch this topic! 🙂

its not self governed peer to peer system and its not digital money. Democracy says by the people and for the people and so is bitcoin it is for the community and so it is controlled by the community as a whole as is true democracy. One more thing it is not digital money, you can transform it buy it and sell it.

Bedebah

sr. member

Activity: 524

Merit: 250

Whatever the most important term is the benefits, transaction costs no more $ 3 with a time not more than 15 minutes is a remarkable thing when compared with bank transactions.

jennywhzz

sr. member

Activity: 415

Merit: 250

Again I don't even understand what you mean by the beginning of this thread. My democracy is a voting or governmental mode of choice and decision making. so when you make a statement that if it's not a democracy then what is it. it's a form of currency.

doomloop

hero member

Activity: 2408

Merit: 584

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 05:27:31 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:15:20 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 06, 2017, 01:26:11 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 06, 2017, 12:11:47 PM

This is where your reasoning ultimately fails

Basically, you roughly divide the current market cap of Bitcoin by 2 and get the cost at today's price (since this is what the market cap shows), implicitly assuming that the price will remain the same when you actually start buying 51% of all Bitcoin monetary supply. Nothing could be more false and farther from reality than that. First, not all coins are being traded, I guess, it is somewhere in the range of a few millions (maybe, 3-4 at most), and when you have bought your first million, you will have to spend like 10 times more money to buy the next million of coins (due to prices flying to the moon). Further, you chose to completely ignore my argument that you may never get there at all, no matter how much money you could have since some stake holders may not be going to sell their stakes at any price

First of all, you mentioned a PoS attack from inside.

This would cost exactly 21.678.642.232,83. A PoS attack from the outside, would cost alot more obviously and might be arguably impossible

You simply can't claim that

Mainly, for two reasons. First, there is almost no chance that it would cost exactly that (or any other number based entirely on current market cap). If we talk about an "attack" originating from inside, it might in fact cost next to nothing simply because someone (e.g. a coin creator) might have premined 51% of coins at no cost at all. And once again (this is second), you can't call it an attack at all if the owner (major stake holder) voluntarily chooses to close the whole shebang. In all other cases, it won't be an insider business

Please. If your coins are worth 21B and you throw them away, no matter how you got them, it costs you 21B. Even if you got them for free it costs you 21B

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

bitcoin is the digital currency that is being use by all the countries and it has covered almost all the countries so bitcoin is no doubt contain good cost and the price of bitcoin is also very high soon it will increase some more extent and it will be very good and beneficial for bitcoin users.

nexttime

jr. member

Activity: 55

Merit: 10

I think depending on the possession and use. We work for bitcoin to enjoy the benefits of btc .. i think btc is not democratic. Bitcoin is simply a bitcoin

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 08, 2017, 09:38:08 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 11:50:27 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 08, 2017, 10:55:25 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?

If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?

You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.

Indeed, it could cost nothing

If you didn't spend anything to obtain 21 billion dollars' worth of coins, your costs would be effectively equal to 0, so it is perfectly legit. Imagine that someone has sent you 50% plus 1 coin to your wallet, and now you can either destroy the coin or sell the coins. Destroying the coin would mean that you lose a certain amount of some other currency which you could receive if you chose to sell your stash for that currency. But your costs associated with the acquisition of this stash will be the same in either of these cases (read you could destroy the coin in question without spending anything). I guess that should help somehow at last

I already understood your point, as I am sure you understood mine.

I do not think acquisition costs are the only costs towards incentive to attack or not attack.

In the very least, you are massively misusing or rather confusing the terminology here

And to tell the truth, I don't understand what you refer to here by using the term "cost". Honestly, I'm heavily inclined to think that you don't quite understand yourself what your point is. If you don't talk about costs (expenditures or expenses) involved with buying 50% plus 1 coin of monetary supply (as you said yourself), the closest approximation to what you might mean is opportunity cost, i.e. the cost of choosing a less economically favorable option before a more profitable one. Obviously, the latter would be equal to selling the coins at the market price, but as you have also been told already, you won't be able to sell at exactly that price and, apart from that, you explicitly discarded that option yourself (probably erroneously). So it kinda looks you don't know what you are talking about

Cuber Krypton

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 11:50:27 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 08, 2017, 10:55:25 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?

If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?

You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.

Indeed, it could cost nothing

If you didn't spend anything to obtain 21 billion dollars' worth of coins, your costs would be effectively equal to 0, so it is perfectly legit. Imagine that someone has sent you 50% plus 1 coin to your wallet, and now you can either destroy the coin or sell the coins. Destroying the coin would mean that you lose a certain amount of some other currency which you could receive if you chose to sell your stash for that currency. But your costs associated with the acquisition of this stash will be the same in either of these cases (read you could destroy the coin in question without spending anything). I guess that should help somehow at last

I already understood your point, as I am sure you understood mine.

I do not think acquisition costs are the only costs towards incentive to attack or not attack.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 08, 2017, 10:55:25 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?

If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?

You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.

Indeed, it could cost nothing

If you didn't spend anything to obtain 21 billion dollars' worth of coins, your costs would be effectively equal to 0, so it is perfectly legit. Imagine that someone has sent you 50% plus 1 coin to your wallet, and now you can either destroy the coin or sell the coins. Destroying the coin would mean that you lose a certain amount of some other currency which you could receive if you chose to sell your stash for that currency. But your costs associated with the acquisition of this stash will be the same in either of these cases (read you could destroy the coin in question without spending anything). I guess that should help somehow at last

Cuber Krypton

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: deisik on July 08, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 10:48:37 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 07:39:48 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.

I don't see the flaw in this argument

No, this is nowhere near the case

As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit

You are mixing Unrealized and Realized gains in the mixture.

But through your rationale, if someone gives you 100 BTC today as a present, and then you lose the Private Key, you would say you lost nothing. It didn't cost you anything. This is only true if you consider BTC doesn't have any value, present or future, unless you realize it in FIAT

Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?

If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?

You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 10:48:37 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 07:39:48 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.

I don't see the flaw in this argument

No, this is nowhere near the case

As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit

You are mixing Unrealized and Realized gains in the mixture.

But through your rationale, if someone gives you 100 BTC today as a present, and then you lose the Private Key, you would say you lost nothing. It didn't cost you anything. This is only true if you consider BTC doesn't have any value, present or future, unless you realize it in FIAT

Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?

If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them all, that would mean only that, i.e. me losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean that they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?

oegarod

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 252

I feel bitcoin to be democratic, because this has been decentralized from the beginning. So though it's developed by a particular person altogether now the identity is missing. So it's by the people, Secondly the people are the beneficiaries.

Cuber Krypton

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 07:39:48 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.

I don't see the flaw in this argument

No, this is nowhere near the case

As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit

You are mixing Unrealized and Realized gains in the mixture.

But through your rationale, if someone gives you 100 BTC today as a present, and then you lose the Private Key, you would say you lost nothing. It didn't cost you anything. This is only true if you consider BTC doesn't have any value, present or future, unless you realize it in FIAT.

You are thinking about Equity here, not a Currency.

virasog

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1172

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

What you're talking about is a currency system and a way confirming of the various Network activities that has nothing to do with voting although consensus does go into the fact of which fork will be used if there's a hard fork. That's really not something that has anything to do with democracy that I can think of, or any other modal form of government.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 07:39:48 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.

I don't see the flaw in this argument

No, this is nowhere near the case

As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit

Cuber Krypton

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Only if you sell your whole stack at once. Which there is no need to.

However, this is not cost of opportunity. The cost of opportunity will actually add to this cost. When you compound the return of other investments that could have catered your 21 B. This is in fact, actual cost.

Krimster

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 11

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 07:39:48 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:40:39 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 07, 2017, 05:27:31 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 07, 2017, 05:15:20 AM

Quote from: Cuber Krypton on July 06, 2017, 01:26:11 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 06, 2017, 12:11:47 PM

This is where your reasoning ultimately fails

Basically, you roughly divide the current market cap of Bitcoin by 2 and get the cost at today's price (since this is what the market cap shows), implicitly assuming that the price will remain the same when you actually start buying 51% of all Bitcoin monetary supply. Nothing could be more false and farther from reality than that. First, not all coins are being traded, I guess, it is somewhere in the range of a few millions (maybe, 3-4 at most), and when you have bought your first million, you will have to spend like 10 times more money to buy the next million of coins (due to prices flying to the moon). Further, you chose to completely ignore my argument that you may never get there at all, no matter how much money you could have since some stake holders may not be going to sell their stakes at any price

First of all, you mentioned a PoS attack from inside.

This would cost exactly 21.678.642.232,83. A PoS attack from the outside, would cost alot more obviously and might be arguably impossible

You simply can't claim that

Mainly, for two reasons. First, there is almost no chance that it would cost exactly that (or any other number based entirely on current market cap). If we talk about an "attack" originating from inside, it might in fact cost next to nothing simply because someone (e.g. a coin creator) might have premined 51% of coins at no cost at all. And once again (this is second), you can't call it an attack at all if the owner (major stake holder) voluntarily chooses to close the whole shebang. In all other cases, it won't be an insider business

Please. If your coins are worth 21B and you throw them away, no matter how you got them, it costs you 21B. Even if you got them for free it costs you 21B

Heck, what are you talking about?

I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable

Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.

I don't see the flaw in this argument

I guess you are thinking about "cost of oportunity". If you use your stake to nuke the coin rather than sell it, you are indeed paying the cost of oportunity. However, do keep in mind that there is no way in Earth that you are actually selling your stash for 51% of the market cap, for the very same reasons that you can't just buy 51% of the coins at market value. The price would drop catastrophically once you start doing it.

Topic: Bitcoin Is Not A Democracy. Then What It Is? (Read 2739 times)