Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 13. (Read 11076 times)

Exactly.

Why did early adopters need to have easy access to huge numbers of coins? Wasn't as if they could do anything with them back then. It is ridiculous that so early on in Bitcoin's life the mining difficulty is already so high, all because so much was taken at the start

Interesting post chodpaba. I've been arguing for a long time that the deck is stacked against Pareto Efficiency. Do you actually see a path from the here and now to there? Meaning using the current Bitcoin implementation and user base.

I think that kind of efficiency will be a possibility of the the next crypto currency. I have serious doubts there is a coherent path from here to there utilizing bitcoin.

LMAO!

The problem is placing the bend of the S.

I suppose you could do some trick involving the ratio of difficulty to coins minted... hmm...

Just because they weren't concerned about the risk, or even didn't consider it a risk, Doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. And you're assuming they all kept them. Much more likely, they risked that taco, and gained a few pizzas or similar items of value.

The answer is to start an alternate cryptocurrency in which the quantity of coins generated follows a sigmoid function instead of a logarithmic function.  That way, more coins are generated as it catches on and more people start to mine.  This also means that prices will be a little more consistent over time - no 10,000 coin pizzas - before it finally starts to deflate and become a store of value.

Also useful information.

Interesting trivia: if User A in Shamir's paper dumped all their coins on a Mt. Gox market order (the doomsday scenario discussed in Loper's "kill switch" article), they'd make about 3 million dollars and leave the price at a few cents, but the order book wouldn't be exhausted.

Ah, my mistake then; it was a sincere question. I've been putting a lot of thought lately into how to improve the cryptocurrency idea.

Then, an ledger that doesn't require trusting a centralized bookkeeper.

Reminds me of Digital Coin, in more than one way.

Interesting.

The problem is that for the sake of defending your argument you are attributing risk to a non-risk taking activity. I bet nobody mining these coins for fun at the time considered they were taking a risk, and yet you now argue retrospectively that somehow they were.

Pity about the name. I just can't see something called 'PP Coin' taking off.

None.

I invest in what people often term 'disruptive' startups with a meaningful underlying technology portfolio. So, yes to D-Wave, no to Facebook.

I knew of the opportunity. It would have required a lot of time and effort, and I had mine in better use. I figured out, I could buy them for cheap if they ever gain traction. So here I am. Only now was bitcoin big enough to be worth of my time. The really rich guys are coming soon

Point is, I am not complaining that someone wasted their time mining. If they profit off of it, good. If not, hope they had fun. I still think I am better off NOT mining even though I had the chance.

Never said it was a big risk. Just that they took it, back when it was a risk, and as a result, they have seen gains.

I don't see a problem with that... but then, I'm a capitalist, not a communist.

You wrote your post as if you were trying to make a rhetorical point.


It turns out this is no longer true. Keeping an impeachable ledger is pretty trivial. Lots of industries do it with much less computing power. Preserving the illusion that all that computing power is important, is the primary use of that computer power now.


The problem is not that they got "a lot of coins". The problem is that they got a large percentage out of a fixed set of coins. Had they gotten a large number of coins out of an unbounded set of coins there would be no problem at all.


Most of the "steady value" models involve generating and destroying coins on an as needed basis. None have been implemented yet (as far as I know) because there isn't a ground swell of interest in creating a currency in which the early adopters don't get rich.

However, for insights you might consider learning about Local Exchange Trading Systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system

Suppose Alice grows Apples, Bob grows Beans, and Charlie makes Cheese. But none of them have any money.
Now if Bob wants an Apple, but Alice doesn't want Beans, then in a LETS system they agree on a price $1 and Alice gives Bob an Apple. The transaction is accounted for using double entry book keeping. Alice + $1, Bob - $1. With LETS it is OK to have a negative balance (within limits)
Now Alice wants $1 worth of Cheese so Charlie gives it to her. Balances now are:
Alice = 0
Charley = +1
Bob = -1
Finally Charlie wants $1 from Bob so he gives them to him. That puts all balances back at zero again.
No currency exists at the moment, because no currency is needed.
When currency is needed again, it is simply created. A flexible currency supply is indeed a magical thing!

Compare that to Bitcoin.
Say I have a Ferrari and you want to buy my Ferrari but neither of us have Bitcoins.
It should be a transaction that only involves us, it shouldn't make anyone else richer. But with bitcoin, of course, it does.
How do we know how many Bitcoins is a Ferraris worth? Early adopters get to decide. Something about that seems fishy. :-)

It also doesn't have a cap, right? That's problematic for its own reasons.

This is precisely why I'm a fan of PPC coin. First, big hardware isn't given as big of a preference in mining. Second, the mining rate levels off at a 1% increase per year, so nobody can ever own a large fixed fraction of all PPC coin for all eternity.

When the difficulty was 1, the time/electricity cost was trivial. We're talking risking a taco, getting an island.

Which publicly funded job do you hold?

You mean only one devil ? Then that will lead to concentration of devilishness :-)

Have multiple devils ...well make it an open market as they say !!!

The more I am here, the more I think that the social media craze would soon be eclipsed by the fin craze ....just imagine you can really earn by being online ...than just text and message being online ....



Ps ; I understand the venture capitalists are already investing in the next partial crypto partial centrally controlled exchange cum currency cum many things !