Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 14.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:54:11 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:49:40 PM

What risk was there with mining Bitcoins when difficulty was 1?

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 11:27:41 AM

The problem with proof-of-work is that in order to make the ledger impeachable, people need to throw real-world value into a hole.

Most notably, that the time and electricity would be wasted if Bitcoin failed.

Right, so in the beginnings we're talking absolutely negligible.People throw CPU cycles at all kinds of activities more computationally intense than early coin miners and they do not consider themselves to be taking a 'risk'.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:49:40 PM

What risk was there with mining Bitcoins when difficulty was 1?

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 11:27:41 AM

The problem with proof-of-work is that in order to make the ledger impeachable, people need to throw real-world value into a hole.

Most notably, that the time and electricity would be wasted if Bitcoin failed.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:49:40 PM

What risk was there with mining Bitcoins when difficulty was 1?

I dunno. Maybe the two years of time and effort that Satoshi put into writing and testing Bitcoin before opening the network to the world in 2009?

He was the only miner at the time.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:48:35 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:42:14 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

Again, you guys really need to grow beyond this ridiculous idea that everyone who has a different view is riven with jealousy. If you missed my post I own a significant number of Bitcoins, and am gradually gifting them to good causes. I want no part in a grubby get rich quick scheme;

This isn't a get rich quick scheme. It's a new currency. The digital equivalent of gold. And you're whining because the people who took the big risks back when it was a big risk have seen gains from that. And hey, if you're interested in distributing the coins evenly, there's an empty wallet in my signature. I promise any coins deposited will go to further the bitcoin economy. Specifically, I'll buy things with them. Grin

You're not a good cause, merely a lost one.

Again I ask. What 'big risk' was undertaken by those mining Bitcoins at the lowest difficulty?

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:35:28 PM

Quote from: Red on April 13, 2013, 12:28:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

This gave me a big grin!

Well put revans!
Trust me myrkul, most early adopters called it jealous whining the first time around!

Here's a hint: if you're here, you're an early adopter.

And if the fact that taking a risk first gets you a bigger reward than taking that risk after it's been proven safe is a "fundamental problem," then I'm afraid it's a fundamental problem with reality, not with Bitcoin.

What risk was there with mining Bitcoins when difficulty was 1?

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Coincrazy on April 13, 2013, 12:37:40 PM

A great collateral benefit from this thread

Thanks for referring to this book

Few things make me happier than people finding Del Mar.

From the author's intro:

Quote

So long as this state of affairs continues, so long as Individuals in
place of Government retain control of the Monetary Measure, there
can be no real Religion, there can be no real Liberty, there can be no
real National Life. The bases of Religion are Love and Fraternity.
There can be no Fraternity whilst an Unjust Measure is permitted to
introduce discontent and strife into all the transactions of social life.
The basis of Liberty is Justice. There can be no Justice whilst an
Unjust Measure continues to nullify the lessons of wisdom and ex-
perience. The basis of National Life is Political Equality. There
can be no Equality so long as an Unjust Measure continues to rob
the many for the benefit of the few. The control of Weights and
Measures, including Money and the materials of which its symbols are
made, is a prerogative and a necessary prerogative of National Life.
It has been so held by all the Courts of Judicature, by all the ex-
ponents of Law, from Plato to Paulus, from Paulus to Grimaudet,
from Grimaudet to the Mixt Money case, and from the latter to the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:42:14 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

Again, you guys really need to grow beyond this ridiculous idea that everyone who has a different view is riven with jealousy. If you missed my post I own a significant number of Bitcoins, and am gradually gifting them to good causes. I want no part in a grubby get rich quick scheme;

This isn't a get rich quick scheme. It's a new currency. The digital equivalent of gold. And you're whining because the people who took the big risks back when it was a big risk have seen gains from that. And hey, if you're interested in distributing the coins evenly, there's an empty wallet in my signature. I promise any coins deposited will go to further the bitcoin economy. Specifically, I'll buy things with them. Grin

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

Again, you guys really need to grow beyond this ridiculous idea that everyone who has a different view is riven with jealousy. If you missed my post I own a significant number of Bitcoins, and am gradually gifting them to good causes. I want no part in a grubby get rich quick scheme;

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: John Self on April 13, 2013, 11:57:56 AM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 11:42:28 AM

Quote from: John Self on April 13, 2013, 11:35:38 AM

There is no basis for thinking bitcoins will take wealth away from the rich, that is absurd and there's no need to start a thread about it. If anything, bitcoin will help the very rich avoid taxes, it won't help the average guy with a monthly wage and matching lifestyle who the government can easily check on.

OP: What you really meant to say in the title is that bitcoin replaces one type of plutocrat with another; 'dynastic' is an inappropriate word to use here. I appreciate that you are practising new words, but if you aren't crystal clear on the definition it is best to use a more common expression or word which you are better familiar with- in this case you could have said something like 'established power.'

You've misunderstood

The dynastic power is the existing setup, with crime families like the Bush's, Rockfeller's and Rothschild's. Each has wielded great power for generations, thus they can be correctly described as dynasties.

I have, I see. But it's still unclear to me how bitcoin could target influential families.

That scenario would require the collapse of state fiat and Bitcoin becoming the alternative. This is hypothetical of course, but it is what a lot of Bitcoin users hope for.

Coincrazy

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Severian on April 13, 2013, 10:57:35 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 10:40:50 AM

Gold has been the go-to (You might even say "standard") medium of exchange for most of human history. It's only recently that it was decoupled from currency, and look where that's lead us.

Off topic, but you might dig this, myrkul:

A history of the precious metals, from the earliest times to the present (1902)

Del Mar spent 20 years working on this book. It originally came out 1880's. Well worth the hang time.

A great collateral benefit from this thread

Thanks for referring to this book

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Red on April 13, 2013, 12:28:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

This gave me a big grin!

Well put revans!
Trust me myrkul, most early adopters called it jealous whining the first time around!

Here's a hint: if you're here, you're an early adopter.

And if the fact that taking a risk first gets you a bigger reward than taking that risk after it's been proven safe is a "fundamental problem," then I'm afraid it's a fundamental problem with reality, not with Bitcoin.

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 12:21:08 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

This gave me a big grin!

Well put revans!
Trust me myrkul, most early adopters called it jealous whining the first time around!

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Maybe we're just getting tired of all the repetitive whining threads that crop up every time someone new feels jealous of the people who got in before them.

Qoheleth

legendary

Activity: 960

Merit: 1028

Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 11:27:41 AM

The problem with proof-of-work is that in order to make the ledger impeachable, people need to throw real-world value into a hole.

Most folks won't do that unless there was something tangibly "in it for them".

Bitcoin answers this with the block reward - it uses the distribution mechanism to incentivize the busywork that makes the bones of Bitcoin actually function.

The unfortunate result is that a lot of people early on in the project got a lot of coins, and if Bitcoin gets wide adoption those coins will make them about as rich as a Buffet or a Helu, and with an equal capability of screwing up the market if they had cause. (User A in the Shamir paper has 2.8 million BTC -> 28 billion dollars at $10k/coin).

So then... what? If this is a troubling result of the network rules, what rules would have worked better? How do you distribute newly created BTC in a "fair" way, when an anonymous system means that Sybil shenanigans are trivial? How do you incentivize mining, except via block rewards?

I'm sincerely interested in hearing your ideas.

I'm quoting this post because I'm worried you missed it the first time.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: Red on April 13, 2013, 11:51:29 AM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 09:17:05 AM

Should Bitcoin ever achieve the kind of ubiquity its most ardent fans hope for, these people will wield more financial power than any of the Banksters they decry. They will also control such a large amount of the monetary base that they too could end up becoming plutocrats

Far from being a revolution, the future as envisaged by Bitcoin fanboys will be little more than a changing of the cast of villains.

Hey revans, nice post. I generally argue that your conclusion will prevent its own cause. But the point is really the same.

I started a similar thread a couple of years back. I think I got a little more support than you did. It's a shame to see that sort of critical thinking has faded.

If you are interested...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/at-what-point-does-bitcoin-become-protestable-48521

It is interesting to note that as that distributive inequality has turned into a lucrative windfall that attitudes have hardened to what is a fundamental problem.

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 11:44:47 AM

Have you seem some of the code comments made by the same indivudual? All about corrupt bankers and so on.

I share his opinions. Many of us came to Bitcoin because we'd reached the same conclusions long before Bitcoin came along.

The best thing about Bitcoin is that unlike the "devil you know", the politics and beliefs of the miners and users of Bitcoin don't matter. If the Federal Reserve becomes aware of your existence and it doesn't like your opinions or the color of your shirt, it will do what it can to take away your ability to use their moldy green paper with extreme prejudice.

If you have a bitcoin, the network doesn't care who or what you are or what you do in this world. Every human being alive, from pondscum banksters to your virgin younger cousin, has the right and the power to use Bitcoin as they see fit or to not use it at all. You can't say that about the moldy green paper signed by the devils you know.

John Self

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 11:42:28 AM

Quote from: John Self on April 13, 2013, 11:35:38 AM

There is no basis for thinking bitcoins will take wealth away from the rich, that is absurd and there's no need to start a thread about it. If anything, bitcoin will help the very rich avoid taxes, it won't help the average guy with a monthly wage and matching lifestyle who the government can easily check on.

OP: What you really meant to say in the title is that bitcoin replaces one type of plutocrat with another; 'dynastic' is an inappropriate word to use here. I appreciate that you are practising new words, but if you aren't crystal clear on the definition it is best to use a more common expression or word which you are better familiar with- in this case you could have said something like 'established power.'

You've misunderstood

The dynastic power is the existing setup, with crime families like the Bush's, Rockfeller's and Rothschild's. Each has wielded great power for generations, thus they can be correctly described as dynasties.

I have, I see. But it's still unclear to me how bitcoin could target influential families.

Coincrazy

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitSmile on April 13, 2013, 10:22:04 AM

Bitcoin is like gold. You can mine gold too. Do you also think the same about gold, that some people thousands of years ago mined it all and now you can only get a few little nuggets out of heavy buckets of dirt from bed rock?

You know what ? Suddenly gold seems more equitable and less volatile after being around here for some time

Damn...

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 09:17:05 AM

Should Bitcoin ever achieve the kind of ubiquity its most ardent fans hope for, these people will wield more financial power than any of the Banksters they decry. They will also control such a large amount of the monetary base that they too could end up becoming plutocrats

Far from being a revolution, the future as envisaged by Bitcoin fanboys will be little more than a changing of the cast of villains.

Hey revans, nice post. I generally argue that your conclusion will prevent its own cause. But the point is really the same.

I started a similar thread a couple of years back. I think I got a little more support than you did. It's a shame to see that sort of critical thinking has faded.

If you are interested...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/at-what-point-does-bitcoin-become-protestable-48521

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: Severian on April 13, 2013, 11:39:25 AM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 11:37:22 AM

That's a very dry technical paper. The founders of Bitcoin have espoused ideals which Bitcoin has diverged from very significantly.

It was writtten by Bitcoin's creator.

Yes I know, but you don't generally spout ideology in a technical paper. Have you seem some of the code comments made by the same indivudual? All about corrupt bankers and so on.

Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 14. (Read 11076 times)