Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 16. (Read 11076 times)

My first Bitcoins were mined on a machine that my wife had bought me to play games. This was back in Nov 2010. It took about 10 days and was worth (then) something like £10. The machine was 'free' in the sense that it was already in the living room before I had ever heard of Bitcoin.

When I first splashed out in Jan 2011 and ordered parts for a 3x5870 rig, I was taking a risk. I took another risk to buy my next mining machine. There was always the possibility that Bitcoin would never 'make it' as a technology, that I would end up with an expensive pile of hardware and a credit card bill to settle. As it tuned out Bitcoin did well, the value went up, but the value could have dropped to zero and Bitcoin could have been relegated to the list of good ideas that never took off.

Sure, I sold coins, bought more GPUs, mined more coins, sold more coins, bought more GPUs etc. Anyone could have done the same.
Anyone who wants to can do the same now - there are still used 5870s on eBay even though they are no longer made. Good mining cards. Yes, specialised mining kit is expensive, but small scale mining can be, and I suspect is, a profitable sideline for anyone who is willing to take the risk involved in a graphics card upgrade for their PC.

What would you propose for a different security mechanism for a currency like Bitcoin? How would you distribute it to interested people fairly?

Thanks, I'll check it out.

If the refutation had merit why not put it through proper peer review as the paper it attacks was? Why should the debunker be held to a lower standard than the person he is debunking?

I was speaking of Bitcoin, a topic in which you seem deficient but still feel entitled to expound upon.

Better the devil you know.

IBM stock when offered for sale did not come burdened with promises of changing a fundamentally inequitable system. IBM has never proposed for its stock to become a ubiquitous medium of exchange. If you cannot see the distinction then you are beyond help.

Moving the goalposts is a dishonest debating tactic. Don't do it if you wish to be taken seriously.

Where is their peer reviewed paper published in a respectable journal refuting these claims?

I had one of those once - the George Bell 1880 1st.  Alas, at the time I had no interest - it was just another antiquarian book to me...  Got a couple hundred for it, as I recall.  If I get one again, I'll read it.

That you speak with authority on matters in which you lack substance reveals yours.

At this point I'd take my chances with a new bunch plutocrats over the old ones - even though I know the majority of Bitcoin EAs will hail from the richest parts of the planet, not to mention being young and male - just like me.

However there is a danger of this revolution being like many revolutions before it and not really changing much in the end. This is why I'm generally in favour of progressive change, rather than disruption - it normally leads to better outcomes in the long term.

I've had plenty of wacky thoughts about some of the things I would like to see in an alternative crypto-currency. For example thinking about how might we counter the deflationary aspect (which does serve a purpose for EAs) by either incentivising redistribution in some way beyond selling out for FIAT? I'd like to see a coin that doesn't ultimately favour those with large amount of FIAT to buy up coins and I don't believe the mining mechanisms does that adequately.

Out of all the alternative crypto currencies so far I like PPCoin the most because it is trying to be innovative in a number of ways. I believe we will need a number of crypto-currencies, with a number of different design characteristics to satisfy our needs.

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.

Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption

yes, yes it does, but at least it will shake things up

And that you think a currency is comparable to share equity reveals the depths of your stupidity.

It was discredited. For one, they scraped a website instead of using a copy of the blockchain from a client. blockchain.info isn't authoritative and is known to contain errors from time to time.

https://gist.github.com/jgarzik/3901921

It was decried, never discredited.

Well, that's your speculation.   

Y'see, mods - there is too speculating stuff going on here!

Yeah, just an envyous wannabe communist.

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.

Like it or not, Botcoin is the digital equivalent of gold.

I'm sorry you missed the stage where you could just pick it up off the ground, or even pan it out of rivers. Now we need heavy equipment to mine it, which means you'll need to make an investment to get any returns, or you can just buy the gold on the open market.

Now read that last paragraph, but replace "gold" with "bitcoin," and you might finally understand.

I don't see any speculating going on here.