Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 2. (Read 11076 times)

I don't think it is important if currency A or currency B is the primary one, or if people enjoy speculating on it. What I find important is the fact that in this "double currency system" only one of the 2 can be used as an actual currency and money transfer, and the other one as investment/speculation/protection/whatever. I don't think Bitcoin was ever designed to be just that, but there is no reason why it could not become one. This is topic for another thread.

What I find most agreeable in this thread, is the obvious fact (obvious even if lots of people don't want to talk about it) that the perceived inequity or "ponziness" of Bitcoin is more important for large scale adoption than the actual fact that it is or not a scam. And this was said and repeated over and over in other threads too by a minority of people. It is a marketing failure to ignore something so fundamental as the perceived legality and safety of a product.

I personally don't care how rich the early adopters can become, but I believe Bitcoin (or any alternative) only has a meaning if it goes mainstream. If it stay a niche plaything for a bunch of geeks it is a failure and deserve to disappear. A world changing idea has a meaning only if it has the strength to actually change the world. If not, it is just fulfilling the profecy that it is just a brilliantly executed ponzi schema.

Having now reached the end of the PDF, I withdraw any implicit accusations about its tone - the postscript did an excellent job of explaining it.

I'll try to pencil in some time to read more of his work.

As of that writing, he was already 81! A little respect If I would need to pick one person, who has opened my eyes as regards to monetary economics, it would be Fekete. For anyone with a 130+ IQ, I would suggest to read all of his articles. It only takes a weekend to digest them and at least I have benefitted tremendously from the information.

Another fascinating bit of information, if presented a bit polemically. If I'm properly understanding the concept of "real bills" (not 100% sure - the PDF seems to assume the reader already knows), they seem to fulfill a similar purpose to the Credit Coins in Grignon's Digital Coin scheme, and by a similar mechanism.

So much eye-opening prior art in this thread.

:-)

It has been my contention since the beginning (almost 4 years) that this thread's topic will be what stops bitcoin from going mainstream.

So let's talk about this...

If there were a value stable COMPLEMENT to bitcoin (something like GEM, EnCoin, et. al.) which was created as stable "swap space" for speculators when the bitcoin market is falling,
Would that stable currency eventually gain dominance because it alleviates the need for bitcoin in the first place?

Specifically, would "stable coin" become the primary "currency" for setting prices, measuring value, making loans and paying off debts. While relegating bitcoin to "scarce commodity" status. Furthermore, would there be any point in speculating in a "commodity" with no particular use except as a currency?

whoops sorry... of course we have a super stable currency that is nearly impossible to manipulate.

Anyway looks like I don't have much more to say about the topic of this thread. Who got hundreds of coins have that, who got a million will be lucky anyway. Not my problem unless it stops bitcoin from going mainstream. Do we still want that?

Ssssssh! Don't tell anyone here that... :-)

From what I see, I suspect is more like a checking account and a stock playground at NYSE. A savings account is not that volatile.

Yes, we need a silver to bitcoin's gold. But that one will not be litecoin, sorry 

Another complement to the hard currency (blockchain bitcoin) economy, would be to reinstall real bills. <- It's a technical but fascinating read about the almost-forgotten aspect of the gold standard, without which the gold standard (of the post-WWI world) had no means to operate, and needed to be replaced with fiat standard in the 1930s.

Exactly! Like having both a checking account and a savings accounts.

Not more "early adopter" ranting. 

The people who railed endlessly about this last year turned out themselves to be early adopters. We are still in the early adoption phase.

The idea of 2 complementary currencies with a focused design is very interesting. One could be optimised as a pure transactional with a stable exchange, and the other as a deflationary store of value. And still have the benefits of a decentralised, near-anonymous and non seizable.
Let speculators speculate with bitcoins, and merchants deal with the other one. And let people choose a mix of both according to mood.

That's what I've been pondering for longer than I care to mention. But I think I have an answer now.

Clearly there is no way to convince the crypto anarchist, libertarian, gold lover, "saver" of the fixed coin bitcoin model that a variable coin/fixed value coin is BETTER than bitcoin.

However, clearly, there is a need for a COMPLEMENTARY fixed value currency in addition bitcoin. What for? The other half of speculation. When bitcoin is going up, speculators want to own bitcoins. When bitcoin is crashing they want to own anything but bitcoins. However, all the stable alternatives are currently fiat "accounts" within currency exchanges. These are subject to all the non-anonymity, seizure, hacking, fraud risks that regular (cyprus style) bank accounts are subject too.

How might you make a value stable non-fiat currency? This is one potential way.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gem-as-a-potential-stable-value-currency-47628
All the cool bits you love about bitcoin. None of the price instability.

Be careful rpietila, I think the "C" word is a very dirty one to certain members in this thread.

What mechanisms exactly would appeal to enough people, so that they would trade the guaranteed-less-than-100%-ever-more inflation of bitcoin, for something which cannot markedly appreciate in value over time, due to new creation tied to increase in userbase?

No trolling, but I can't currently see why anyone with a capitalist mindset would go after that with anything more than peanuts.. 

Those with a capitalist mindset tend to be those with the most money and power to make things succeed.

Not to mention the whole "e-gold" debacle.

Exactly. At the time, the reward was a bunch of digital "money" that could turn out to be just as popular as Beenz or Flooz. If you don't know what those are, that's my point. The risk was that if the Fed took them seriously, their homes and offices could have been raided, their computers seized, and their dogs shot. Remember, this was right around the time the Liberty Dollar was being cracked down on, and the federal government is not known for being discriminate in it's raiding practices.

Early adoption isn't inequity. Our original 'investment' was more expensive if you calculate the risk and our opportunity cost at the time. People who just start buying in are still getting a great deal, however because there is no (relatively) so much less risk, it's so expensive for them.

This.

This is true, and the most practical reason Bitcoin may be superseded by a crypto currency that has an adoption curve similar to this. 


This is unlikely in the long run, in contrast to gold it is not as practical to plundered through physical force and war and alternatives can emerge.

Moreover the people who partake will partake voluntarily and will be able to erode the top down wealth by saving, an attribute that has been removed from the inflation fiat central bank model.