Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 4. (Read 11076 times)

Quote from: Xiaoma on April 14, 2013, 03:28:20 PM

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

Xiaoma hit on what I think is the fundamental reason bitcoin will never go mainstream. Some 6 Billion people in the world are much like him. They've never heard of bitcoin, or they've never heard of bitcoin until today. When they show up here they are all going to ask this question over and over again.

"Why should I waste my time and money making you guys really rich? I've got that problem already."

@Xiamo, I can answer your question directly if you'd like, but it would cause a flame war. Probably better to do it in a new thread.

Hint: Bitcoin is not a currency. It is the first commodity ever created by mathematical fiat!

liberty90

member

Activity: 88

Merit: 10

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me.

BTC was quite well known in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles, even then.

It's not a bug, it's a feature Cheesy

This will be very pretty transfer of wealth to libertarians, anarchists, agorists... Cheesy

Luckybit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 510

Quote from: Xiaoma on April 14, 2013, 03:52:50 PM

Quote from: revans on April 14, 2013, 03:20:02 PM

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

I don't think there is an evil masterplan for world domination here. Bitcoin could disappear in a few months if is never going mainstream.
But is true that in the hypothetical case that coin value goes over $75000, somebody with 1M coins will exceed the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim, $73 billions). And there is no proof that nobody has more than a million coins. Grin

So what? If that happens then we'd all be better off because we'd all have more money too. Money doesn't buy political influence though, it just means you'll be the one funding the elections and paying for infrastructure.

batcoin

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

In Gord We Trust

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

Even the language used is that of speculation, with talk of people failing to 'get in'. Bitcoin isn't a currency it's a stock.

It was speculation 1 or 2 years ago too.

From 2 years ago: http://youtu.be/PgR8jacv9FQ?t=4m23s

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

First we start doing our homework on Bitcoin, politics, free markets and sound money.

Quote from: revans on April 14, 2013, 04:10:21 PM

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Feel free to design and use your own system if Bitcoin frightens you.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on April 14, 2013, 04:03:19 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 14, 2013, 04:03:19 PM

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

Who's to say Bitcoin isn't a Goldman Sachs project, or maybe GS infiltrated it and now own millions of Bitcoins.

And I thought I was paranoid.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: Xiaoma on April 14, 2013, 03:28:20 PM

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

Who's to say Bitcoin isn't a Goldman Sachs project, or maybe GS infiltrated it and now own millions of Bitcoins.

Luckybit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 510

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 03:45:05 PM

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

So, one of the main arguments I encounter when discussing Bitcoin with its promulgators is that it can potentially free the financial system from the cabal of plutocrats that currently run the show, and who have lavished enormous wealth on themselves and their cronies. This argument seems to entirely dismiss the actions of the shady cabal who mined huge numbers of Bitcoins when doing so was trivial (and prior to any public availability), and to a lesser extent the early adopters.

When central bankers throw money like confetti at themselves and their friends whilst most others must struggle to earn small amounts of it this is deemed a moral evil. Yet when the progenitors of Bitcoin and their acolytes do much the same; capture the low hanging fruit and leave everyone else fighting over increasingly complex computational scraps this is hailed as a brave new world of financial freedom.

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.

I'd rather have early adoption. At least if you take risks and have the knowledge you get rewarded. It's more fair than just having to be born at the right time, place, family.

Actually this is EXACTLY the biggest problem people are complaining about. It woud be nice if it was as you say, but is the opposite.

You had to be in the right place at the right time to have a huge advantage above everybody else, without the need of any risk or skills. Just knowing that bitcoin exist 2 years ago and playing with it for fun. How many people ever heard about it before the Cyprus crysis? Just a tiny minority of people. This doesn't make the remaining 99.9999% of the world guilty of lacking skills or afraid to take risks.

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me. Which is the reason why I feel offensive to be labeled as less capable or less enterprising, when the only reason I didn't invest in Bitcoins earlier is because I never heard of it. I agree with you if people took a conscious decision of rejecting Bitcoin a couple years ago, and now they cry injustice. They have only themselves to blame. But people that were not in the "secret society" of the father founders... what exactly is their fault?

I was studying cryptocurrencies before there was a Bitcoin, and I knew about it when first hearing about it during the bailout crisis. I heard again during the Occupy Wallstreet. I would be one of those early adopters except I got side tracked not thinking it would recover so fast from $2.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Given the option of sticking with what we've got, or a wealthy elite of cryptography geeks, I'll take my chances with the crypto geeks.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

No, but the point is we don't know one way or the other.

Xiaoma

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

I don't think there is an evil masterplan for world domination here. Bitcoin could disappear in a few months if is never going mainstream.
But is true that in the hypothetical case that coin value goes over $75000, somebody with 1M coins will exceed the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim, $73 billions). And there is no proof that nobody has more than a million coins. Grin

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Not really. Just because they're wealthy doesn't mean they'll take over governments and such.

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

Worse still, the shady beginnings of Bitcoin mean we have no real idea anything about people who could end up richer than all the plutocrats in history put together. If these people ever got the world they wish for (Bitcoin economy worth many trillions and dominant online and ubiqitous in real world transactions) we'd could be in a situation even worse than we are now.

Xiaoma

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 03:45:05 PM

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

We agree on the principle, but not on the scale.

When 10 coins will be huge money (if ever) the ones that have 100000 coins will be the new plutocrats. How different it is from the current system we want to "fix"?

Xiaoma

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

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

So, one of the main arguments I encounter when discussing Bitcoin with its promulgators is that it can potentially free the financial system from the cabal of plutocrats that currently run the show, and who have lavished enormous wealth on themselves and their cronies. This argument seems to entirely dismiss the actions of the shady cabal who mined huge numbers of Bitcoins when doing so was trivial (and prior to any public availability), and to a lesser extent the early adopters.

When central bankers throw money like confetti at themselves and their friends whilst most others must struggle to earn small amounts of it this is deemed a moral evil. Yet when the progenitors of Bitcoin and their acolytes do much the same; capture the low hanging fruit and leave everyone else fighting over increasingly complex computational scraps this is hailed as a brave new world of financial freedom.

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.

I'd rather have early adoption. At least if you take risks and have the knowledge you get rewarded. It's more fair than just having to be born at the right time, place, family.

Actually this is EXACTLY the biggest problem people are complaining about. It woud be nice if it was as you say, but is the opposite.

You had to be in the right place at the right time to have a huge advantage above everybody else, without the need of any risk or skills. Just knowing that bitcoin exist 2 years ago and playing with it for fun. How many people ever heard about it before the Cyprus crysis? Just a tiny minority of people. This doesn't make the remaining 99.9999% of the world guilty of lacking skills or afraid to take risks.

They just didn't know it existed at all. Including me. Which is the reason why I feel offensive to be labeled as less capable or less enterprising, when the only reason I didn't invest in Bitcoins earlier is because I never heard of it. I agree with you if people took a conscious decision of rejecting Bitcoin a couple years ago, and now they cry injustice. They have only themselves to blame. But people that were not in the "secret society" of the father founders... what exactly is their fault?

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

Even the language used is that of speculation, with talk of people failing to 'get in'. Bitcoin isn't a currency it's a stock.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

The earlier you get on the bus, the better seat you get. This is not new information to most people.

batcoin

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

In Gord We Trust

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins:

The Shamir paper makes it clear that early adopters went to significant lengths to hide the true extent of their hoarding of Bitcoins. frankly the more you look into the history of Bitcoin, its origins, and the actions of the early players, the more it seems like a big trojan horse.

Why create something targeted at instant transactions (like a Paypal) or to be used as a currency (like the USD) but design it to have the economic behaviour of stock market? That makes no sense. What we see here is that the effort needed to get 10-15 coins today is pretty much the same level of effort and risk that 1 year ago would give you hundred of thousands.

The main problem here is not the fact that early adopters have more, this is fine. The main problem is the sheer scale of the disproportion. We talk about million times more for a comparable risk. People entering the Bitcoin world now risk as much than people entering 1 or 2 years ago.

In one or two years time those 10-15 Bitcoins could be worth the same as what those thousands are worth today. Then there will be more people complaining about the disproportion and unfairness because they didn't get the chance to get in on it earlier.

Xiaoma

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

Very interesting thread.. lots of topics worth further discussion and learning.

Now.. this thing is one of the 2 big concerns I have about Bitcoins: