Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 5.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Kazu on April 13, 2013, 10:05:37 PM

I think you all are missing the point.

The point of Bitcoin isn't to undermine capitalism or stop the rich from being rich. If anything it has the opposite effect. What it IS supposed to do is prevent the rich (or more likely, powerful) from messing with the money that everyone else uses.

+ bleedin' 1, my friend.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Elwar on April 13, 2013, 09:48:01 PM

I plan on making the CommieCoin (tm).

Basically all CommieCoins will be equally divided to all addresses. Any spend results in an immediate redistribution. Any new address results in immediate redistribution.

It will not require computer power either. Just men in brown coats going anywhere CommieCoins are spent (even in your basement) to verify that everyone has the same amount of CommieCoins.

I think it will catch on well.
[/quote

Name's already taken, comrade.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 10:32:12 PM

Quote from: Elwar on April 13, 2013, 10:26:47 PM

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

Yeah. Discovered BTC by coincidence back in late 2011, got 150 coins, and if it gains widespread adoption all of a sudden compared to most people on earth I'll be Jacob Flippin' Marley.

I'm not saying things have to change, or even that they can at this point. But isn't there something weird about that? And isn't it going to look weird to the folks who might otherwise adopt it going forward?

Nope. If you're good with money, that amount will increase. If you're poor with money, or take bad risks, that amount will decrease. Capital flows to the hands that can best use it. If Bitcoins were randomly assigned to every person on the planet, 10 years down the line the distribution would look no different than a first-come, first serve.

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

When I discovered bitcoin it was 5 BTC for $1. I thought it was overpriced because the previous week it was 200 BTC for $1. That was the difference one slashdot article made.

I ran the original client for about 20 minutes but it made my laptop hot enough to be uncomfortable on my lap. Never bothered to generate a block. Instead I got a bit nickel from the bitcoin fountain. A week before the fountain was giving out 5 BTC to anyone who asked. The slashdotting emptied the fountain so they reduced it to nickels.

Lost the nickel somewhere. Still think BTC is overpriced.

Qoheleth

legendary

Activity: 960

Merit: 1028

Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.

Quote from: Elwar on April 13, 2013, 10:26:47 PM

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

Yeah. Discovered BTC by coincidence back in late 2011, got 150 coins, and if it gains widespread adoption all of a sudden compared to most people on earth I'll be Jacob Flippin' Marley.

I'm not saying things have to change, or even that they can at this point. But isn't there something weird about that? And isn't it going to look weird to the folks who might otherwise adopt it going forward?

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Of course, to even out the classes you were buying early right?

Or even now...you continue to buy while it is cheap?

I recall people complaining about early adopters when the price was $8/BTC. If instead of complaining they were buying they would also be early adopters.

Remember, there are only enough bitcoins for .006 BTC per person in the world. If you have more than that, you will be in the upper class.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Coincrazy on April 13, 2013, 10:01:44 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:03:03 PM

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 08:58:02 PM

The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.

How does Bitcoin solve this, though? If your early-adoptorship gives you more money than you will reasonably spend on yourself in your lifetime, then your children inherit it - they gain the initial advantage according to family.

Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem.

Well said about amazing riches, lifetime and inheritance.

Just add the following to what you said
".......Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem...." AND the initial distribution graph was kept absolutely steep at the start and soon after start so that the early on guys old be really really mega rich in the process. So the graph was built that way on purpose and not by any accident ....

If you add that you will come closer to revans original point !!! Probably look almost similar

(# of Blocks with reward /reward) * satoshi client transaction fee = 42

Red

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 115

So I was completely convinced revans was right and bitcoin would never reach widespread adoption. Then I read this.

http://qz.com/74137/six-reasons-why-chinese-people-will-drive-the-next-bull-market-in-bitcoin/

The third point was my favorite:

3. Insane speculation schemes aren’t so crazy to many Chinese people.

Who knows, bitcoin may have a couple of years left before its final crash! :-)

Coincrazy

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:09:15 PM

.

. What makes you think the Bitcoin Billionaires wont fund stuff or invest in stuff which is in the interest of Bitcoin or a free Internet? A free Internet benefits Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

Your intentions are noble

But is that the ground reality ?

Well.... evidence so far suggests that the early rich have practically gone unground

No early guy / girl who is also a rich guy / girl because of bit coin has come out and said that he was early, he is a millionaire holding BTC and now he is donating heavily

I can't figure out how they will become responsible elite

In fact I think the honest early elite will really have a problem. How could it come out into the open and say ...hey I started with libertarian purposes and he is my 20 million bucks ? Which I plan to use for myself ? And so I have been hiding for three years ?

Some how that doesn't seems to gel

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 09:58:54 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 09:46:27 PM

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

No, my ears are just fine. It's your posting. You could just copy and paste "q.q" over and over again, and it would read pretty much the same.

This forum is equipped with an ignore feature, might I suggest you use it.

Good idea. I think I will.

Quote from: Kazu on April 13, 2013, 10:05:37 PM

The point of Bitcoin isn't to undermine capitalism or stop the rich from being rich. If anything it has the opposite effect. What it IS supposed to do is prevent the rich (or more likely, powerful) from messing with the money that everyone else uses.

This.

Coincrazy

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:53:07 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:49:02 PM

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:43:08 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:30:10 PM

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

It's not ideal but it could be worked out. Like I said my idea which I've been thinking about is a type of smart currency with autonomous functionality. This would mean it wouldn't necessarily be completely hard coded but in some instances there would be democratic functions, in other cases the coin would decide that there isn't enough coins or that there are too many, but in order to have something like that every "miner" would have to still be part of the AI grid. Either way as of 2013 it's not possible and after 2030 when it might be possible it would still probably be overly centralized because super computers will probably still be centralized.

Here is the #1 issue politically of our time. Closed source artificial intelligence has to be banned.

There are lots of people here who want to start currencies... Please try and pool your efforts ...that would add up a lot of potential, time, manpower etc etc

Kazu

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

I think you all are missing the point.

The point of Bitcoin isn't to undermine capitalism or stop the rich from being rich. If anything it has the opposite effect. What it IS supposed to do is prevent the rich (or more likely, powerful) from messing with the money that everyone else uses.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Severian on April 13, 2013, 11:06:59 AM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 11:04:39 AM

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

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

revans seems to be a master at this. Classic evader, and bears all the marks of the reasoning errors that leads to. Not worth debating, from what I've seen so far (haven't trawled this whole thread). But how much do you need to see to get the pattern?

Coincrazy

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:03:03 PM

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 08:58:02 PM

The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.

How does Bitcoin solve this, though? If your early-adoptorship gives you more money than you will reasonably spend on yourself in your lifetime, then your children inherit it - they gain the initial advantage according to family.

Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem.

Well said about amazing riches, lifetime and inheritance.

Just add the following to what you said
".......Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem...." AND the initial distribution graph was kept absolutely steep at the start and soon after start so that the early on guys old be really really mega rich in the process. So the graph was built that way on purpose and not by any accident ....

If you add that you will come closer to revans original point !!! Probably look almost similar

revans

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on April 13, 2013, 09:58:54 PM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 09:46:27 PM

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

No, my ears are just fine. It's your posting. You could just copy and paste "q.q" over and over again, and it would read pretty much the same.

This forum is equipped with an ignore feature, might I suggest you use it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: revans on April 13, 2013, 09:46:27 PM

Perhaps you should consult an audiologist

No, my ears are just fine. It's your posting. You could just copy and paste "q.q" over and over again, and it would read pretty much the same.

Luckybit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 510

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:49:02 PM

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:43:08 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:30:10 PM

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

It's not ideal but it could be worked out. Like I said my idea which I've been thinking about is a type of smart currency with autonomous functionality. This would mean it wouldn't necessarily be completely hard coded but in some instances there would be democratic functions, in other cases the coin would decide that there isn't enough coins or that there are too many, but in order to have something like that every "miner" would have to still be part of the AI grid. Either way as of 2013 it's not possible and after 2030 when it might be possible it would still probably be overly centralized because super computers will probably still be centralized.

Here is the #1 issue politically of our time. Closed source artificial intelligence has to be banned.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:43:08 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:30:10 PM

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself.

Nothing needs to be added to the protocol for this.

Coming soon...

Qoheleth

legendary

Activity: 960

Merit: 1028

Spurn wild goose chases. Seek that which endures.

Quote from: Luckybit on April 13, 2013, 09:43:08 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 09:30:10 PM

It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group.

Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal.

It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

I plan on making the CommieCoin (tm).

Basically all CommieCoins will be equally divided to all addresses. Any spend results in an immediate redistribution. Any new address results in immediate redistribution.

It will not require computer power either. Just men in brown coats going anywhere CommieCoins are spent (even in your basement) to verify that everyone has the same amount of CommieCoins.

I think it will catch on well.

Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 5. (Read 11076 times)