Topic: Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption - page 7. (Read 11076 times)

I initially stated that a huge problem is the fact that far too much of the Bitcoin monetary base was mined for trivial effort by a small group of people.

No, they don't. They really don't. In fact, with those "ever-diminishing rewards," It's usually better to hold the coins a while before spending or exchanging them.

The rest of your post is a jumble of conspiracy and jealousy - or worse, the desire to tell others how to live. Quit whining.

Are you reading the thread? None of those arguments are arguments that Red has put forward - I haven't seen any posts by them arguing that the current distribution of coins is the problem.

The argument I have seen from him is that the exchanges, by virtue of their necessity in the current economy, already possess a veto power over which chain is the "true" transaction record, which transcends the "longest chain" logic that justifies calling Bitcoin decentralized to begin with. They're arguing that if the exchanges wanted, they could declare some abandoned fork to be "the REAL Bitcoin" and since most users right now (more critically, most miners) need to be able to exchange their coins for money reliably, they will have no choice but to agree. They're arguing that in the current economy, the longest chain and the miners and the decentralized design only matter because the exchanges haven't chosen to flex that power.

That's a problem, and has nothing to do with ideology.

Edit: Added a quote back in to make the context of my post clear.

Finally someone speaks the truth ^

It's about building infrastructure, global technological infrastructure which can free the world. The money should be given to people who want to be a part of the process, not to people who want to go on a forum and essentially beg for it because what is that rewarding and how is that improving anything long term?

Invest, create jobs, encourage economic growth in the third and first world. Bitcoin is a good development for both the first and third world and betters lives in both worlds.

It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.

So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?

It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?

That is not the case at all. I'm saying you're simply jealous. How are you different from a black person who wants reparations for slavery because white persons had a head start? Why can't you just accept that in any system some people will have a head start because no perfect system exists. Elites exist in nature in all systems because that is how order works.

That being said I do not support the central banking elite NOT because there is inequality, but because there isn't any leadership or reason for that inequality. What I'm saying is that you can be a billionaire, be responsible, and distribute the money in a responsible way by providing jobs, investing, starting businesses, inventing new technology. Bitcoin was invented by it's early adopters and rightfully they should receive the majority of the benefit. Rather than being jealous of some who were just lucky, or worrying about that, instead you should join Freicoin where people are designing it from scratch to promote your ideals.

I'm not against there being elites so long as the elites represent something greater than themselves, the Bitcoin community, or whatever community. If we are on a basketball team and you have the star player who scores a lot of points, gets a lot of money and attention, you're the sort of player who would be jealous and complain that you aren't being paid enough. You don't seem to understand that it's not about the individual player but about the objectives of the team. Some players get paid more than others because they have been playing for longer, or just because they are taller or faster or smarter or better looking, but why should you be jealous?

Yes there are some instances where the wrong people have too much money, but why should I believe that the Bitcoin early adopters are the wrong people just because you say so? Some of them will be the right people, and those right people can fund the next technology to free the people. Can you not think outside and beyond yourself? You can't afford enough coins? You can't mine them in time? You're unlucky and so you want to bring the entire Bitcoin down or go on a begging spree?

You have Bitcoins right? So you're more lucky than anyone who doesn't. You have a stake. You're just jealous that the next man has a bit more than you and instead of focusing on yourself and on what you can do to get what you think you deserve, you're trying to beg some other guy for some coins? Is that seriously the argument? Like I said you should trade in your Bitcoin for Freicoins and PPcoins or Litecoins. This way you can stop complaining about the current winners and focus on being a winner.

To whoever was lucky enough to have thousands of Bitcoin, good for you. I hope you're more responsible than the previous elites. Keep supporting the technology, the culture and the community and bring us jobs (not free coins!).  Pay us to help design the next innovations or the next big coin to replace Bitcoin or pay us to make Bitcoin better. Use your Bitcoins to actually protect Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community from DDOS attacks and political attacks which will come.

But of course they do to cover the increasingly large cost of mining, and the ever diminishing rewards as the computational power of the network grows. Furthermore, were it not for exchanges manipulating prices I very much doubt Bitcoin would be much more than a couple of dollars tops. The gold rush created by the upward price manipulation means a lot of users bring a lot of processing power into the network chasing rewards in a market bubble. These new users aren't getting involved with Bitcoin because they are interested in it as a medium of exchange, they just want to mine in the hope of profit.

I use Mt.Gox very little, and so should you, and everybody. Their engine is good for handling about 2 transactions per second, as is the bitcoin protocol. Buy/sell OTC rather. Friendly service and no risk of "hacks" and stuff.

I've been working out the details of one possible solution for a while. Too slowly, though. May need to push up my vacation, get something working before anything really troublesome happens due to the current state of things.

MTGox determining monetary policy, essentially.

There's one problem with that: The miners don't HAVE to use the big exchanges. They don't HAVE to exchange their coins at all, in fact.

Physical silver market (coins, bars) works very well without a central exchange. Even now, all the products are sold out. 

Now you get it!

See, that's the problem I think I have a solution to! :-)
Better yet, it reenforces anonymity!

No I don't have nothing "tied" to it. I own euros, silver, gold, stocks, and bitcoins. I am not indebted to anyone.

If any of these goes to zero, I don't lose my sleep. So the issue again was..?

There is no bitcoin problem. Just me pointing out that all the pooled hashing is just an elaborate way to:
1) Generate a random number.
The random number is used to arbitrarily decide whose transaction list to use as the system consensus for which transaction have actually taken place. (Random number between 1 and the number of validating peers)
2) Decide roughly when 10 minutes have passed.
It is basically a timer to help sync the global system consensus.

It no longer has anything to do with transactional security. The rest is pure marketing.

Red's whole argument is that this interaction makes miners superfluous entirely - if, de facto, the exchanges have the power to dictate the "true" chain, regardless of number of confirmations, then what's the point of wasting all this electricity and silicon on terahashes per second of mining power? Just ask the exchanges for their opinion on a transaction, and if they say, "yup, I saw that", you're good to go.

I need to think about exactly how to answer this.

So it goes like this: if the exchanges ever disagree about which chain is correct, or if they ever reorg, it puts them in regulatory liability. So they're incentivized to stay on the chain from before the reorg, even though it's not longest and may never be longest. At which point, since the miners/users must at least in theory be able to exchange their BTC for money on an exchange, they will be forced to follow the exchanges' favored chain as well.

So, at its most basic, it's the conflict between centralized accounting and chain reorg.

If there was an improvement in the technology that eliminated the need for exchanges, would it be enough to eliminate the dictator from the algorithm?

So we are to believe you have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in Bitcoin but don't see the issue here?

Surely the other way around. If the exchanges don't follow the miners, the transactions don't get processed.

Especially when Bitcoin becomes to be used more as a currency. Exchanges (too few though they are) are over-represented in the Bitcoin arena right now.

Which makes MtGox's exchange market dominance an even greater threat, not least because this situation gives them the means to freeze out competitors and cement their control over the whole Bitcoin market.

What exactly is the problem then?