Topic: Bitcoin vs FIAT distribution of wealth (Read 1068 times)
Wow very interesting
What's the conclusion you're trying to make here? Is it that the distribution isn't that bad (only 45 ppl with at the highest level)? Is it that bitcoin has wealth distribution inequality?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
i'm not aware of poor people that have done something significant and tangible in this era, inequality is good if the difference is negligeable and the poorer is not so poor
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
Certainly a valid point. The range of the inequality, how far between wealthiest and the poorest can be debated. And the propensity for the bell curve to be reversed where we have a high proportion at the low end of wealth and a high proportion at the high end is probably a better measure of how acceptable or unacceptable the inequality is...but the comfort to that spread will always be up for debate.
To your first comment, there's a lot of poor people that have done something tangible, something significant in this era. There are a lot of "rags to riches" stories. In a capitalist society the reward for doing something tangible or significant is wealth (in most cases...e.g., a social worker does great things but doesn't get paid much, so do many other fields). You can look a wealthy man today and find out where they started from and could find that they came from a very poor background with limited options and were able to work their way out of it.
And one thing that poor people could do that would be incredibly tangible would be to continue to share the inequality they feel in wealth distribution and how the options available to them may be unfair or out of reach.
Inequality is unavoidable, the distribution will always be uneven naturally unless you artificially alter it, and we don't want that right? Those that come first and take the bigger risks benefit the most, it's how it rolls. If you already own BTC you are ahead of a lot of people and in 10 years you will not be complaining about it when you are rich.
i'm not aware of poor people that have done something significant and tangible in this era, inequality is good if the difference is negligeable and the poorer is not so poor
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with Bitcoin distribution.
yeah it's possible that early adopters were poor people or not rich(i know at least one), but for sure now... they are not so poor anymore
the only thing true here is that there are few people with many bitcoin and many with few bitcoin, the rest is obviously a flawed assumption
i'm not aware of poor people that have done something significant and tangible in this era, inequality is good if the difference is negligeable and the poorer is not so poor
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with Bitcoin distribution.
What's the conclusion you're trying to make here? Is it that the distribution isn't that bad (only 45 ppl with at the highest level)? Is it that bitcoin has wealth distribution inequality?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
i'm not aware of poor people that have done something significant and tangible in this era, inequality is good if the difference is negligeable and the poorer is not so poor
but when you get a big discrepancy among many people and only few of them are wealthy enough and the others are like houseless, you have not a good scenario at all
What's the conclusion you're trying to make here? Is it that the distribution isn't that bad (only 45 ppl with at the highest level)? Is it that bitcoin has wealth distribution inequality?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
Wealth distribution will always exist unless a government forces those with more to give to those with less until all people are equal. Is this your point?
Wealth inequality isn't a bad thing, it's what motivates people to work, it's what motivates people to compete, it's what motivates people to innovate, and it's what motivates people to give. Isn't it better that these things occur at each person's will, rather than by force?
Both show extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth between rich and poor.
So wrong in so many ways.
1. The distribution of bitcoins is not the same as the distribution of wealth. There are thousands of wealthy people with 0 bitcoins. A poor person with just a few bitcoins would be in the top 10% of bitcoin wealth.
2. Those graphs are not real. There is no way to associate people with addresses.
3. The first graph is income, not wealth.
What is this based on? Do you have more recent data? Do you have a Gini coefficient for this?
I guess this was taken from bitcoinrichlist. There's no way to know who owns who exactly, it's all gross estimates. Of course there will be a lot of addresses with a lot of money, but you cant know if those addresses belong to the same person, if they belong to some sort of exchange or group, if those coins aren't lost forever (lost of people lost hard disks with thousands of coins that they had there stored when they were worthless, and realize they were millionaires but their hard disks were broken). Lots of randomly lost wallets in other random bad-luck events... you cant really tell what's up.
What is this based on? Do you have more recent data? Do you have a Gini coefficient for this?
People Bitcoins
430000 0.005
690000 0.05
550000 0.5
250000 5
68000 50
10000 500
820 5000
46 12500
Both show extremely disproportionate distribution of wealth between rich and poor.
Jump to: