Topic: Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family - page 2. (Read 11718 times)

I think this is an interesting proposal but most likely a flawed one. The flaw I see is that you have to bind the issuance curve to time and not difficulty in order to insure the top limit and scarcity, so it would take a very long time for any Bitcoins to exist. So there would be a big question of whether or not the early adopters would have had enough incentive to actually participate for such a long time and make what we have now possible if they knew that what they were getting in the first third or so of your suggested Sigmoid issuance curve was going to get wiped out down the road with significant increase in inflation(expansion of the supply). Would they really invest the time and costs to ultimately get nothing in return?

Besides I don't understand what people think Satoshi could possibly do with all his Bitcoins? Don't you understand that if he tried to cash out even a tenth of his million or how ever many he has, he'd completely crash the price and could never sell all of them at current spot. So I can't imagine why he'd ever do that aside from trying to destroy what he had created. I know that if I had that many I wouldn't try and crash their worth by flooding the market, I'd try to keep them and maybe only slowly sell a small amount to maintain their price and my net worth.

I think the biggest reason people have such a hard time with the way Bitcoin came into existence is because they live in this weird upside down false paradigm of the real world where conmen run the monetary system, the central banks, the government and the big banking corporations. You simply can't see the reality because of being immersed in the system you live in which is a total and complete fraud and that being the reason there's such high wealth distribution disparity. You just don't understand that it's the system we have in the real world is what made it possible and is the real con and that the Bitcoin system is nothing like it and therefor not a con but perfectly legitimate.

You are right about differentiating inventors and miners however early adopters (including miners) lifted it off the ground when it was needed.
I have heard of projects that never took off because they wanted to solve too many problems.
Bitcoin is a technology for decentralized transactions and storing value.
It enables breaking the monopoly of the banking system. Thats a huge achievement.

It does not solve the problem of temporal distortion (early adopters benefit more than future generations).
I consider it acceptable if future generations of users live with the freedom to choose if and when they need the service of a third party to manage their transactions.

Never heard of Bitcoin back then, same as 99% of the population. Bitcoin was announced on a cryptography mailing list.

The guys who started the whole thing? No, you didn’t get the mining rewards for starting it or programming anything, you got it for being there and leaving your computer on like many do for free for projects like folding@home.

Also, I just suggested what I think would have been a better distribution method/curve and therefore answered your question.

One more thing …

A bit more? knightmb is known to own (or have owned) 375k BTC. Satoshi himself likely has a multiple of that. I don’t think giving them such a large percentage of the whole supply is just "a bit more".

Why ? Why werent you mining then ?
Personnally I have no problem with the fact that the guys who started the whole thing may have profited from their invention a bit more than the followers.

I do have a problem with the banking system stuffing their pockets with everybody else's wealth because there is a single currency policy AND a monopoly of monetary creation: bankers never invented anything useful but more ways for themselves  to get richer and richer.

Sigmoid curve. Natural resource depletion.

Difficulty was 1 for over a year. Yet the BTC output was as high as it is now. Distribution sucks because of that.

Naive? That is why the plan was for the NPO to take control of everything and be protected in appropriate ways. The government wouldn't see SolidCoin as a threat yet, it's a minnow compared to Bitcoin, and by the time Bitcoin dies and SolidCoin is very successful there will be a NPO and "proper precautions" taken. If you don't know how to do the latter it is probably why you don't understand the security inherent in the SolidCoin system. It is why there is a CPF, coin PROTECTION fund. It's going to protect the network and its users.

We will do our best to survive government and large corporation attacks, that is what we are charged with doing over here. No one can guarantee you security but the bitcoin system is wide open for an attack. Your assumptions they actually have to get their hands dirty in kidnapping, torturing and etc shows you it's one step beyond "buy FPGA, kill bitcoin" .

I never started SolidCoin thinking at one stage it wouldn't get violent, that's what will happen, at some point, if we are successful. And we need to be ready for it.

I think I can convince you.  Do you own research and try to answer these two questions. 

1) How many bitcoins are in circulation? 

2) How many US dollars are in circulation? 

To answer the first question is pretty easy and can be done with 100% accuracy.  To answer the second one with 100% accuracy is impossible.  People study economics for decades at fancy schools and try to make good guesses.  Even the super-secret shadow bank kings can't really know.   

I cant see Satoshi sending men with guns to my house but I can damn well see my local gov doing so.

Seriously CoinHunter, it takes a lot less than 10 million for a government to find your true identity. They will then force you (maybe even torture you) to give up the identity of the trusted nodes and shut Solidcoin down. And I'm sure there are technical ways to take Solidcoin down by isolating the IPs of the trusted nodes and taking them down that way. I can't believe you are so naive as to think that your solution (centralizing the creation of every other block to trusted nodes and hiding the trusted nodes) is safer than bitcoin's decentralized solution. For your sake, I hope that Solidcoin never takes off. At least Satoshi would not need to fear for his safety when Bitcoin becomes a threat to the current monetary system.

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?

Probably this point has already been made many times, but Bitcoin has two distinct advantages over fiat money in the context that you are asking (debt slavery etc).

1. No central bank has the authority to print money wiping out everybody's savings and setting interest rates to 0%.

2. Even when gold was money, very few controlled the mining of gold or even had the ability to safely store and protect large amount. So inevitably a majority of gold would end up with the few.

With bitcoin, it is very easy to store and protect large amounts, to transfer it anywhere you want, and nobody can take it from you by printing more. So of course some people are going to be much richer than others, but the ability to earn more bitcoins will hopefully be proportionate to how well you serve other people, in the long run, and not how clever you are in hijacking the financial system and its loopholes. I really think/hope that will be the key difference.

Exactly. Why censor yourself? A clear sign of a conflicted point of view.

I'm not there to convince you, I can't do that. Only you can change your own perspective, and it's not by using force, or thoughtful argument with sources and proof that I'm going to change that. Religious people prove it everyday. How many died for their belief? And a tons of good arguments made by atheists against religion never convinced them to change their beliefs. It even strengthened their belief because they feel "attacked".

All I can offer you is, my humble perspective on the situation. Me, as a human and a citizen of this world, I see things that way. I'll always be wrong for you, because I don't share the same point of view. The only thing I can hope is that you try to understand my point of view.

Oh wasn´t it you lately saying: The history is irrelevant.
How comes you suddenly bother about mine?

Keep in mind, wrong assumptions allow you to deduce anything. That is how an indirect proof works.
So be aware, by rejecting some of my assumptions you might support my point.

Why should anybody waste their time at all researching your project? I wasted several hours inspecting it, and anything at all didn't convince me.

And it really pisses me off that you are here promoting your scammy project here. You already have your own section in this forum, and your own forum, why don't you use it.

LOL, what are you 5 years old? THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE.

All you can do is minimize the risks. Right now every fking thug in a blue costume with a gun rapes and plunders people on a daily basis. EVERY person is subjected to the crime of theft via taxes and many are subjected to the crime of more theft or even kidnapping because they happen to break one of the arbitrary rules the government mafia decided it will enforce. Not to mention the petty criminals stealing and raping only because they know the worst they could face is some jail time..

Do you really believe this would be possible if every person on the planet carried a weapon and valued their self-ownership of their body and their life more than being alive?

I'm much rather bare the risk we shoot and kill each other once in a while and live truly free the majority of my time alive than being a debt/monetary slave for life.

It starts with if. Are they? If yes? Who will provide that guarantee?

+1

Not by themselves alone, no. But you forgot I also spoke about their availability. If EVERYONE has a weapon, no one will use violence anymore. Why would they if they are guaranteed to die.

I don´t get you. Do you blame them for having a clear view on reality plus making use of it?
Ok, making use of it is probably unethical, but that is just mine and pretty unlikely their opinion.

Ok for me if that is your assertion. But it fails on my perception.

Better weapons do not stop violence:
Look at India and Pakistan, both whilst having the bomb are on war (for decades now).