Topic: Did Satoshi make any comments about the initial 'imbalance' of Bitcoin wealth? (Read 3925 times)

sorry i don't bookmark alot on mobile.  but as an example see above.
"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"

Source?

From my POV, Daniel has taken the most risk, because he haid to invest the most (by miles).

But if Daniel inherited the money that he used to buy the bitcoins, does that mean his risk is lower? After all, the bitcoin effectively cost him nothing.

From my POV, Daniel has taken the most risk, because he haid to invest the most (by miles).

What kind of risk did the folks that mined tens of thousands of coins in the early days with CPU mining take?

There is no "imbalance" of Bitcoin wealth. Those who work hardest and risks the most first, generally reap (read: earn) the greatest rewards from their risk, investment and work, just like wealth creation and management outside of Bitcoin world. If you want increased Bitcoin wealth, work harder and invest more for it. People who talk about Bitcoin/wealth "imbalance" act like irrational, spoiled and entitled people. We are entitled to nothing, People using this language all to often are simply jealous because they failed to self start and lack drive, ambition, hard work ethic and are to fearful to dive into risky endeavors.

Well what would be "ideal"? There is no such thing I'm afraid.

You can't just disconnect money (a medium of exchange) with goods/services that it represents. Imagine a barter system, how would you prevent the motivated and business savvy from accumulating wealth? I think the answer is that you can't and that's perfectly ok. What is needed is take away the power of law to legally force a currency on people. That is what BTC represents, the decentralization of power, not the complete removal of wealth from those who are driven enough in life to accumulate it. You can be powerful by accumulating assets, but that is a huge difference from using state power in tandem with your wealth. Cronyism is what I'd like to see diminished.

This thread is not intended to bash (or spread fear about) the next generation of elite humans who will (probably) attain staggering wealth with their pile of Bitcoins:
Did Satoshi make public comments about the initial distribution of Bitcoins? I am curious if he addressed the subject, and I know we have some great historians and "Satoshi experts" around here. Also, If there are any quotes, please feel free to discuss the content.

Edit: To be more specific:
I'm not asking if Satoshi gave technical mining tips.
Did he discuss the fact that some early users would become "elite" with large amounts of Bitcoins and the affects that could have later?

And, considering that no one complains about continuous imbalance of fiat money ownership (central banks own every newly created fiat money, thus 100% of base money belongs to them originally), why should we care about bitcoin's small imbalance

he was quite happy with it as he told early members that they would all be rich

This doesn't make sense to me, perhaps you can explain. What's the volume of coins distributed every ten minutes? If it's not the same between the four years ago reference and the currently reference the comparison is meaningless....like comparing apples to horses.

Dude, the thread you link to, while historic, has about 3 posts after Satoshi started it and NONE of the replies or discussion beyond the OP are from Satoshi. Why do you think this offers any insight into what Satoshi thought about the prospective growth of bitcoin and how the potential for wealth inequality?

No, don't "bring it on".

The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.

I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy.  You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.

The kicker is everyone goes on about how fair it is when you look more closely its just changing the bankers for the lucky early adopters which is a shame. Do not get me wrong i am in it either way as it is better than the old system but it is far from ideal

OP:


This is the closest I can find about the topic:

"In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value"

"So in other words, "the early adopter finds the worm" in this system"


They were talking about it here:


http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source

if he wanted to actually create an egalitarian currency of the people and wanted it to be as widely distributed and as fairly distributed as possible ... it would have been possible to ... for example ... just using a simplified number ... make the initial blocks worth 1 btc per 10 minute block and have that double , rather than halve , every 2 years until reaching a certain cutoff point to accomplish the same number of total coins and assuring a much fairer distribution in the process ... with this example this would have allowed for 6 coins per hour , 144 coins per day , and 52,560 coins per year produced for a total of 105,120 in the first 2 years , 210,240 produced in the next 2 years , 420,480 produced in the next 2 years , etc etc ... that would have allowed for today there be less than 1 million coins in existence with the remaining 20 million still yet to be mined and at a predictable rate and with the same total number of coins (more or less , depending on the cutoff point chosen and programmed into the software) ... it would also allowed for all of the coins to be created a helluva lot sooner than 2140 or whatever it's supposed to be for all of them to come into existence as in within our lifetimes ... how it was setup was instead 300 coins per hour , 7200 coins per day , 2,628,000 coins per year at the start ... which seems like a fair distribution method allowing for public awareness and evenly distributed coins ? ... 52,560 produced at the start per year or 2,628,000 produced at the start per year ? ... he knew exactly what he was doing in terms of assuring imbalance ... and since it was supposedly an experiment and they were valued so low / at zero value , what would have been the harm doing it that fairer way ? ... initial value argument is irrelevant flawed logic in terms of distribution imbalance ...

He had a lot to say about the imbalance of wealth. He said it with the bitcoin protocol. There is no imbalance of wealth in BTC. The poorest or wealthiest people in the world are free to jump in. Being rich gives you no advantage the way it does with fiat.