Topic: Did Satoshi make any comments about the initial 'imbalance' of Bitcoin wealth? - page 2. (Read 3925 times)

Four years ago, $43 worth of bitcoins were distributed every 10 minutes. Currently, $7,000 worth of bitcoins are distributed every 10 minutes.

That seems extremely unfair to the "early" adopters.

The bitcoin was worth very little initially. So the actual worth of the distributed coins increases with time. In your example, 210,240 produced in the next 2 years is more than double the value of the first 105,120 in the first 2 years if the price of bticoin increases.

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 ...

In the early days of bitcoin 7200 were produced per day for a couple dollars in electricity on basic cpus on household computers by a few dozen individuals - it certainly did not cost hundreds to produce a coin or two per month - it was not until years later that such a ratio was reached , at which time millions upon millions were already produced for next to nothing.

It's woefully obvious to me it was created with the express intent of extreme distribution inequality as opposed to egalitarian distribution. What else could be the result of having so few people involved in the beginning combined with such a high initial payout and complete lack of public awareness ?

be that with low values increasing over time as would have been best in my opinion and example i provided , or even with merely a low set constant value which also would have been better in terms of fairer distribution. He chose not to , opting instead for a distribution pattern that was quite the opposite of what would be considered fair or egalitarian to most people , to the potential extreme detriment of society.

I'll be alive 50 years from now to see how it all turns out (barring an early grave from cancer, heart attack, bear attack, etc) , so the future implications of this technology concern me greatly and I am extremely worried about the severity of unequal distribution.