Topic: Did Satoshi make any comments about the initial 'imbalance' of Bitcoin wealth? - page 3. (Read 3925 times)

Not to my knowledge.  It seems to me that he intentionally avoided the subject.  The closest example I have is:


As he was defending his newly published whitepaper to a critical James Donald and a supporting Hal Finney, Satoshi responded to many comments but chose to ignore this comment from Hal on 2009-01-11:

If every person on earth received 0.00300000 btc , and presuming it were accepted as a global currency as the result of this , then that would represent a "reset" of currency distribution with each and every man woman and child on earth getting a usable value of 3,000 to 300,000 current usd in spending power , depending on what you wanted to value a single satoshi at (pennies or dollars) , not 83 cents.

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. If I am effectively rendered a multi millionaire or god forbid a billionaire , I'll weep for I will have knowingly taken advantage of a flawed and wrongly distributed currency system that I will have benefited greatly from. I hope I would still value other human beings adequately to devote that wealth entirely to philanthropy.

I know and accept fully that I am currently unethically taking and have taken advantage of other people by mining , selling , and continuing to trade in bitcoin , knowing how utterly wrongly it was distributed and valuing and desiring a greater equality for humanity.

Clearly satoshi could have setup the software so that it would have more evenly distributed bitcoin to the people of earth - 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.

bitcoin will definitely not "fix" inequality (although whether that's something that needs fixing is another topic).

But I don't think bitcoin will contribute to more inequality, at least not by much. With every new technology or paradigm shift, there is always people who are minted as the new elite, and as time passes, they or their descendants will eventually be incompetent and lose most or all of their wealth. This cycle has been going on forever, and I don't think it'll stop any time soon. Perhaps it will in the far future when we have true abundance, but not now.

Bitcoin is just a new thing that will make some people rich, but it's not going to change the overall distribution landscape by that much. After all, whether fiat money or bitcoins, they're just a very small portion of the world's total wealth. With or without bitcoins, some people will earn money, other people will lose money.



@12345mm:

One mistake you are making is taking a snapshot of an ever changing distribution. Because fiat has been around for a long time, it is stable, relatively speaking. Bitcoin is not.

If you take a look at the blockchain in 2008, you could say bitcoin is a lot fairer than fiat, since everyone has the same amount (0). You could also take a look at when the first few blocks were mined, and see that all the bitcoins were owned by one person. It has infinite inequality.

But we see that the distribution of bitcoins is very different now than it was in 2008 and 2009, and it will continue to change significantly. Taking a simple snap shot of the current distribution is not necessarily indicative of the future distribution.

I think you're putting to much thought into it, you're worried how it will all work out 50 years from now IF bitcoin becomes a global currency.

Your *conservative* estimates are for today (and are really more opinion than estimate) and there is an ocean of water that needs to go under the bridge before we get to anywhere near to where we may have an actual problem.  

If bitcoin has taught me anything it is that predicting the future is a game for fool's (myself included whenever I try).  You are probably right though, bitcoin is not going to address global inequity but you can't really blame bitcoin for that, if anything, bitcoin addressing the issue that 2-3 billion people in the world cannot access the financial systems may help.

But yeah, bitcoin is probably not going to fix it.

Honestly I'm not trying to come across as angry if it seems that way , but when trying to make a point I will be as forceful as possible.

It is possible for anyone to get frustrated when explaining basic math principles and concepts.

I type quickly and carelessly as the thoughts flow.

People need to understand what exactly it is that they're supporting when they're supporting bitcoin: a "currency" system that is orders of magnitude worse than the already extreme wealth disparity on earth.

It's a currency system that , with *conservative* estimates I made , is 35000X less egalitarian than the existing global wealth disparity , and 175000X less egalitarian than the existing global fiat currency distribution.

I do not see how anyone can ethically support such a thing.

I absolutely do stand to benefit from an increased price of bitcoin , as I do hold a quantity of them , and far greater than 0.003 , and have profited from the existence of bitcoin.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Perhaps. Does it make me unethical as well? You bet.

Does humanity need a system orders of magnitude worse than the current system and do I deserve to be massively benefited from it? I don't think so.

And I don't think pointing out the extreme disparity of distribution in bitcoin vs existing wealth structures is wrong - it's honest.

If bitcoins were distributed equally and fairly to everyone in the world (the ideal, right?), then each person would get about 0.003 BTC, worth about $0.83. In other words, a fair distribution of bitcoins would do nothing.

In fact, if you are complaining about the unfair distribution of bitcoins and you own more than 0.003 BTC, then you are a hypocrite.

Much, if you are trying to get a point across at least do the decency of not making it appear like a childish angry rant.  You should really try to to better.


You are almost certainly right to a degree, you're exaggeration and hyperbole don't add much to your argument though, if you feel this strongly about it you should get some actual numbers instead of doing wild guesses.

That said, probably less that 1,000,000 people have bitcoin at all.  Add that to the fact that there will only ever be 21 million of them you can say with some degree of certainty that less than 4-5 million people will own over 1 bitcoin. 

Where will it go?  Who knows (you certainly dont) we are very early in the development of bitcoin, we have not even had a "Global Money/Debt Crisis" yet.

no logical argument in rebuttal to my words , so criticize grammar structure ... good one ... my sentences were too long / improperly hammered out ? aww ... is this better ?

Assuming that the world's wealthy hold most , let's say 90%+ of their "wealth" in physical assets such as real estate , office buildings , %s of companies represented as stocks , private jets , and rare cars , and the world's rest of the population is at best 1/2 and 1/2 between assets and currency held it's very clear that the distribution of btc the currency vs distribution of fiat currencies is actually even far worse than distribution of btc currency vs global wealth , percentage wise.

I tried looking online for the percentages of currency held by people but can only find it stated in terms of wealth , which of course includes physical assets.

But let's just use 1/2 currency 1/2 asset for the bulk of the global population who hold half of the world's wealth and 10:1 as the ratio for currency held vs assets of the world's wealthy elite who have the other half.

Then you can multiply the disparity in the btc system vs the disparity of the global fiat currency system as not 35000X worse (which would include all physical assets) , but instead multiply that by what ?

By 5X even worse.

So btc is *175,000X worse distributed than the fiat currency of the earth's population (not counting physical assets).

My god.

Now say that with paragraphs.

assuming that the world's wealthy hold most , let's say 90%+ of their "wealth" in physical assets such as real estate office buildings %s of companies represented as stocks private jets and rare cars , and the world's rest of the population is at best 1/2 and 1/2 between assets and currency held ... it's very clear that the distribution of btc the currency vs distribution of fiat currencies is actually even far worse than distribution of btc currency vs global wealth , percentage wise ... i tried looking online for the percentages of currency held by people but can only find it stated in terms of wealth , which of course includes physical assets ... but let's just use 1/2 currency 1/2 asset for the bulk of the global population who hold half of the worlds wealth and 10:1 as the ratio for currency held vs assets of the world's wealthy elite who have the other half ... then you can multiply the disparity in the btc system vs the disparity of the global fiat currency system as not 35000X worse (which would include all physical assets) ... but instead multiply that by what ? 5X even worse ... so btc is *175,000X worse distributed than the fiat currency of the earth's population ? (not counting physical assets) ... my god ...

What can YOU do about it? Is Bitcoin a magical solution to the world's problems? Should Satoshi sprinkle his wizard dust across the globe like a "More You Know" commercial and cure the world of suffering? The people who created and invested in Bitcoin deserve to get rich because it's their idea and money. But in the big picture, Bitcoin doesn't put a dent into the world's money and politics anyway. Money doesn't solve everything.

You're so angry.

Asside from that don't you think they way you want change things would have other consequences?

One of the top of my head is that we would not have had this sudden increase in mining securing the network, what is the point in mining now if in a few years the same amount of work will reap more rewards?  There are other repercussions that come to mind.  I really don't think you have thought it through.

yeah, it's valid in some context, but it's not valid comparing btc distribution and fiat distribution, and then using stats for the total wealth distribution as the stats for fiat distribution. Also, comparison btc distribution and saying it creates more wealth disparity isn't necessary correct, because bitcoins are a part of total wealth distribution.

I'm not making a comment on the conclusion of these comparisons, it might be correct, it might be not, but either way, the logic to compare it is flawed.

comparing btc distribution to global wealth distribution is a valid perspective if we're talking global population and mass adoption percentages ... and by what you're saying it would actually be *even worse* in terms of disparity since fiat wealth only makes up a fraction of total worth held by the wealthy 1% of humanity ... it'd therefore render the distribution of bitcoin vs fiat currency distribution far far worse than 35000X less equitably distributed ! ... it could be even worse by an additional factor of 10x to 100x ! (if you ignore physical assets and only count liquid currency of the world's wealthy) ...

You're not getting my point. Bill Gates can donate away all his fiat money except a $100 dollar bill. He will be fiat poor, but he's still wealthy because most of his money is in microsoft stocks and such, NOT in fiat.

A person can own 1 dollar and be worth more than someone with 1000 dollars. If we're comparing bitcoin to fiat, then bringing in the total WEALTH distribution is a logical fallacy that makes the comparison meaningless. You're comparing apples to poker cards.

Show me this "freely available info" of how much fiat currency Bill Gates or Warren buffet or the top 1% holds.

Theoretically even with an extremely uneven distribution of fiat or bitcoin, the total wealth distribution can still be fair, given that bitcoin-rich people are asset poor, and bitcoin-poor people are all asset rich. Yes, this is obviously not the case and won't be, it's simply to illustrate that you can't compare bitcoins to total wealth.

You can also have every single person in the worth having the exact same amount of fiat and bitcoins, and the wealth distribution can still be incredibly skewed because some people are asset rich some are asset poor.

Besides, your idea of "better" isn't necessarily the objective truth. Your idea of better isn't necessarily what everyone else wants.

oh bbbbut ... bitcoin ... global currency ... yeah ... 1000 people with 1/4 of all wealth makes a lot better sense than 70,000,000 people with 1/2 of all wealth ... bitcoin is literally , and i mean math literally , 35000X worse distributed than current global fiat wealth in terms of earth's population ... 35000X worse than the "unfair" disparity that already exists between the world's wealthy and all those rest of the peoples of earth ... it seems totally right to me that the wealthy elite multibillionaires of this world should instead be 35000X more wealthy than they already are vs starving people ... sign me up ... global adoption here we come !

Sooner or later the whales sell and spread their stash among the little guys.

And getting better by the day, while fiat wealth distribution is getting worse by the day.

You don't have to "bet" anything, because this information is freely available at your fingertips. And no, it's most definitely NOT getting better.

We're forgetting that that is a distribution of income, not fiat.

I bet the distribution of 'fiat' is actually quite "fair", since most people with a lot of wealth will buy assets such as real estate and stocks, instead of keeping fiat.

Other than the distribution for Bitcoins being far, far worse than fiat is distributed?