Modern fiat money distribution is magnitudes worse than bitcoin: A few guys own the central bank get ownership of every newly created dollar, and old dollars are backed by gold which is also hold by the same people, the number of these bankers are a few. The people who made those fiat money wealth statistics typically don't even understand how fiat money works
Money is only one type of wealth, holding a lot of bitcoin only grant some part of the whole bitcoin ecosystem's value, you are still investing in an unknown possibility
And, the top address in bitcoin are mostly mining farm/pool account or exchanges account, the coins in those accounts are typically collectively owned by thousands of users
Topic: How can Bitcoin be a society changer with current distribution of wealth? - page 2. (Read 4397 times)
January 07, 2015, 08:35:01 PM
January 07, 2015, 08:12:57 PM
There are coins which tried to set the distribution to an equal amount for one person (e.g. Auroracoin for Iceland). Then there are coins like NEM which tried to make the initial distribution as equal and widespread as possible by distributing the coins for free at first and then for a small amount of BTC, removing sockpuppets, and setting a limit of stakes per NXT account.
The skewed distribution of Bitcoin wealth is a legitimate concern but it's not something that we can really change. They are the early adopters who took the risk and invested/mined when the BTC was worth pennies while the rest of the world watched and laughed. Besides, most of the earliest adopters were libertarian computer geeks like Satoshi and Hal Finney and I guess it's better to have them in control of the majority of the world's wealth than the bankers and politicians of today.
The skewed distribution of Bitcoin wealth is a legitimate concern but it's not something that we can really change. They are the early adopters who took the risk and invested/mined when the BTC was worth pennies while the rest of the world watched and laughed. Besides, most of the earliest adopters were libertarian computer geeks like Satoshi and Hal Finney and I guess it's better to have them in control of the majority of the world's wealth than the bankers and politicians of today.
January 07, 2015, 06:49:11 PM
Someone comment on the divisibility of bitcoin.
January 07, 2015, 06:29:05 PM
The problem is not the price, or the divisibility: the matter is that few people control more than 50% of the purchasing power that the whole btc economy will ever have.
I do not like this centralization of purchasing power.
I do not like this centralization of purchasing power.
I can understand you don't like it but how is that an actual problem? I keep reading "the odds are stacked against you" and things like that but it's not like we need to fight to death with each other, or do we?
January 07, 2015, 06:24:00 PM
I really don't see the problem here.
Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter? Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed.
If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around. It is all good.
And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities. And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally. Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.
Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.
Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter? Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed.
If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around. It is all good.
And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities. And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally. Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.
Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.
The problem is not the price, or the divisibility: the matter is that few people control more than 50% of the purchasing power that the whole btc economy will ever have.
I do not like this centralization of purchasing power.
January 07, 2015, 06:17:00 PM
I really don't see the problem here.
Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter? Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed.
If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around. It is all good.
And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities. And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally. Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.
Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.
Yes, there are a few who own a disproportionally large amount of Bitcoin, but why does that matter? Bitcoin is divisible down to one millionth or a Satoshi, and there is further subdivision capability if needed.
If the "bitcoin rich" just hold on to it, the value of the rest of the circulated bitcoin will rise, and if they spend it then they are spreading the wealth around. It is all good.
And forced redistribution of wealth has led to history's worst atrocities. And in reality, the numbers won't make anyone rich or do anything but buy a month or two of living if all wealth were redistributed equally. Volume of exchanges and class MOBILITY is what matters, and that involves a free market, which I assumed Bitcoin represented.
Stop with the class warfare neo-marxism crap.
January 07, 2015, 05:27:36 PM
That's why it would had been better to start denominating things in bitcoin before wide adoption, not using it from the start as a speculative asset 
You figure out a way to do that, and the world will beat a path to your door. Oh yeah - I see the smiley now.
Quote
The distribution could be not exactly what the OP showed, but I think it is unquestionable it is largely unequal among users.
Yet unlike fiat, no one is, nor ever has been, barred from participating. Can't get any more egalitarian than that.
January 07, 2015, 05:23:35 PM
the wealth distribution is worse than in any other currency, correct.
I didn't read Elwar's comments but i believe it's safe to put him on ignore.
I didn't read Elwar's comments but i believe it's safe to put him on ignore.
January 07, 2015, 05:21:35 PM
I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good.
Did it occur to you that the "dabblers" might think they own coin by having some in an exchange account, thus contributing to a megawallet somewhere. Then the enthusiastic adopters have been giving out 0.001-0.1 BTC paper wallets and tips all over the place, thus expanding the ranks of the BTC "poor" rather than BTC destitute (having none).
So with the possibility that multi thousand BTC wallets represent the combined holdings of several thousand people, and also that one person may control thousands of wallets, I don't see why it should bother me at present.
A couple of years back if you gave 100 BTC to a wealthier guy and a poorer guy, what do you think happened? The wealthy guy said gee thanks, and put it away, the poorer guy needed the money shortly afterward and cashed it in for a couple of hundred bucks. So even if you GIVE it out equitably it doesn't stay equitable.
That's why it would had been better to start denominating things in bitcoin before wide adoption, not using it from the start as a speculative asset
The distribution could be not exactly what the OP showed, but I think it is unquestionable it is largely unequal among users. Few people detain a lot of the total purchasing power that bitcoin could ever have, this is not good imo. I'm not saying that I have a simple solution, only that this is the aspect that I less like about bitcoin.
January 07, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good. If you see bitcoin as a commodity this is acceptable, it is not if u see it as an aspiring global currency.
Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.
I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.
Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.
I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.
Minimal risk? There has never been a point in Bitcoin's history where the risk of failure was less than it is now. If the price of a bitcoin rises to $3000, are you going to give away 90% of your bitcoins? After all, you got them with minimal risk.
I suggest that you create a coin whose distribution is fair and gains by early adopters are limited. If you are correct, then everyone will abandon Bitcoin and invest in your coin because it is better for them and everyone else.
January 07, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
I understand fully well that BTC is and how a system like this could benefit society. What I am asking is how in its current form would it benefit society? In case you missed his ending statement, here it is one more time for you:
Dude. The answer is obviously 42.
All Hitchhiker's Guide jokes aside, both you and General_A continue ranting rather than respond to the excellent points made in response #42 of this thread made by Death and Taxes. Until you digest those points and figures, and respond to them specifically, you'll likely get nothing but that same answers you find unsatisfying -- because you keep harping on the exact same whine.
January 07, 2015, 05:02:51 PM
I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good.
Did it occur to you that the "dabblers" might think they own coin by having some in an exchange account, thus contributing to a megawallet somewhere. Then the enthusiastic adopters have been giving out 0.001-0.1 BTC paper wallets and tips all over the place, thus expanding the ranks of the BTC "poor" rather than BTC destitute (having none).
So with the possibility that multi thousand BTC wallets represent the combined holdings of several thousand people, and also that one person may control thousands of wallets, I don't see why it should bother me at present.
A couple of years back if you gave 100 BTC to a wealthier guy and a poorer guy, what do you think happened? The wealthy guy said gee thanks, and put it away, the poorer guy needed the money shortly afterward and cashed it in for a couple of hundred bucks. So even if you GIVE it out equitably it doesn't stay equitable.
January 07, 2015, 04:45:08 PM
I am really surprised that so many experienced users claim the unequal distribution of bitcoin to be not so bad, or even good. If you see bitcoin as a commodity this is acceptable, it is not if u see it as an aspiring global currency.
Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.
I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.
Our current unequal FIAT distributon is the result of centuries of exploittation and social unfairness, bitcoin achieved a worst result in 6 years. Why? Because it was needed to compensate the risk taken by early adopters by overvalutate their coins by 10000%? How much did they risk? Some hours of household hardware mining? Like now, with the current price, the unequal btc distribution reflect also the pre-existing buying power unequity, but I suppose this is mostly due to earyl adoption.
I just love bitcoin, but I don't like that few people already hold a large stash of the total bitcoin that will ever exist, and they got them with minimal risk.
January 07, 2015, 03:21:33 PM
how could this current system of BTC change the problems associated with the existing system. ... Its fine if you don't answer or don't want to answer or don't feel its any one duties to answer and innovators should sort all the nitty gritty stuff out, but that's not going to cut it with 97% of the population out there.
So fine, if you want to just ignore obvious questions that people would have about the implementation of BTC so be it, its no hair of my back.
So fine, if you want to just ignore obvious questions that people would have about the implementation of BTC so be it, its no hair of my back.
Quote
- Poor people are those, who pay the highest fees. With Bitcoin everybody pays the same(small) fees.
- A bank can freeze your account. If you don't have the money to pay a lawyer, there is not much you can do about it. Nobody can freeze your Bitocoin.
- A country can increase inflation by printing money. Most of the time the rich are better informed about it and they have a lot of their money in assets anyways. It's the poor, who get hit by that, not so with Bitcoin.
- A bank can freeze your account. If you don't have the money to pay a lawyer, there is not much you can do about it. Nobody can freeze your Bitocoin.
- A country can increase inflation by printing money. Most of the time the rich are better informed about it and they have a lot of their money in assets anyways. It's the poor, who get hit by that, not so with Bitcoin.
Quote
I live in Germany working for a US company that pays me in dollars. Thanks to bitwage.co I can get paid in bitcoins. Thanks to localbitcoins I can turn those bitcoins into euros. This conversion actually nets me more money than I am paid in dollars because of the high demand for bitcoins for cash. I like the ease of buying things online with bitcoins instead of giving all of my credit card information, making sure I use whatever address they need to match up to my credit card, make sure my credit card isn't cancelled because I used it in some foreign country without calling the credit card company.
I like that my bitcoins are not run by a central authority who needs war and violence to continue its operation. That my bitcoins are not a currency that is on the hook for over $18 trillion in debt and climbing. I like that I can go to Prague for the weekend and spend bitcoins without paying for the high conversion cost to the local currency.
I like that my bitcoins are not run by a central authority who needs war and violence to continue its operation. That my bitcoins are not a currency that is on the hook for over $18 trillion in debt and climbing. I like that I can go to Prague for the weekend and spend bitcoins without paying for the high conversion cost to the local currency.
Quote
There is no scenario where Bitcoin will be worth tens of trillions of dollars and the same x people control 62% (your claim) of that. It is a self solving problem.
January 07, 2015, 03:17:50 PM
Everyone's making interesting points - now I am off to the pub. First round is on me.
- now I am off to the pub. First round is on me. 
January 07, 2015, 03:07:18 PM
I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly.
There is no monopoly. You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means. You can mine new coins right now. You can sell goods or services for Bitcoins. You can take some of your non crypto wealth and trade it for Bitcoins. There is no monopoly to access.
January 07, 2015, 03:05:01 PM
Some people tell me that the 44 million impoverished "average joes" there would be better served by a proof of stake model....
January 07, 2015, 03:03:45 PM
I would like to be a champion of equality in terms of wealth distribution but sadly there is no such thing in this world. The world that we live in, in reality rewards those that seek opportunities, took the risk, be early adopters, smart, innovative and like it or not that is how it goes. Nevertheless, rather than trying to focus on wealth distribution just concentrate on the technology and innovation and how we can use bitcoin to our advantage.
Is this honestly how we are going to sell BTC to society? People are looking for real change. I am not trying to sell BTC to society. Society is what got us here in the first place.
Bitcoin is for me. It makes my life easier. If this is not true for you, do not use it. Enjoy your notes.
+1
I believe those commies should get a bit of their own medicine, i.e. guns and theft. That would cure them. Or perhaps it wouldn't.
January 07, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
Just for your information, I had no disillusions, the primary reason for writing is after reading numerous books on the subject. My argument focuses in on a scenario where a fiat society transfers to a btc society. In the aftermath the owners of mass fortunes can in effect buy out the world.
If the owners of mass fortunes can buy out the world in a BTC society, why can't they do it now? Or, do you consider it already done, and are looking for a way to return to an equitable distribution?
January 07, 2015, 02:50:33 PM
For example, we might say Bill Gates has Billions of Dollars, but he may actually only own a thousand in actual issued circulating US currency at this particular point in time, he might have a few hundred thousand on a bank ledger somewhere, but still the bulk of his "wealth" is in the share valuation of Microsoft still, one would think, though he may have other holdings.
Jump to: