Topic: How can Bitcoin be a society changer with current distribution of wealth? - page 3. (Read 4397 times)

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.

Irrespective of this you make some excellent points, I will let them digest and sink in and I will let you know what I think.   

If the goal is an equitable distribution of wealth through money, then the value of a currency would have to be proportional to the wealth of the person owning it. That way as money is exchanged, the wealth distribution is re-balanced to be equitable.

You should consider the ramifications: For example, wealthy people would only trade with other wealthy people in order to maintain their wealth. A more likely outcome would be that wealthy people would simply use a different currency.

I frequently see a confusion between wealth and money.

If a single person owned all the money in the world, they would be quite wealthy, but they would only own a small fraction of all the wealth in the world. Money is a store of value, but it doesn't store all the wealth in the world. FYI, a person owning all the bitcoins would be wealthy, but they would not be the wealthiest person in the world.

Interesting to note, thank you. Is there anyway to confirm if Satoshi has not sold?

In my opinion - and I don't mean any offense - but its exactly this kind of attitude from BTC adopters that is actually going to stop BTC becoming mainstream. The points I made are extremely valid, that is if the world was to adopt BTC tomorrow, how could BTC help the little man with such distribution? You would surely end up with a few people with all the power and the rest without?

BTC adapters often point to BTC benefits for society and how it can help us rid the world of the evil fiat system. All I have done is turned this argument back on its head and said so how could this current system of BTC change the problems associated with the existing system. This is a question that has to be addressed and competently by adopters of this community if we actually want BTC to lead to real change. 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. But I really wouldn't go around betting that BTC is going to take on the world if your not prepared to take on the responsibility of BTC taking on the world.  

~ Rant Over

BTW, I'm not a "coin aggregator" I've got maybe 50 addresses counted in categories an order of magnitude below my total holding.... oh and a fraction on some exchanges, so probably part of one of the megawallets. Also a portion of Bitminters megawallet is "mine", that I can transfer at will, empty it about weekly usually.

edit: and I just realised that Satoshi probably isn't in the top 3 there, last I heard his holdings were all in single address 50 coin units, so he would account for some 19,000 or so of the wallets in the 10-100 range.

Ok, I see that you are not really here to discuss the benefits of Bitcoin so I will leave you to your fiat. But if you look at any monopoly, their only existence is due to government force. I believe the solution you seek is guns and violence. Those are the only ways to bring "fair" distribution (and by fair, I mean fair as defined by the people with the guns).

Bitcoin is not a monopoly owned by a single entity. You could buy a bitcoin right now and no one person would own 100% of it.

I re-post my initial reaction to your OP with the appropriate image:

Lets continue at 10-100 the number of wallets stands at 115,281 and a combined wealth of 94.49%. This staggering wealth is owned by just 7.11% of the Bitcoin world.

Standard oil got called a monopoly with 70% of US oil production under its thumbs. If everyone was to switch to BTC tomorrow, for all extents and purposes a few would have a monopoly on the entire system.

Evidently Standard Oil was just one company. And the owners of BTC are individuals and I have no proof (and I don't suspect) they collude to form a monopoly. All the same, if all 7 billion people on planet earth decided to switch to BTC tomorrow then these few would have an extortionate advantage on the rest of us.

Again - I will refer to this line: If everyone was to switch to BTC tomorrow, for all extents and purposes a few would have a monopoly on the entire system.

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.

I don't personally think a gold standard would benefit many members of society. I believe BTC could, but not with its current monopoly. According to many members of this board BTC should not be an investment, therefore I don't want to compare it to an investment. I want to compare it to currency.

Okay then. How about for sake of discussion we take the dictionaries definition of monopoly - not personal definitions?

Perhaps gold is a better example then. I wish I could go back 10 years and buy $50 worth of gold. Or had I joined an investment pool to get that apartment I would have profited.

A monopoly cannot exist without force.

I must ask you this. Do you think that monopolies are beneficial to society?

There you go then. If you know how it can benefit society, you have your answer.

If you don't like its current distribution, do something about it if you want, or not. Start a new alt coin and start distributing it evenly to everyone. They did that in Iceland with Auroracoin. Didn't work out as people had hoped.

I like both these answers a lot.

That is the reality.   Bitcoin is voluntarism at its finest.  People can't be forced to use it.  So people only use it IF it is better than the alternatives.  People are forced to use fiat and that forced use in the fiat world directly contributes to the unequal advantage a tiny minority have over the super majority.   That unearned and unfair advantage is what drives and reinforces the unequal wealth distribution.  
Unequal wealth distribution in the fiat world isn't the problem it is the symptom.   The problem is a system which gives the privileged (forget the 1% we are talking the 0.01%) a benefit and that benefit isn't free it is fully paid by the unprivileged and the worst part is you are forced into that system through a monopoly on violence.

(Edited for clarity)

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:

The graphic and 70% unused can both be true. If a wallet is unspent, how would it be included in a graphic about bitcoins being spent?

Partaking in the Bitcoin economy is not the same as being a member of society in a particular nation state. If you find that you cannot use it in an empowering way you could always bail out - the choice is yours.