Topic: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money? - page 7. (Read 13269 times)

So it ain't hard to guess what the "ace-up-the-sleeve" is. I have stated it many times already.

To emphasize-  Debt based fiat system.

Yes but that weakens your argument.

The assumption here is that there is no concept of overvaluation, unlike a stock which has an intrinsic value.

This is a fundamentally flawed assumption because relative value matters.

You assume that a bicycle is willing to challenge a 747 in a head-on collision.

You can't transfer the entire wealth of the planet from the current middle class to a 1 million technology enthusiasts, and expect them to be satisfied with 0 gains. They too will only play along if they think the wealth transfer works in their favor too.

There is a tipping point, where more people can't enter and still be on the favorable side of the ledger.

Thus the only way you get redistribution that will be acceptable to the majority, is via government. The only way to do that is let the Ponzi collapse, then come in and apply "justice" to protect the "public good".

The government loves anti-capitalistic (i.e. centralized control over) redistribution and so do the majority, especially when it is marketed well.

If readers are not aware of my point, potential energy = degrees-of-freedom, then I would have to review all my writings for them again. I do grow weary.

Edit: Oak trees don't grow to the moon. Nature is not a one-way street, it is wave-like due to relativity (inertia). We have to consider the viability of a paradigm shift which requires the middle class (the largest inertia) to join, but where they can't join without destroying themselves.

Can we conceive of a way that resistance inertia declines as adoption increases? With positive technology takeovers that is always the case.

This is why I say Bitcoin has the wrong design. It is fighting against itself.

Rather if we diluted the value as we increase adoption, we offer a pathway for the middle class to enter for spending, not for investment. If the masses can mine 0.001 coins by downloading a client, they are a spender, not an investor.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

That was indeed my point

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I suppose you are too tired to think reasonably. Just wait, I will be able to present the concise model of bitcoin balance evolution (so far and from now on) in a few days.

In summary, the most efficient distribution of a currency is legal tender by government decree.

Mises counters that and says a currency only arises spontaneously from something that was already widely used for barter (then I assume the government co-opts it).

If I could visualize how Bitcoin can make the largest wealth transfer in the history of mankind, while also having signs of becoming a currency, while also transitioning distribution, while also being immune to government takeover, then I would be more optimistic. I just see too many failure modes for that to be a reality.

wachtwoord, I deleted your post (the only post I deleted in this thread) then I realized you were implying that purchases of smaller BTC holdings will increase as price rises, because the same size dollar position will constitute a smaller quantity of BTC. That is a valid point.

However you need to factor in that they too will be bringing in large dollar positions, thus still not buying for spending rather for investment.

Arguing that the smartest early adopters are able to sell out by fooling the middle adopters into buy & hold, isn't an argument that we've got a currency.

I very much believe Bitcoin is going to be morphed into a currency, just that it will be done through an initial ponzi failure and taken over by the governments to protect the "consumer interest" from future market failures.

You are supporting that the number of people harmed could be much greater. I have allowed to 2016 and $100,000 price as a possibility.

I am in the process of calculating this. But currently, and based on the experiences of having already gone up 5.5 orders of magnitude and less to go, I think that there will be no early adopter problem. Also I think I will have to take the average 17% rake into account when discounting all the 2010 (AHA), 2011 (KnightMB) and 2012 large holders.

Let's face it, according to math and blockchain, only 2 million coins (16%) belong to the original owners. There is no problem in Bitcoin regarding this issue. Anonymity and blocksize are issues, but not the topic of this thread.

Risto for that to work we need to have redistribution to the 0.1 - 10 BTC range of accounts. Whereas I suspect the weighted average buying in now is more in the range of 10 - 100 BTC.

It becomes progressively less efficient when trying to redistribute to smaller holdings via the market mechanism. So this is another reason the bubble peaks. You have even mentioned that exchanges can't scale even at current larger size holdings entering (assuming my assumption is correct).

At 1 BTC each and perfectly uniform distribution that would only be 21 million users. That is 1 out of every 50 people in the developed world, not including China. But it is impossible to get perfect distribution and considering how concentrated it is now, figure more likely is a maximum of 1 million will own 1 BTC or more. That would only 1 out of every 1000 people in the developed world. That won't fly as a currency.

I just can't see a math that rates market redistribution to currency scale as very likely.

Familiarize yourself with my concept of "rake", which is the % that you sell after each doubling in price.

Even if your average rake is as low as 10%, it means that an early adopter with a cost base of $0.005/BTC, has only 16% of his stash left when the price hits $1,000. With a 20% rake he has a mere 2% remaining.

Each doubling in price requires new money to push price up. On average, about 25% new money has been needed, compared to the market cap increase. This corresponds to a weighted average rake of about 17% among current market participants.

If we extrapolate the 17% rake to the price going from $1k to $1M, only 16% of the bitcoins will in the end belong to the same people. The paper wallets that are regarded sacrosanct at present, will be opened in stages if/when the price rises higher than the owners expect.

What is the thread is actually moot, and the market mechanism is well able to take care of the distribution of the circulating medium?  

Actually I agree. My wild (not sure of course) speculation is their plan all along has been to collude with the government and will be rewarded for doing so. That doesn't mean the price will be spared a return towards 0. You need to think this out more deeply. The serious players know damn well they won't have anything lasting if they don't play ball with the governments.


Destroying decentralization is not honest, it is selling out. And it is exactly what I expect them to do. A ponzi failure could possibly be a cover for making the transition to government control. It may be disguised as "proof-of-stake".


Exactly. Marketing. Deception.


Satoshi predicted all the outcome we have now. Read his early writings at the cryptography discussion group.


There are multiple possible designs. I am hoping open source wins over the alternative presented above.


Not every altcoin has to strive for instant recognition and a ponzi-bubble.

I see someone wrote that the altcoins have been rising faster in value past few days than Bitcoin. Didn't verify.

But of course, that hypothetical altcoin will have an ace up its sleeve, otherwise it won't be the one. You don't need to explain marketing to me, I had 1% of the internet in 2001. What slowed me down was losing 95% vision in an eye end of 1999 and being in surgeries and face down in bed for 1.5 years. The momentum carried forward on its own until 2001 when friendster was released.

Friendster started the friend-of-friend feature and peaked at millions of users. Myspace and facebook copied.

But I don't know why everyone assumes it will be me to create that altcoin. I am also writing to inspire others to compete to do so. You don't know whom I have shared my algorithms and ideas with.

I wasn't arguing, merely mocking. When you start a normal argument I'll respond in kind

To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

Argument by slander is not an argument. To support your slander, you would need to include at least one logical reason.

I can only assume that you think Bitcoin will become a currency and thus that its value will never permanently precipitously decline, thus you think the valuation is the number of coins you hold relative to the proportion of the transactions (currency) market share that Bitcoin will ultimately garnish.

My retort to that is that your fantasy is impossible.

There is no way for me to argue with a Bitard, because it is analogous to arguing about religion. The fantasy can't be falsified in the present. We have to actually wait a while before we can point at you and say "I warned you fool". At least the fantasy isn't forever unfalsifiable as is the case with religion and the afterlife.

All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out. I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing.

You haven't understood what I've presented. My theory explains why and is congruent with that no theory that requires a countable logic can be universally consistent. You failed to remember that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to countable (i.e. empirical) axioms.

That proves that in essence, Bitcoin is not a technology. Its market cap was <$100,000 when Gox was opened and the "technology-phase" ended. All the subsequent gains have been possible because of the collective action of all the market participants.

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.