If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? - page 8.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 26, 2018, 05:30:33 AM

No one made a compelling debate.

If 90% of Bitcoin is controlled by a few centralized and powerful groups, what will happen? Will it cease to be a permissionless system?

depends on HOW the 90% is utilised, presents different results

1. imagine people lock their funds into LN factory(fortknox) which accumulates to 90% locked into an address controlled by the small group of signatories.. leads to how banks done the 'gold standard' switch to paper money and now gold isnt even a payment method

2. imagine a small group bought up 90% of coins. first there wuold be a price spike. and people selling to the group would profit on the way up. then when the group sell. people can profit from the discount on the way down.. but all-in-all its just temporary drama

3. imagine the small group bought up all the coin. and just hoarded.. result. the rest of the community play with 2.1mill coins instead of 21m coiins. plus they play with them at a higher value... no other drama as its just about market play

4. imagine the small group obtain 90% of coins and then use those coins off-market to influence devs to write new rules, and influence merchants to adopt the new rules. thus thee remaining 10% users end up following the rules or find out they cant spend their 10% because the merchants are only accepting payment using the new rules

randythered

full member

Activity: 434

Merit: 103

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 26, 2018, 05:30:33 AM

No one made a compelling debate.

If 90% of Bitcoin is controlled by a few centralized and powerful groups, what will happen? Will it cease to be a permissionless system?

I think the simplest answer is that it largely depends on the 90%, they may wish for things to remain as they were or they may look to exert some sort of control over the market. One thing I do believe is that even if such a situation occurred there would be enough people in the community who would be against it and some sort of fork would occur, that way leaving the 90% to their coin and having a further coin which goes back to the more core ideals of bitcoin. We've already seen that situation a few times in the past just in not exactly the same such scenario.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

No one made a compelling debate.

If 90% of Bitcoin is controlled by a few centralized and powerful groups, what will happen? Will it cease to be a permissionless system?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

but anyone the 90% coin hoard is just a theory/scenario/concept question

lets take a more recent practical thing to talk about.
the merchant puppetry and paid devs by a corporation

http://dcg.co/portfolio

bellamente

member

Activity: 420

Merit: 10

Bitcoin should be in the hands of people! The larger the crypto community itself, the better. Indeed, then it will be extremely difficult to influence the course of Bitcoin. Buy bitcoin and keep for the long term

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Kprawn on October 25, 2018, 09:54:33 AM

They would be wasting their time and tax payers / investors money. We (Bitcoin community) will just sell our bitcoins when

this happens and buy a new Alt coin with similar features and we will continue what we are doing now. The amount of money

they would need to do this will bankrupt them, if they continue doing this and the coins will be worthless when people realise

what they are doing. Grin

let the corporations pump and dump the market. if their only tactic is to pump and dump.
we will sell to them for high. let them dump and we buy back at a discount.

hoarding 90% does nothing. and once they start handing out a 90% their 90% becomes 89% 88% 87%... all the way down until they are back to zero..

so just being coin holders/pump and dump is meaningless alone. and can make investors alot of profit while they temporarily play with prices.

like i said. coin hoarding affects nothing.. its the code and rule changes that matter. which is more about influencing the influencers, merchants and devs

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

They would be wasting their time and tax payers / investors money. We (Bitcoin community) will just sell our bitcoins when

this happens and buy a new Alt coin with similar features and we will continue what we are doing now. The amount of money

they would need to do this will bankrupt them, if they continue doing this and the coins will be worthless when people realise

what they are doing. Grin

hermankoles

jr. member

Activity: 275

Merit: 1

https://customcontract.network

if that happens there are still many other crypto that we can make as a substitute for bitcoin and become the basis of the value for users to pair against the coin, not again on bitcoin.
and this must be held firmly by all crypto owners to fight the injustices and games they play

Renal

member

Activity: 434

Merit: 10

the project will never fail, but what happens now is that the price of crypto is not stable so it is difficult to predict which projects will develop.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: Trupik on October 25, 2018, 05:36:01 AM

If by "supply" you mean "newly minted coins", then Bitcoin is finished. If anyone has 51% it is bad, but if it is government specifically, then RIP Bitcoin, I will be dumping and going for Dogecoin.

The term '51%' in bitcoin is referring to the amount of hashing power percentage that could potentially 'fork' off the main chain and start doing its own copy of transactions from a single divergence point (the time when the 51% of the hashing power decides to create its own chain) and has nothing to do with owning bitcoins at all. Anyway going back, if people found out that the banks and the governments are owning more than what they have, it's either they're gonna dump on the market pretty hard or just continue with the flow, thinking that they have the big and the 'good guys' on board. With the present market, most of the people are in it for the profit and not the virtue bitcoin enthusiasts once had, so you can expect that these new people will think like an investor playing in conventional trading assets. Also, 90% is a huge sum to hold; volume and liquidity would be an issue if they are really owning that large of an amount.

Bttzed03

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1150

https://bitcoincleanup.com/

Would banksters and governments really spend that much to accumulate 90% of the possible max supply (21M)?
I do not think any institution is liquid enough to sustain that.

biskitop

full member

Activity: 686

Merit: 104

all that can happen. either the government, the bank, or maybe even whales that hold 90% of bitcoin and have the potential to make the game as they wish. for example when the market is down now.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: jseverson on October 25, 2018, 07:17:29 AM

The project is to provide a peer-to-peer cash system, so one or two entities holding 90% of it won't automatically mean failure. It's still going to work as intended. They're going to have massive influence, if not outright control of the prices, but they'd also have the most to lose -- that may incentivize them to play nice.

For idealists who wish to escape their grasp over the financial system, yes.

So I guess it depends on what the project is for you. Not that I think this scenario will ever happen.

hoarding 90% of coin is hoarding.. inaction.. meaningless. EG has the 2009 stash of coins influenced anything.. nope.

as for spending the coin to influence. if it was done just to market crash.. then so be it. once a hoarder spends, they are out. and new people buy coin at discount. so win for the buyer. thats just price drama and not network control.
market crashing the price is just temporary drama and not a permanent uncorrectable change

but code changes which merchants accept is a uncorrectable change..

the only way a 90% hoarder can influence is to incentivise merchants and devs by paying them bribes to do things a certain way. and pay them privately away from market influence thus not affect the price and keep the merchants and devs interested in changing things.

but all in all it circles back to the main change makers. merchants and devs, as they have the ultimate control. pools and users are just followers

jseverson

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 759

The project is to provide a peer-to-peer cash system, so one or two entities holding 90% of it won't automatically mean failure. It's still going to work as intended. They're going to have massive influence, if not outright control of the prices, but they'd also have the most to lose -- that may incentivize them to play nice.

For idealists who wish to escape their grasp over the financial system, yes.

So I guess it depends on what the project is for you. Not that I think this scenario will ever happen.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Trupik on October 25, 2018, 07:11:26 AM

Yes, that is why I mentioned "newly minted coins" - whoever mints them, has the hashpower, and if someone has 51% of it then the situation can be bad. It happened before with one of the pools having more than 51% and nothing bad happened.

all pools can do is decide to include or exclude particular transactions.
if they even dared to submit a block that doesnt fit the rules. that block gets rejected in 2 seconds.
pools are not rule setters. they are followers. and it doesnt matter how much electric/hashpower they have.. a rule break is a rul break no matter what

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3150

Merit: 937

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 25, 2018, 05:27:48 AM

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

The banksters and the governments will have to spend 180 billions US dollars, in order to purchase 90% of all bitcoins.Do you think that they will ever spend that amount?It would be way cheaper for them to just ban bitcoin,instead of buying it.If they ever decide to buy such large amount,the bitcoin price might skyrocket to the moon in just 1 hour.What if the bitcoin sellers refuse to sell?

avikz

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1500

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 25, 2018, 05:27:48 AM

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

It's not about 90%, if a particular agency controls 51% of an asset (be it bitcoin or anything else) then that agency receives the controlling power over that asset. Similarly if 51% of total bitcoin supply stays with a single entity, it will certainly become a playground for them and we common people will just be a small part of their game! This rule implies to not only bitcoin but on any asset, be it gold or anything else!

Also I see Franky raised a very valid question here by showing the bifurcation of taxing system! Even though it is a hypothetical scenario, but if we pay taxes using bitcoin, we will essentially hand over the controls to the taxing authority! However, this is how the world and our social system functions, we don't even have an escape pod available! Either we comply intentionally or we will be forced to comply! A radically different social and economical system may save us from such wrongdoings, but that looks like a distant dream, at least as of now!

Trupik

member

Activity: 136

Merit: 13

Quote from: Red-Apple on October 25, 2018, 06:56:09 AM

Quote from: Trupik on October 25, 2018, 05:36:01 AM

If by "supply" you mean "newly minted coins", then Bitcoin is finished. If anyone has 51% it is bad, but if it is government specifically, then RIP Bitcoin, I will be dumping and going for Dogecoin.

bitcoin is not a shitty PoS coin that if you have a large portion of the supply you can control the coin. it is PoW and the 51% that you have heard is talking about hash rate not supply!

Yes, that is why I mentioned "newly minted coins" - whoever mints them, has the hashpower, and if someone has 51% of it then the situation can be bad. It happened before with one of the pools having more than 51% and nothing bad happened.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

now with all that said...
i am not worried about "government". its the corporate elite that are corrupt. EG wall street caused 2007 not government
wall street strong armed government for bail out.. the government didnt plan to screw people

(P.S i am not a fan of government but open minded to stand back and see the big picture then step forward to point out the real flaw)

so its corporate/capitalist control thats more of a concern than govrnment (people still drank beer in prohibition, so dont worry about government)

we have seen its corporations that raise fee's and get greedy.

..
it doesnt actually require hoarding most coins to control things. it actually involves controlling people. (merchants and devs)
the code acceptance deciders

pools and users are not deciders. they are followers.
pools have to make blocks that fit the rules. and the rules(devs) have to fit the needs of the main group that will accept payment and offer products and services(merchants)

Red-Apple

hero member

Activity: 1470

Merit: 655

Quote from: Trupik on October 25, 2018, 05:36:01 AM

If by "supply" you mean "newly minted coins", then Bitcoin is finished. If anyone has 51% it is bad, but if it is government specifically, then RIP Bitcoin, I will be dumping and going for Dogecoin.

bitcoin is not a shitty PoS coin that if you have a large portion of the supply you can control the coin. it is PoW and the 51% that you have heard is talking about hash rate not supply!

Topic: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? - page 8. (Read 1208 times)