Topic: Is wide distribution valuable ? - page 2. (Read 14571 times)

Sorry. I guess I could have stated it this way instead:

Posts about unfair distribution are off-topic, but I am compelled respond to them anyway by saying that I believe that people complaining of an unfair distribution of Bitcoin are driven primarily by envy.



I agree that a wide distribution is best and I agree with your response to the example of AUR.

However, a wide distribution is difficult for something that most people don't know about or care about. And as I wrote before, distributing nearly worthless currencies to people that don't care about them is ineffective.

Even the distributions of NXT and Ether are very narrow, as they are only distributed to the people that care about them now. If they are as successful as Bitcoin in the future, those currencies will also be considered narrowly distributed.

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

There are rules that don't need to be broken in any debate and those who break them only show weakness of their point of view and reduce efficiency of a debate.

One rule is do not change subject unless it helps you to objectively prove your point.
Second rule - do not put words into somebody's mouth. Don't assume, just ask.
Third rule - do not debate about intentions, debate about facts.
Fourth rule - do not joke without explicitly indicating that this was a joke. Joking can be used to conveniently back off wrong opinion without losing credibility, not that credibility matters much in objective conversation anyway, but it adds noise and waste of time.
Fifth rule - do not ask questions before getting answers on previous questions assuming how those answers will look like.
Sixth rule - do not interpret timing of response as part of an answer. Don't interpret silence as agreement or lack of knowledge.
Seventh rule - do not lie. Everybody can be objective about a subject even if their stakes are being hurt by discussion. It is not true that people have opinions based on their stakes. If discussion hurts your investments, just don't participate and if you do then don't abuse and don't lie.

No, those shares don't pretend to be decentralized business, so they don't have to be distributed fairly to be useful.
They don't pretend to become medium of value exchange and don't have goal of price stability (though funny thing that they are more stable than majority of crypto).

But considering that they are based on income from useful services, they would be best candidates for crypto if distributed widely and fairly as a token redeemable for their services. Currently Google does not offer any service in exchange for it's stock. But if this stock is to become currency - it must do that. It's like with trading oil through dollars. Why not skip conversion into dollar and pay for appengine, ads, gmail with Google tokens ? Why not pay Microsoft with msft tokens ? Why people are not allowed to prepay for future services from these companies but only allowed to speculate with their stock ? The answer is - taxation that requires everything to be valued in fiat disallowing barter of service in exchange for tokens.

How do I know if maxcoin will not significantly drop in price ?
What kind of tech does it have making it fundamentally successful ?

I believe the distributions of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Netflix stocks are unfair. Everyone in the world should be able to buy shares at their IPO prices today. It is totally unfair. waaaaaaaaaa

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Oh, and if anyone wants to get Maxcoin at an early adopter price of $1, I'll be glad to sell up to 1 million of them.

They were compensated mostly because they were not busy doing other things and were hanging out in forums. I was visionary too looking for mathematically enforced constitution of the United States that does not rely on people's votes, but I was too busy to look for opportunities. Do you think I would not invest few hundreds into BTC after I invested thousands into failing stocks ? I have no doubt I would. And I would now if there was one major crypto coin with good fundamentals.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin. It just happened to get traction because of SilkRoad and some other powerful groups.
It may have good technicals now, that makes it profitable short term, but it definitely has bad fundamentals that makes it deadend long term investment. No wonder bitcoin is currently one of Ryan's picks 😁 along with list of other shit coins.

I think it's best for everybody to take loss, abandon bitcoin ship selling on peaks, and move on to better avenues. Bitcoin hurts crypto scene big time. It's vulnerabilities scare people away from all cryptos considering that they hear that bitcoin is major representative of whole crypto environment. This shit coin should not represent us like major coin anymore. It discredited itself many times and it hurts crypto image.

that was true only for SPV client, last core client will not be affected by those problem, that's why i only use core

bitcoin is still in the beta because of this reason, and as long as new problem keep emerge it will remain in beta i believe, but this does not mean that it can not grow and be accepted widely

i still think that bitcoin can find its place on a niche market in the case it will not work as a global mainstream currency

Yes I have proof: Human nature. We aren't the same, some people is more skilled than other, smarter, clever, stronger, whatever, and profit from it. The early adopters in Bitcoin where smarter, more aware, visionaries that took the risk of getting involved into something worthless at the time. It is natural that they are compensated with more coins, simple as that.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

"too late" is the problem, this is the source of unfairness. Why do they have to buy at price much higher than early investors ?
It does not have to be that way. There are many other places on earth where people can gamble if they want to. Why force them to gamble just to own some crypto ?

Bitcoin will never be big. When I read that it's best to not transfer bitcoin for several days due to some Chinese miners relying on other miners for hashing disrupting network operations without evil intent, I can only laugh. Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

It needs to have non-0 value. That value will derive from redemption or useful digital services.
No, I would not give it to people for free to dump. If they got it - they know the value and won't dump.
It will cost them something, nothing will be given for free. Giving for free is the source of all problems.
The only dumpers will be those who lost belief and sell at loss, which won't be significant to worry about.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

If people buy token for 1 NXT they will not dump it much below 1 NXT, right ?

The goal is to not have big holders who are not interested in the future before token achieves wide distribution and adoption.
If we are talking about devs then tokens should be released to them gradually over time so that they will not be big holders before maturity of their work and success of wide distribution. After distribution is wide and token is adopted it is safe to give them big % because they won't be able to manipulate.

For distribution I don't mean only premine, I mean at any point in time. Distribution can be bad initially, but very good later. Again example is permanent sell order which distributes over time with very bad initial distribution.

This is how NXT distribution was supposed to work, but big holders got greedy and do not sell at constant price causing pumps and dumps. They are the ones who have power to achieve wide distribution and they are misusing their power for other goals.

That's why I asked, is it even possible to achieve fair and wide distribution? When you have 95% of the people that will dump it as soon as possible. I guess the human nature is responsible for the 80%—20% distribution of wealth in the whole world no matter are we distributing fiat, bitcoin or something third. And this phenomenon is true since the early ages until now.

basically 99% of the people around the world, who will dump at the first opportunity, i'm still wondering if those same people will ever embrace something like bitcoin, if they do not believe in it

and when bitcoin will be big, it will be too late for them anyway...

No distribution(if for distribution you mean pre mine) is better, the big holders always will have the temptation to manipulate and dump the coins as soon they reach an exchange

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

Yes, it is possible to distribute fairly. One way is permanent sell order with constant fiat price (or oil or gold price if fiat becomes too volatile). That asset must be redeemable back to fiat that was invested into it. Just like gold standard, but with fiat being in place of gold.

Yes, getting lucky doing nothing is unfair, but, of course, very desirable by most people including me.
Limited time distribution is unfair too because it rewards only those who spent time on forums during specific time frame.

I don't believe NEM was fair at least because it was limited time distribution.
Can I get NEM same way as initial stakeholders after I know it is real and functioning and not scam ? The answer is no and this is why it's unfair. If I buy it, but someone got it for free, he can always sell cheaper than me, so here goes my risk and I don't want to gamble. I am interested in preservation of savings without risk - that is how fair distribution should work. People should have an option to just convert their savings into crypto hoping that it will preserve value just like gold after fiat crash or massive confiscation.

It is unfair to ask somebody to risk losing money in exchange for possible luck.
Distribution should not involve gambling. The goal of distribution is not to make few lucky rich. But, of course, devs who made it possible should become rich and well deserve such reward.

Why is time of distribution always have to be limited ? Why not keep distributing for the same price forever or at least until it becomes mainstream covering at least billion people ?

This is actually what Satoshi intended to achieve, but failed only because of too simple algo that prevented it to be wide and fair.

But I started this topic without word "fair". I started it with word "wide", which is different. Wide distribution solves problem of centralization. Fair distribution solves problem of malinvestment - giving money to less productive people.
Wide does not have to cover more than 1% of world population, but fair does.

Currently the only thing that prevents me from putting all my retirement savings into crypto is gambling risk. Remove it and you will see flood of money into crypto instead of useless gold, GLD, SLV, stocks, etc.