Topic: Just had to get this off my chest: (Read 2791 times)

MGUK, Apologies for the belated acknowledgement. I understand and acknowledge your point. As you suggested, we can agree to disagree. =)

MGUK, I think we keep failing to highlight this point to you:

You have no right to call those "in the right place at the right time" as having done something unfair, unless you correspondingly go out of your way to compensate the unlucky ones that were in the "wrong place at the wrong time."  

(I personally think that even then you have no standing to call it unfair, but that's another point.)
 

Even teenagers should be able to understand the concept of working for your money - or maybe not these days considering how here in the UK it's officially considered odd behaviour to willingly get a job when you're still eligible for benefits (aka welfare).

That's the labor value of money fallacy (or whatever it's called). What you propose would be fair would involve someone digging holes and covering them up in their own back yard over and over, and getting paid for their hard work. No one cares how hard you work if no one wants the product of your labor. It also doesn't take into account what is actually created, and in out modern economy, the product of your mind is way more valuable than the product of your muscles. Someone higher up on the corporate ladder may spend 5 minutes making a decision, and get paid 10x more than someone at the bottom working many hours pushing levers and moving boxes, but the person who worked hard at the bottom could be responsible for making a few customers satisfied and keeping the business moving for the few hours that he worked, while the person who spent 5 minutes on a decision may have used his vast prior experience to make a quick decision that results in the company surviving for the next few years, and being able to afford to pay that hard worker's pension. You can't just look as how much someone sweated, and say "they deserve more money."

I'm sure you've heard the anecdote about a car mechanic that charges $1,000 to fix an engine with a hammer.

You need to check your numbers. Buying £10 a few years ago, or mining for a few days in 2009, would not get you anywhere near $1,000,000. Maybe if you mined and managed to get every single block every time, it would take a week or two, but that wasn't the case for almost anyone at the beginning. For those for whom that was the case, they deserve the money, because those specific people were Stoshi and first developers. Otherwise we're talking about people getting maybe a few £100k from doing what you said. I suspect all other Bitcoin millionaires are such because they either built Bitcoin businesses that earned them that $1mil, or bought way way more than just £10 worth.


If the bedroom geek managed to make that money, I think there's a reason he made that money. And it's actually money "in the real world." It's no different from someone who wasn't wealthy before, doing something other than Bitcoin to become wealthy (such as the bedroom geek named Bill Gates). As for whether it's good for Bit oin or not, Bitcoin doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks is good or bad. It just is. And no one can change it, no matter how good or bad you think it is.


And that's your choice to not be wealthy. Again, neither Bitcoin, nor anyone else, cares, since no one can do anything about it.


Stupid people usually lose money very quickly. Or they become smarter, and fix their problems. IMO these sort of scandals are typically the result of a bunch of people getting into something totally new that no one has even dealt with before, and into things they themselves have never learned about before. They are learning on the job, and screwing up in the process. If that were not allowed, no one would ever do anything.



They paid me, and then they want to complain about paying me? Why not just NOT pay me?


Or you can, you know, not pay him.


Quoting you, "I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money"

Does this make you an evolutionary dead end?

And I think you missed a point I made earlier: I don't think the person is unfair, or even Bitcoin is unfair, but more the larger system of which the people and Bitcoin are part of (maybe I'm thinking about life) does not evenly reward everyone for the work they put in - which falls within the remit of my personal understanding of the concept of unfairness.

I agree entirely I have no right to objectively proclaim it's unfair, its just my opinion, since fair can be a pretty subjective term, and I believe I'm perfectly entitled to that.

One quote I like to try and live by:
"whilst I may disagree with your opinion, I'll defend to the death your right to say it!" Some might loosely paraphrase it to "lets agree to disagree"

I accept the people that risk large amount of money, time and effort deserve a payoff. If you've spent time learning, and invested a large wad of money that you've earned and it pays off, then fair play to you. I hadn't really considered the scale that some did invest and risk. Providing the resources and time and effort you invested were yours that you earned through some good old fashioned contributin' to society, then it's only fair you get a rewards proportional to the effort, resources and risk you put in.
But there are definitely people that didn't put that much effort in and were just "right place at the right time." These people who put in literally next to nothing (buy £10 worth a few years ago, or ran the mining software for a few days in 2009) and are now millionaires. Personally, if you think that such people deserve to be millionaires for so little effort, then I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

I disagree with the point made about it being good that it maybe some geek in a bedroom that gets the money, not some typical rich corporate type. Although that may fuel the bedroom geeks local economy, it's not good for Bitcoin. Whilst I'm not saying the corporate type should get the money, there's a reason the bedroom geek doesn't in the real world. I consider myself a pretty geeky bedroom geek (comp sci degree + more), but I acknowledge there's a reason people like me don't (or shouldn't) have a lot of power and money.
You must have seen all the ridiculous amount of scandal related to childish, immature and unworthy people being in power that goes on around Bitcoin (BFL + Josh and their childish behaviour, Luke-Jr and his childish abuse of pool power for his own personal agendas, MtGox being totally incompetent, Amir, Bitcoinica, Pirate etc. etc. etc.) IMO, these sort of scandals are typically the result of someone having a lot of power or money who shouldn't, and this is typically bought on by people becoming stupidly rich stupidly quick from Bitcoin.

Another thing to consider to those that have made lots off this - where does that money come from? It comes from other people. These "other people" are paying you literally millions. I think these people have every right to expect you to sit there and take a complaint or 2 because they've just paid you millions:
Most people I speak to agree that it's ridiculous when a highly successful footballer refuses to play or gets in a strop because a fan shouts a nasty name to him. I'm very much of the mindset "that player is earning $millions of 'our' money, based on how much we're effectively paying him, the least he could do is stand there and take an insult or 2."


Also, it's human nature to want more for yourself which some here have suggested is the underlying cause of "it's not fair" claims. You can act all high and mighty and "I don't want what they have" but the truth is, you probably do on some level. You probably wouldn't be in this forum if you didn't have at least a passing desire to increase your wealth. Sure, you can say "oh, but I want to see Bitcoin succeed, I don't want any extra money, I'm just supporting the coin" and that maybe true. But wanting more and the best for yourself is a feature of evolution. If you don't want more for yourself or those that you care about, then, to put it bluntly, you are an evolutionary dead end (I wouldn't be surprised to see someone chime in: "or a communist.") Although some might argue an adult learns to accept and deal with theses 'primitive urges' and quits his whiney bitchin'!

We can if we just change our perspective 90°, and look at the line from the side instead of head-on

Some people are just stupid

+1

Life aint fair. deal with it.

I think one of the problems with this community is a large percentage of the members are < 18 years of age. not that being young implies stupidity, but ideas like "How come YOU got more BTC than me?" are more suited to my 7 year old daughter, than an adult who has worked for what he has and understands the way the world works. we cant all be first in line.

The best advice I ever heard about starting a business is that it's a combination of luck and hard work - put in the hard work and your first attempt will fail, so try again and keep trying until by the pure weight of probability you win.

The solution to this is not "punish those who did well through taking a risk" but "reward those who contribute".

Bringing down the rich does NOT help the poor.

There does exist a form of jealousy which doesn't result in thinking the person you're jealous of is somehow in the wrong.

Am I jealous of those who get in on bitcoin way at the beginning? Yes, you bet I am

Do I think they're in the wrong? No, they deserve everything they got and have done nothing wrong - I just wish i'd had their foresight.

Great point. I don't think early adopters had the unfair advantage, because BTC could have just as easily crashed and they lost everything. However, I disagree with you where you said sometimes people didn't adopt because they were against the risk, the other reason which you didn't mention [and is true for me] is that some people didn't adopt because they had never heard of bitcoins. But great points!

There are two ways to increase one's worth and holdings: Take it from someone else OR Earn it by providing a good or service. Unless they're a politician, those people who have enormous worth and holdings only managed to get there through "their contribution to society." For some reason a lot of people out there completely ignore that fact, and keep thinking that 'contribution to society" only refers to charity.


Oh, it'c completely fair, for one simple reason: Risk has a very real price/cost. All risk. Riskier lifestyle? Higher insurance payments. Riskier investment? Higher possible return. Those people who earned a lot of money from bitcoin investments simply bought a whole hell of a lot more risk than anyone else did. If those teachers, nurses, civil servants, and the rest of the world wants to be as wealthy, all they ave to do is buy a hell of a lot more risk, too. Though with risk also comes the possibility that they'll end up with nothing, too.


Doesn't take skill? People are STILL complaining that Bitcoin is hard to use and harder to get, and it was way way worse two or three years ago. It took a lot of skill to set it up, get it working, and start mining, and even more skill and knowledge (and hours of reading) just to learn how to even begin doing all that (not everyone takes time to learn how to use computers for example.
As for not contributing to society, it's because people bought and hoarded bitcoin, and had so much invested interest in it, that Bitcoin is where it is to begin with. Without people hoarding, there would be almost no rise in price, and barely anyone with any interest to see their "hoard" (aka investment) grow in value. So, if you believe that Bitcoin is a huge contribution to society, then all those people who bought and sat that you're talking about have done an enormous service just getting bitcoin out of obscurity.



The only way they wouldn't use it to contribute back to society is if they sent it to a fake bitcoin address, making it disappear for ever (even in that case, their "sacrifice" would make every other bitcoin holder a bit wealthier). If they do actually use their millions on things like buying goods and services, then that means that someone else who provided that good or service god paid for their job, and are able to have money to buy the things they need. Spending money, even if it's "unfairly" gained millions, in itself helps society. There's also a pretty good chance that this early Bitcoin adopter isn't some wealthy guy from a wealthy neighborhood, but some poor nerd in some obscure part of the world. To suddenly have someone willing to spend millions within an otherwise not-very-rich community is a huge boon for their location's economy, and may end up helping a whole lot of other business owners in the area besides just that lucky bitcoiner, too.






Well, my risk was previous years of learning about computers, hundreds of USD on hardware, days of my time on reading and learning to understand the technology, and five figure amount of USD that was invested, with the knowledge that it may all be worthless. With all that, I'm still no where near as wealthy as I hoped I'd be. So how much risk do you consider to be "small"?

That's why I consider these people to be passive-aggressive jealous types usually Deego because rather than complaining about the idea of trading in general they're just complaining about the wins they make, I could empathise if they thought trading in general was a waste of time but they usually don't and I don't think it's right to judge people for what they do in the first place and I try my best not to.

I understand what you're saying about risk: you feel a persons returns should be based on the risk they take. But you're failing to acknowledge my underlying point that morally, return should be linked to contribution - investment and risk taken with Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, at all. By your logic, rogue traders deserve a boat load of money because they're risking all of the banks money in dodgy trades. Or lone gunman that risks his own life by going into a school and slaughtering a load of children should get money if he survives because he took a risk. I think you need to differentiate between someone taking a good, worthwhile risk that puts society in a better position, and someone taking a bad, selfish risk that costs others and puts bad or irresponsible people in bad positions for the rest of the world...

I think risk should get  a proportional pay off, if it's a risk tied to something that betters the world or society. E.g. a person risking their life for the better of society, such as a fireman, deserves good returns, because it helps society. But risking £10 in Bitcoin is not a big contribution to society, and that £10 hasn't helped society, and in a portion of cases, the person that made millions from that £10 isn't necessarily going to contribute any of it back to society and in some cases, they even end up on a power trip and do ridiculously over dramatic stuff in their new found position of power.
If, fundamentally, Bitcoin is such a sound safe and valuable idea, it would have succeeded without early investors hoarding. In fact, it would have succeeded and be cheaper for everyone because early investors aren't hoarding a massive portion of the coins pushing the price up for others.

If we agree the standard system should be such that a persons returns are based on their contribution to society, and we accept the definition of fair as 'In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate' - then I struggle to believe anyone can consider a system "fair" where some sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche who just so happened to be mining a few years ago can now be a millionaire when  doctors, teachers, police, firefighters who give so much to society and risk so much get so little. (I don't think anyone in this thread is a sociopathic, childish, irresponsible douche, but I'm sure we've all met one or two around these forums...) As I said though, Bitcoin is just a part of this system.

I feel like we're both sort of missing each others points. I'm willing to agree to disagree though, unless you'd like to debate this further?

edit: I maybe labouring the point a bit here

Nice story. Proved the point rather nicely, I think.

I agree with you entirely on the subjective nature of "fair."

I also guess in reality, if I was in that situation I'd probably be a bit pissed off. But I'd like to think I'd accept they're fully justified to feel that way, particularly if they've worked their ass off all their life and all I'd done was buy £50 worth of Bitcoin 3 years ago. Who knows though - I'd probably be pissed off.

It's not so much "I want what they've got" but more "I don't think they deserve what they've got." Same way I don't personally think some celebrities who are just celebrities for being idiots should have a lot of money. But that's just my opinion - I don't think it's fair some people have so many bitcoins for so little effort. It's nice to think that hopefully these people put their new found riches to good use and helped the world out a bit though maybe:)




"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - I don't consider taking a small risk in the early days of Bitcoin "hard" or "work".