Topic: The ultimate bitcoin taboo topic - page 2. (Read 10197 times)

Quite the opposite. I understood your op and in my opinion your ideas destroy the essence of what is right about bitcoin.

It does not mean I misunderstand you because I disagree with you.

Rothschilds reputedly own the central banks (no i don't have a source for that)

I think, though could be wrong, the wealth of a billionaire is usually reported in terms of the current value of their assets IF they were to sell them all and convert to cash.

Usually their wealth would be held in things like companies they own or have a stake in, properties like mansions that they own, fine art like picasso paintings, gold bullion, only a miniscule proportion of wealth would be held in fiat currency by most billionaires.

They could hold bitcoins as a speculative investment. But at the moment bitcoins are inflationary not deflationary, although their value is increasing this is not due to deflation and won't be for a long time yet.

If fiat currency was to suffer a catestrophic loss of value through hyperinflation or something like that, most billionaires will be mostly unaffected or in fact see their net wealth increase as hard assets become much more sought after. The wealth of the world, which is buildings, companies, precious metals and stuff would not change.

If bitcoins was to replace central bank issued currency as the popular choice of money, billionaires could easily sell their assets in exchange for bitcoins whenever they need a medium of exchange. If bitcoins ever becomes solid enough it may proove to also be a worthy asset to hold as a store of value, but it probably isnt that yet.

Again, the current richest person (central banks) holds 100% of money supply, and they could increase or decrease the value of money at will

A good point! People usually say that money is not wealth, but that is simply contradict with the modern theory of value: Value is decided by supply and demand, as long as there is a demand for money, it has value

The demand for fiat money as a saving medium is very limited because of its inflative nature, but the demand for bitcoin can grow forever because of its deflative nature. Since this currency is the most liquid format, many physical assets will be converted into it, and those will also back the value of bitcoin

I get it and you are right.

Your understanding of what you're reading is not significantly influenced by what is actually written, huh?

I tried to address this point a few posts above. I also have to say, it doesn't really become clear in my original post because, well, I didn't really think of it that way yet when I wrote it.

The point is not so much how big the share of the total wealth is, now with "traditional" billionaires or in the future with bitcoin "billionaires", but about the ratio between percentage of wealth owned now, and then.

Follow my assumptions in the original post for a second, okay? Then my point is, the current richest person holds at most 0.1% of money supply (yes, only money supply, not overall wealth). In the brightest of all bitcoin futures, someone might hold more than 2% of money supply. So the point isn't that 2% is too much, but that this would constitute a 20-fold increase in relative wealth. That's at least worth thinking about, IMO.

That is correct, and the value of all currencies in the world will be the sum of what the people of the world wants to keep in liquids, either for saving or just for having handy.

+1


New word:  "Bitcoons"  A Bitcoin tycoon!

I find it amazing people here are so diligently looking for a way to destroy bitcoin.

Invalidate wallets?  Forced redistribution?  Wow.

That said entities that hold lots of coins are not powerful by means of the number of coins they hold.  Bitcoins in a wallet have no real value until they are traded for something tangible.

The economy will redistribute itself over time.  Think of the famous 10kBTC pizza.  We will need to see lots more pizzas bought with btc before we ever need to worry about who is rich and powerful.

A fair economic system is not one in which everyone has the same amount of money.  Think about why.

Yeah, maybe. But not only. Money doesn't do anything until you spend it. If you have companies and assets, you can do things with them. Very few people want to sit there on a big pile of wealth and watch television. People become wealthy and powerful because they like being wealthy and powerful, and exerting that power to arrange the world to their advantage. A big pile of bitcoins might help you do that, but it's not the end in itself. At least not for most people, I would guess.

That I think is a rarely expressed reason for why the argument against deflationary currency falls down, apart from the fact of "needing to spend". It assumes a "rational economic actor" that just wants to maximise. People are a bit more complicated than that. Yeah sure, maximisation of wealth is important to a lot of people, and especially for the type of people that claw their way to the top of the heap. But it is no way the only thing driving people. That's why a lot of people don't tend to stop at the point when they can do buy whatever they want. The exercise of power that huge wealth gives you is an end in itself.

The point is that even if someday Bitcoin is worth more than all the currency in the world that is still a small fraction of all the wealth in the world.  Your house isn't made of currency, Google isn't made of currency, the patent for a new drug ins't made of currency.  They all contribute to the wealth of the world though.    

I still believe that Bitcoin becoming the single world currency is a dubious and highly unlikely pipe dream but lets say it happens.   Even those with massive Bitcoin holdings would still have a rounding error of the wealth of the world.  Unless they plant to eat Bitcoins, watch scrolling screens of private keys as entertainment, and sleep inside a Bitcoin they are going to liquidate some of the wealth (which is already a rounding error on total global wealth) to buy food, entertainment, housing, etc.

And I agree on the main point, eventually the bitcoins disperse. In the end, the best producers, that is the successful part of the entrepreneurs, will be the ones with most wealth, as it should be.

Good arithmetic here, but: There is a reason the welthy, and most other people for that part, have little money and lots of stuff. The reason is the inflation. What you call appreciating assets, is mostly inflation-safe assets. With sound money it is different, you don't have to panic buy these assets, therefore the demand for sound money might be higher than for fiat money, supporting a higher money value.

ITT I see people confused wealth with money supply.  Nobody rich has any significant portion of their wealth in currency, they have their wealth in appreciating assets (companies, bonds, equities, commodities, royalty contracts, precious metals, etc).   Even if Bitcoin replaced all forms of currency on the planet it would still be a small % of the wealth in the world.  The Bitcoin "rich" would diversify into other assets and the distribution of the money supply would become more diverse.

The total global wealth is ~$233T.
The total global currency (M0) is ~$5T.

Say Bitcoin replaces all other forms of currency (a pipe dream) and the value of all Bitcoins is is someday worth ~$5T.  Lets also assume the richest Bitcoiner alive has 10% of that or ~$0.5T worth.  Yes $500B is a large amount, but it is <0.2% of the world's wealth.  That would also assume the "Bitcoin rich" never exchange Bitcoins for goods/service or other fiat currency along the way.   I think it is hillariously funny to imagine some fiat broke, Bitcoin rich guy living in his mom's basement refusing to liquidate 10% of his coins because they are "only" worth a million USD "but mom someday I could be a trillionaire, how stupid would it be to sell now for mere millions".

Care to quote any source on that which isn't a Conspiracy Theory Website?

Rothschilds own just about all the worlds central banks, control gold market from London, net worth is about 50% of world wealth. I think they are the ones to worry about

You are right when you say not 100% at least.  US is less than 25%.  There is about 6 trillion US$ worth of fiat currencies floating around, Issued by more than 150 central banks, about 1.2 trillion of that is US$.

Maybe not 100%, but a large part of it. After world war II, most of the gold were put into US and US issue dollar based on gold, and all the other countries issue fiat money based on their USD holding (they first exchange for USD with their gold). Although gold standard has been abolished, this traditional still holds at some degree

Take china for example, chinese central bank issue RMB when they receive USD, the amount of RMB backed by USD is more than half of the country's money supply