Topic: The ultimate bitcoin taboo topic - page 4. (Read 10194 times)
I am happy with the hope that the wisdom and bravery that allowed this bitcoin wealth concentration will guide them, I feel no need to do so myself.
"The largest "traditional" holder of assets of any form holds at most about 0.1% of the entire world's money supply"
in some sense the federal reserves capacity to print money means that at any given time they are in possession of infinity dollars. now they arnt controlled by any single person but i bet the number of people that collectively have the influence to command this institution could be counted on my fingers. whats infinity divided by 10 anyway? well im not sure but i bet its more than 0.1%
i know i know. you added traditional and put it in quotes. but still its a relevant point i think.
in some sense the federal reserves capacity to print money means that at any given time they are in possession of infinity dollars. now they arnt controlled by any single person but i bet the number of people that collectively have the influence to command this institution could be counted on my fingers. whats infinity divided by 10 anyway? well im not sure but i bet its more than 0.1%
i know i know. you added traditional and put it in quotes. but still its a relevant point i think.
re: trillionaires. I'd like to see some source on that.
re: "super assumptions". #1 seems confirmed by the attention this thread got within hours. #2 and #3: I think you like to play a bit hard to get here. It's not exactly a big secret what the highest ranked people on the Forbes list owe their money to. I mean, in some cases they owe most of their wealth to publicly traded assets. And about estimating the money supply: it's basically a crude summing up of the reported money supply figures of the respective central banks. And I mean, no matter how tinfoily anti-fiat some here might be, it's not as if the central banks make a big secret out of their continous pumping out of new money. I'd say, I trust their figures on that one. Kind of like they're boasting with it, so maybe the figure is too low, actually :D
re: "super assumptions". #1 seems confirmed by the attention this thread got within hours. #2 and #3: I think you like to play a bit hard to get here. It's not exactly a big secret what the highest ranked people on the Forbes list owe their money to. I mean, in some cases they owe most of their wealth to publicly traded assets. And about estimating the money supply: it's basically a crude summing up of the reported money supply figures of the respective central banks. And I mean, no matter how tinfoily anti-fiat some here might be, it's not as if the central banks make a big secret out of their continous pumping out of new money. I'd say, I trust their figures on that one. Kind of like they're boasting with it, so maybe the figure is too low, actually :D
I didn't bother reading through the responses, just answering to the OP directly. I'll put my communist hat for a moment. Seriously. Distribution of bitcoins is as democratic and as communist and as fair as it gets. Everyone was free to join in, except those choosing to live under the few extremely oppresive regimes, like North Korea, or those living in the countries that have recently been raped by the imperialists, and were thus too busy or too distracted to think about mining. Sorry for them. We'll try to help out.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.
Communist hat? I think not.
Not very taboo. First super-assumption.
Those figures garnered from Forbes rich-list are highly dubious. Second super-assumption.
M2 figures also pretty dubious. Third super-assumption.
I refer to them as super-assumptions because the potential percentage variance in the "real" figures is very, very large. Very large.
Those figures garnered from Forbes rich-list are highly dubious. Second super-assumption.
M2 figures also pretty dubious. Third super-assumption.
I refer to them as super-assumptions because the potential percentage variance in the "real" figures is very, very large. Very large.
Conclusion: If bitcoin would ever act as the world's primary monetary basis (and assuming of course the large bitcoin holdings mentioned above are not abandoned/sold in the meantime) we would have an unprecedented concentration of wealth.
You are confusing money and wealth. There is an incredibly huge difference between the global money supply and the global wealth. The person that owns 2.1% of all the bitcoins will never own a significant fraction of the global wealth regardless of the value of a bitcoin.And in that case, "2.1% of bitcoin" does in fact come close to "2.1% of overall wealth"
Hang on. That is not true. That is the fallacy I am trying to point out. If someone owned 100% of the money in the world, all the bitcoins, dollars, gold, and whatever anyone might consider money, they would still own only a tiny fraction of the wealth in the world. Don't you consider the value of your car or house to be part of your wealth? What about land and businesses? There are a lot of things that represent wealth other than money.
I really think you misunderstand my argument, or possibly, I'm not explaining it very well. Here's the condensed version:
The richest person now holds 0.1% of M2 money supply - that's money and "near money". Let's call it M2+ when we add common stores of value like gold. So the richest person now holds less than 0.1% of M2+.
The richest person in the bitcoin future holds 2.1% of all bitcoin value. Since bitcoin could function as a replacement for money, near-money and common stores of value like gold, this person would, in the best case, hold 2.1% of M2+ wealth.
So in this - hypothetical - future, we might see someone more than 20 times wealthier than the richest person now. That's not just a gradual shift, that's a rather substantial difference.
What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.
I said extinct and I mean it.
Without inflation, who cares? Isn't it likely that the ultra-rich's wealth will slowly decay, while the masses's buying power actually has the ability to increase?
Satoshi has more than a million bitcoin last I checked. That's almost 10%.
Conclusion: If bitcoin would ever act as the world's primary monetary basis (and assuming of course the large bitcoin holdings mentioned above are not abandoned/sold in the meantime) we would have an unprecedented concentration of wealth.
You are confusing money and wealth. There is an incredibly huge difference between the global money supply and the global wealth. The person that owns 2.1% of all the bitcoins will never own a significant fraction of the global wealth regardless of the value of a bitcoin.And in that case, "2.1% of bitcoin" does in fact come close to "2.1% of overall wealth"
Hang on. That is not true. That is the fallacy I am trying to point out. If someone owned 100% of the money in the world, all the bitcoins, dollars, gold, and whatever anyone might consider money, they would still own only a tiny fraction of the wealth in the world. Don't you consider the value of your car or house to be part of your wealth? What about land and businesses? There are a lot of things that represent wealth other than money.
I didn't bother reading through the responses, just answering to the OP directly. I'll put my communist hat for a moment. Seriously. Distribution of bitcoins is as democratic and as communist and as fair as it gets. Everyone was free to join in, except those choosing to live under the few extremely oppresive regimes, like North Korea, or those living in the countries that have recently been raped by the imperialists, and were thus too busy or too distracted to think about mining. Sorry for them. We'll try to help out.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.
Back to the lucky majority of us here, we shouldn't be comparing the scam called fiat money, created as debt by the privileged class out of nothing, with the hard, democratic currency like bitcoins. It's apples and oranges, as one has infinite, monopolized supply, the other has fixed, democratic supply.
As for those who got in early and mined or bought significant chunks - these coins are meaningless until they are exchanged for goods and services. I see no problem there. It doesn't affect my quality of life in any way, or least not in any new way. What if Satoshi wakes up multi-dollar-billionaire, and decides to spend his coins to hire mercenaries to invade my country and turn it into a parking lot he then owns and operates? Nothing new. Nothing exclusive to Bitcoin. Happens all the time.
As for the power that comes with money, most people here could use those money just as wisely as the current politicians and banksters. They are, after all, kleptocrats and sociopaths, you know.
There are shades of grey when it comes to that. We're pitch black.
I genuinely think that if the people present in this forum were to be on top humanity would be extinct within a month.
I think the real solution might be something much more uncomfortable to us early and relatively early adopters and investors:
At some point in the future we might see that bitcoin's growth (price, adoption, whatever) will slow down, possibly because too many coins are in the hands of too little people. Another cryptocurrency (sure, call them "altcoins" if you wish) might start to rise, with less resistance than the original.
At this point, it is at least conceivable that redistribution of old coins will be discussed among us. Not a second earlier (after all, what do I care about the social aspects of distribution of wealth, as long as I'm at the upper end of the distribution). And it would be considered not for moral reasons, but because not redistributing might negatively affect the wealth of the old holders. But by that time, it might also be too late already.
At some point in the future we might see that bitcoin's growth (price, adoption, whatever) will slow down, possibly because too many coins are in the hands of too little people. Another cryptocurrency (sure, call them "altcoins" if you wish) might start to rise, with less resistance than the original.
At this point, it is at least conceivable that redistribution of old coins will be discussed among us. Not a second earlier (after all, what do I care about the social aspects of distribution of wealth, as long as I'm at the upper end of the distribution). And it would be considered not for moral reasons, but because not redistributing might negatively affect the wealth of the old holders. But by that time, it might also be too late already.
That could be a very good reason why it's not priced in yet. There is more than a shade of doubt re: the amount of risk.
Absolutely. There is still risk.
As for the power that comes with money, most people here could use those money just as wisely as the current politicians and banksters. They are, after all, kleptocrats and sociopaths, you know.
It is an amusing aspect of the human psyche, when confronted with equally probable alternatives, to dismiss the unliked option as unlikely. All the people saying something like: "what damage can possibly a socially inept geek with billions dollars do?". He would not have connection or influence.
Problem is, it is equally possible that our next plutocrat is a smart business mind, with government or other connections. And most people seem to forget one simple fact. Money can buy political support, media support, business support... this is exactly why wealth IS power.
Also, why assume that the entity behind Satoshi name is a selfless charity, and doesn't have any power agenda? It is equally probable.
Problem is, it is equally possible that our next plutocrat is a smart business mind, with government or other connections. And most people seem to forget one simple fact. Money can buy political support, media support, business support... this is exactly why wealth IS power.
Also, why assume that the entity behind Satoshi name is a selfless charity, and doesn't have any power agenda? It is equally probable.
If you consider early adopters in bitcoin lucky, not smart, he will probably lose most of it after a few escapades into investing. Coins distributed.
In the current USD regime, value is continuously picked from the serfs and stuffed into the pockets of the elite. This can not happen with bitcoin. It is only an initial distribution problem.
....
Now once Bitcoin does get there(or perhaps just before) we will run into a problem that many people have pointed out. Market instability. Hoarding by the rich investors, the people who have 10's of thousands of Bitcoins. Detractors rightly say that these overly rich early speculators will simply have too much damn money for there to be room for a stable economy. The graphs bounce with every move they make. However, you are still thinking in terms of the archaic currencies we use today. New systems require new ways of thinking. If this problem is obvious to you, do you not think it is obvious to them and their financial advisers as well?
In the present archaic system these activities continue because the government can just print more currency in order to balance or stimulate the economy, and keep these barons in power. Since this is not possible with Bitcoin, the ultra rich will be forced to do it out of their own pocket. No choice. It is now in their best interest - if they want to have a market to spend those billions in. They will have to spend of some of their money to stimulate the economy in order make their wealth usable, and the distribution of wealth will equal out slightly. The market will stabilize. And because there will be no bureaucracy to support these billionaires' financial staying power, finally the little people will have a chance to make their own fortunes out of hard work and ingenuity in a truly free market. The rich will have to maintain their wealth in the same way.
This is an unprecedented turn of history. It is an evolutionary stage of society that cannot be stopped. To you soon-to-be-rich: remember your responsibilities.
We are finally all in this together.
It is an amusing aspect of the human psyche, when confronted with equally probable alternatives, to dismiss the unliked option as unlikely. All the people saying something like: "what damage can possibly a socially inept geek with billions dollars do?". He would not have connection or influence.
Problem is, it is equally possible that our next plutocrat is a smart business mind, with government or other connections. And most people seem to forget one simple fact. Money can buy political support, media support, business support... this is exactly why wealth IS power.
Also, why assume that the entity behind Satoshi name is a selfless charity, and doesn't have any power agenda? It is equally probable.
Problem is, it is equally possible that our next plutocrat is a smart business mind, with government or other connections. And most people seem to forget one simple fact. Money can buy political support, media support, business support... this is exactly why wealth IS power.
Also, why assume that the entity behind Satoshi name is a selfless charity, and doesn't have any power agenda? It is equally probable.
I think the real solution might be something much more uncomfortable to us early and relatively early adopters and investors:
At some point in the future we might see that bitcoin's growth (price, adoption, whatever) will slow down, possibly because too many coins are in the hands of too little people. Another cryptocurrency (sure, call them "altcoins" if you wish) might start to rise, with less resistance than the original.
At this point, it is at least conceivable that redistribution of old coins will be discussed among us. Not a second earlier (after all, what do I care about the social aspects of distribution of wealth, as long as I'm at the upper end of the distribution). And it would be considered not for moral reasons, but because not redistributing might negatively affect the wealth of the old holders. But by that time, it might also be too late already.
At some point in the future we might see that bitcoin's growth (price, adoption, whatever) will slow down, possibly because too many coins are in the hands of too little people. Another cryptocurrency (sure, call them "altcoins" if you wish) might start to rise, with less resistance than the original.
At this point, it is at least conceivable that redistribution of old coins will be discussed among us. Not a second earlier (after all, what do I care about the social aspects of distribution of wealth, as long as I'm at the upper end of the distribution). And it would be considered not for moral reasons, but because not redistributing might negatively affect the wealth of the old holders. But by that time, it might also be too late already.
How would you design a cryptocurrency to solve the initial distribution problem? Imagine you are in 2009, when nobody knew that it could succeed as money at all.
Like I wrote in a comment before, I don't know of the solution. I'm just pointing out that bitcoin, by virtue of being attrative for early adopters (deflationary, big rewards for early miners), will also suffer from extreme concentration of wealth. Which ultimately might cause its downfall.
In that case, all is good. But here is a suggestion: make the block reward more in line with the adoption, for instance 1 BTC per block in the beginning, increasing to 50 after 10 years, then down again. But - nobody would know the adoption rate in advance, and speculators would still try to anticipate the value in the future. And there might be a shock when the block reward started down. In short, it would not make much difference. I am personally impressed with the foresight of Satoshi in the white paper.
How would you design a cryptocurrency to solve the initial distribution problem? Imagine you are in 2009, when nobody knew that it could succeed as money at all.
Like I wrote in a comment before, I don't know of the solution. I'm just pointing out that bitcoin, by virtue of being attrative for early adopters (deflationary, big rewards for early miners), will also suffer from extreme concentration of wealth. Which ultimately might cause its downfall.
Jump to: