Topic: Under capitalism eventually 1% own 99% of BTC, 1% have 99% of power? - page 2. (Read 357 times)

Op your thread is confusing, where did you get all these percentages to analyze  the exploitation in the Capitalist Economy? From economics perspective your analysis with the percentage is wrong. What does the 1% stand for? Is it the bourgeoisie or the lower class? That 1% must stand as a person to control the 99% and the same goes to the 99% as well. Who are the 99%?  BTC is not own by 1%. And the 99% you are talking about is over populated the 1% so they can't control it.

A percentage divide would always exist with the more wealthy filling up the higher percentage holders. The ration could be:

• 1% - 99%
• 10% - 95%
• 20% - 80%

But the reality is there would be an uneven distribution of an asset between the wealthy and the masses.

---

The depth of an investor's pocket determines how much Bitcoin they can purchase or mining equipment they acquire, effectively meaning that wealthy individuals would own more of Bitcoin and with time the divide would widen. You can choose not to sell yours to the whales and hodl through, there would be others that will.
 
Take a look at the early days of Bitcoin and you notice something curious, early birds who adopted it early, started mining and investing early would have a chunk of Bitcoins now, without being particularly wealthy at the time. Would you classify them to be among the 1% or the 99%?

- Jay -

I have, and it's sorted already. See blockchair_bitcoin_addresses_and_balance_LATEST.tsv.gz.
Out of 46 million funded Bitcoin addresses, the top 1% holds 1728674692971682 out of 1933935229497096 sats. That's 89.4%.
This data doesn't mean much though: many Bitcoin users own more than one funded address, and many people (think they) own Bitcoin held on an exchange, while the exchange owns one or more addresses with large amounts of Bitcoin.
On the other end of the list there are many addresses with dust amounts of Bitcoin.

huh?

Bitcoin is far more spread out in the population than any PoS crypto where they do pre-mines and wealthy people are able to get large chunks of it usually before the public at the lowest price possible. There is nothing about PoS that makes the supply more spread out, and nothing about it that stops whales from controlling the market. In fact it is worse in PoS cryptos.

New coins are mined and distributed to existing and new holders. Existing coins in wallets who hold the most will always be traded or spent in the future. Considering that Bitcoin's supply is limited to 21,000,000 and it is impossible to centralize or manipulate its creation and distribution, it is unlikely that a small portion of holders will control its supply for an extended period of time, or even if so, at least some of the supply will always be in the hands of a free market.

The reason why wealth centralizes under capitalism in fiat money is because there are so many flawed concepts which fail to make it fair for everyone and viable in the long term. That and there are weaknesses that are constantly exploited which only makes fiat money even weaker.

You can't escape this pattern. Bitcoin is not really built in a way where it can become a people's currency. The POW algorithm and the increase in difficulty, make it the game of riches. If you can invest huge money in mining rigs, then only you have access to such decentralised system and mine bitcoin. Otherwise you have no choice than to buy from open market. That's what the bitcoin capitalism is. Whales indeed controls the market.

I personally feel that POS is much better than POW if the entry barrier is reasonable. That's what something truly makes a coin people's money.

Even if big players gain control over large amounts of bitcoin, they don't begin to control it. Decentralization protects the rights and opportunities of small bitcoin holders. And the big ones, especially if they invest heavily in bitcoin, will be interested in supporting bitcoin, not harming it, in order to increase their capital, not lose it. So I don't think big investors coming into bitcoin will be very negative.

It might if people use Bitcoin incorrectly.  When people leave funds in exchanges and webwallets, that does effectively centralise wealth.  But those using Bitcoin in the intended fashion are helping to keep wealth more evenly distributed.  That's how it was designed to be used.

I think, @LoyceV had a data of all addresses that hold bitcoin, he may sort it and confirm whether that information is true or not.
But in case of bitcoin, we have to keep in mind that there are a lot of lost bitcoins, for example:
Address - 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF with 79957 Bitcoin.
Address - 1LdRcdxfbSnmCYYNdeYpUnztiYzVfBEQeC with 53880 Bitcoin.
Address - 12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsTey55YEBqkv with 28151 Bitcoin.
Address - 1PeizMg76Cf96nUQrYg8xuoZWLQozU5zGW with 19414 Bitcoin.

So, if, for example, 0.5% of 1% who hold 99% of bitcoins are lost wallets, then we can't say that 1% plays the game because proportion will be different. Also, we have to keep in mind that around 2 million bitcoins are left to be mined and we don't know where will these two bitcoins end up.

Also, stronger or richer will always outperform weaker or poorer, it's just a rule of nature.

From Varoufakis!

This is the right answer.


First off as I said above, 1% don't own 99% of BTC, because that would mean the tens of millions of bitcoin owners in the 99% combined own less than 200k Bitcoin, which is obviously absurd. If that was the case I'd probably be in the 1% lol cuz that would mean I would have thousands of times more Bitcoin than the average of the 99%, and that would also mean the average holding of the 99% would only be a few dozen dollars worth of Bitcoin and that is probably more like the bottom 10% not the bottom 99%. This is all to point out that 1% does not own anything remotely close to 99% of BTC.

And naturally people who were already rich or who got into Bitcoin extremely early (like those who were mining 50 BTC at a time back in 2011 or buying it at $1-$10 back then) are going to have a lot more Bitcoin than the average person. That's natural. But as DeathAngel here says, anybody in the 99% can get a head start now buy accumulating Bitcoin because plenty of those 1%'ers from outside Bitcoin aren't even gonna get into it for many years and they'll be buying in at far higher prices, and thus supporting your wealth gains with their wealth.

Finally, Bitcoin isn't PoS, and it isn't run by politicians or a company. It is decentralized. So no amount of wealth in Bitcoin can be used to exploit the network. That's one of the beautiful things about PoW - supply ownership and mining ownership are two entirely different things that each require significant capital investment. And that's also the beauty of Bitcoin being decentralized. In the fiat system wealthy individuals have sway over politicians who control the fiat system, but in Bitcoin you have no say over the network no matter how much Bitcoin you own.

Bitcoin is free enterprise money. This means that it takes the power from the state and it gives it to those who own bitcoin. Is this fair? Debatable. In some sense, it's not fair that a small minority is liable for the most part of the economy. In some other sense, it's fair because every other alternative is less fair. And in fact, there aren't lots alternatives. For the most part, if you don't let the market free, you need to introduce means of force to acquire money you don't think that is distributed fairly.

Is it possible to define a universally objective standard for fairness in all contexts? Food for thought.

And socialism and communism flood the world with poverty!

Bitcoin is pure capitalism, no matter how many scream in agony and try to find it a messiah role of getting rid of the world order and poverty and some other total fantasy-like role in the economy, Bitcoin is the true essence of capitalism, where you have capital you are able to invest, the ones that don't have, they will never have sone satoshi! Bitcoin doesn't follow and can't follow the rules of a socialist country with wealth redistribution, you can't force people to give their coins to the poorer you can't even tax differently because you have no idea what to taxon the chain!
So with the death of fiat, there will also be the death of any kind of socialist or communist society if we embrace crypto!


BTC is not PoS it's PoW!
Owning 10000 or 1 coin doesn't change anything in how things work!
Besides, you don't need money to exploit others, look at NK! No trace of capitalism and you have 100% -1 of the population being exploited!

Only 21,000,000 bitcoin will ever exist, you can get a head start on people a lot richer than you by stacking as many says as you can right now. Sure people will have more than you but you can offset the divide in fiat wealth by buying as much bitcoin as you can whilst it’s still relatively cheap.

OP was merely illustrating a hypothetical situation in which, yes, Bitcoin would have failed if 99% of the supply is HODLed by 1% of the total participants of the network. I also brought up a shower thought before, and asked that "If there's enough Bitcoin under the custody of centralized entities, and the only way to use Bitcoin is through their services/applications, would Bitcoin have failed"?

Blockchain is a well secured technology that is immutable which means that the network cannot be altered by anyone no matter how as long as you're connected to it, this is why many organizations and industries now key into this technology of blockchain becau they want their privacy to be secured and unmanipulated by any means, thoughyou need to understand that blockchain is open to the public but can't be altered.

The blockchain is truly secure and nobody can penetrate it.  Those 1% who own most Bitcoins will not be able to exploit other 99% of holders. Even if those 1% are willing to do so they will have to sell their BTC at a very low rate which can create fear in market for short term.

Well, if you consider statistics, it is really difficult to say that 1% own 99% of BTC, because the top address holds BTC for thousand of people. Surely the most rich owner has more bitcoin than the other one and with this

they can have an high power on the community, but, Bitcoin born to be decentralized, so, this power as you say is relative to itself. You should worry about USD, EUR, where in that currencies only 1% of people has more

than 50% of total world wealth.

Sorry - assumed a few wallets held most BTC, I see now I was wrong.  However, doesn't the point still stand?  Under capitalism wealth centralizes, won't the same happen with BTC?

Thanks

Well, you have to go back to the reading, the 1% that was claimed to control the 99% is not based on your disposition. Still, they are the ones with the coin and they are at some times giving it away or selling it at their discretion.

He might be right, but it's according to some of the articles and general saying on the internet. Is this really true? I don't know, but the myth is verifiable. However, their point is that 99% of Bitcoin addresses don't have the coin in them or have so little to be recognised. Nonetheless, this is an old saying which might not reflect the present-day status of Bitcoin.

You can read more here: ‘1% of 100%