Topic: who are those 1% of the new world order of bitcoin economy? (Read 1883 times)
The big holders got their coins fairly, and it would be ridiculous to suggest they should have bought or mined less out of consideration for later adopters, since the future was not certain. I think later adopters benefit because the earliest adopters gave life to the network and made others aware of this new system thanks to the growing price. As for future wealth inequality, at least with bitcoin the rules of money generation and number of coins are clear and simple for anyone to understand, unlike the current system which is obscure to say the least. This gives people a fairer chance to improve their lot.
The thing is with the 1% of the bitcoin wealthiest, they don't control the rest of the network.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
This bears repeating. Remember, that the fiat 0.001% doesn't need to work for their money because it is printed especially for them at your expense. With Bitcoin, the 0.001% must hire you if they want anything and pay you what you are worth at their expense. It won't take long for the wealth to even out if there is a level playing field.The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
I agree with everything in both glendall's and cbeast's posts except the very last sentence. There is no reason to expect that the wealth will even out, i.e. everyone has roughly the same. That strikes me as a highly unlikely scenario; you see nothing like it in nature.
currently about 1% of address has more than 5 bitcoins..
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
Only governments and regulations can solve that problem. Only when there's a country offering enough incentive to remain there while adhering to rules that may force you to pay a lot of taxes (because of your high income) things may change for the better!
If you think it through, top 1% is still too much, maybe top 0.001%, or top 1000 are the real big holders.
The thing is with the 1% of the bitcoin wealthiest, they don't control the rest of the network.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
That isn't true at all. The wealthiest individuals DO control the network, in exactly the same way as wealthy individuals control the fiat money supply. A few very large (in comparison to us anyways) companies not only control the majority of the network hash power, but they have the ability to control our ability to contribute to the network by withholding the tools needed to hash. Assuming you do not have the resources to design and build your own ASICS, you can only mine in so far as they allow you to, in an amount they control, at a price they set. In fact I would argue that they have a tighter control over bitcoin than the various wealthy fiat owners do over fiat money supply.
Well I think there are also a lot of people who have more than 5 btc in different addresses.
currently about 1% of address has more than 5 bitcoins..
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
Bitcoins - is not communism, but only honest capitalism. It gives you ability to be safe, secure and state-independent. Do you want more?
So if I own more than 5 BTC, I'm in the 1% of richest BTC owners?
Christ, let me buy some then!!
Christ, let me buy some then!!
I would like to say that someone from middle class in developing country is not able to afford to buy more than 10 bitcoins as of today..
a fair distribution model should also take care of different nations... all the people cannot be considered to live in a developed scenario..
this point fits well with transaction fees, see the minimal fee for developed country is really so much for developing country to the point it is equal with PayPal, visa...
a fair distribution model should also take care of different nations... all the people cannot be considered to live in a developed scenario..
this point fits well with transaction fees, see the minimal fee for developed country is really so much for developing country to the point it is equal with PayPal, visa...
The point of Bitcoin is that you wouldn't need to buy 10 bitcoins, you can have a fraction of a bitcoin if you so wished.
600 bitcoins at $1 a piece still costs the same as 1 bitcoin at $600 a piece.
I would like to say that someone from middle class in developing country is not able to afford to buy more than 10 bitcoins as of today..
a fair distribution model should also take care of different nations... all the people cannot be considered to live in a developed scenario..
this point fits well with transaction fees, see the minimal fee for developed country is really so much for developing country to the point it is equal with PayPal, visa...
a fair distribution model should also take care of different nations... all the people cannot be considered to live in a developed scenario..
this point fits well with transaction fees, see the minimal fee for developed country is really so much for developing country to the point it is equal with PayPal, visa...
How do you calculate the 1%? Address has been increasing
In this sense 1% doesn't necessarily mean 1% based on calculation, it is a figure of speech for a distribution model. Kind of like a Zipfian distribution.
The thing is with the 1% of the bitcoin wealthiest, they don't control the rest of the network.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
This bears repeating. Remember, that the fiat 0.001% doesn't need to work for their money because it is printed especially for them at your expense. With Bitcoin, the 0.001% must hire you if they want anything and pay you what you are worth at their expense. It won't take long for the wealth to even out if there is a level playing field.The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
I agree with everything in both glendall's and cbeast's posts except the very last sentence. There is no reason to expect that the wealth will even out, i.e. everyone has roughly the same. That strikes me as a highly unlikely scenario; you see nothing like it in nature.
That comes down to the scarcity model. If Bitcoin was theoretically better distributed then it might be worth less or wouldn't had gone anywhere (as it would had been dumped to death). . It's only a guess as we've not really seen an egalitarian or a fairer distribution model exceed yet.
How do you calculate the 1%? Address has been increasing
currently about 1% of address has more than 5 bitcoins..
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
when it comes to wealth inequality bitcoin is same as the old financial order.
so those who own more than 5 bitcoin, will they become the 1%...
then who are those 99%? ..
one good thing is the 1% of bit economy could be from the 99% of old economy..
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
What the figure you quoted is missing is that:
a) A person may be holding private keys to more than one address
b) An address can be 'owned', or rather accessible by more than one person
The point you make about there being a 1% is still fair enough though, just felt compelled to make those observation.
Everyone one try to be on top, bitcoin holders is no different.
The thing is with the 1% of the bitcoin wealthiest, they don't control the rest of the network.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
This bears repeating. Remember, that the fiat 0.001% doesn't need to work for their money because it is printed especially for them at your expense. With Bitcoin, the 0.001% must hire you if they want anything and pay you what you are worth at their expense. It won't take long for the wealth to even out if there is a level playing field. The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
The thing is with the 1% of the bitcoin wealthiest, they don't control the rest of the network.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
The 1% of the wealthiest fiat owners control money. They have a monopoly of money, and the 0.001% richest control the instruments that even make money itself (out of thin air and debt).
That's the really big important difference to keep in mind here.
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
Well, why would it?
I just wish it did.. should wealth inequality be done with? or should it exist to maintain the natural order of the world?
I'm in my 30s and i still haven't found the answer to that question! I think we can't all have the same amount of money like the start of monopoly, but at the same time, wealth in-equality is just insane! Like, if i ran the planet, i would say, ok.. You can't be a billionaire! sorry, you don't need a billion dollars! lol WTF are you going to do with a billion dollars!? you can keep it after we fix Detroit and bunch of other shit. So, everything over a billion must go towards fixing, updating social infrastructure and helping the least fortunate among the populous. When all of that is done, where there are zero homeless in the streets and at least the have a respectable place to stay at night and are not hungry, then maybe we can raise that bar on a limited basis. But until then, NO jack-ass, you can't have a billion dollars! you can have 800 Fucking million! are you still not happy?!?!?! FFS.
anyway, that was my nightly rant...
if decentralization does not solve wealth inequality, what else will?
Well, why would it?
I just wish it did.. should wealth inequality be done with? or should it exist to maintain the natural order of the world?
Jump to: