7 ms·

Global pyramid-like schemes are worthy of existence? Any threads on Bitcoin on Reddit highlight this - people thought about or bought Bitcoin in the past as an

by loceng 11y ago

Global pyramid-like schemes are worthy of existence? Any threads on Bitcoin on Reddit highlight this - people thought about or bought Bitcoin in the past as an investment. Now most everyone who buys it or accepts it hope its value will increase as their main incentive to collecting them. Why is it beneficial for all of society to make these people millionaires and potentially billionaires if adoption was high enough? Furthermore, what happens to the last 30%, when the first 70% have adopted. It's completely unreasonable.

Kinnard 11y ago
I suppose they're being rewarded for their insight. Additionally, if you're just thinking of bitcoin as a currency, and not a global social paradigm shift, I think you're missing the point. You can issue your own currency on top of the Bitcoin blockchain— among the other myriad uses. This is about emancipation even more than enrichment.
- loceng 11y ago
  Much like an investor who claims to offer 40% returns, so you give him money - and then he gives you someone elses' money to convince you of his great returns. Of course that money is from someone who also bought into the scam. This goes on until someone catches on - or the person runs with everyone's money without paying that final amount; sells off their ownership into real currency. There's a reason pyramid schemes are illegal. Why can't a global social paradigm shift occur in a different way? It's the current structure of Bitcoin, not the other values that it does provide. If it didn't provide those other potentials then it would of had a much more difficult time taking off and getting adoption from anyone.
- vectorpush 11y ago
  /eyeroll. Bitcoin is not a global paradigm shift; it's an interesting technical novelty with some niche use cases. The never-ending hyperbolic glorification of bitcoin is a great way to foment the idea that bitcoin isn't worth taking seriously. > This is about emancipation even more than enrichment.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but this kind of pretentious schlock ("global paradigm shift", "emancipation") just makes me want Bitcoin to fail even harder. It's probably a nifty technology. Stop talking about it like it's the second coming of Jesus.
loceng 11y ago
Downvote parade after a few upvotes. How about instead some explanations as to why you disagree or as to why I am wrong? Would be appreciated to see what people are thinking.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  Probably for the pyramid scheme trope. Bitcoin is technology and was released publicly with no scheme involved. It was worthless to begin with.
  - loceng 11y ago
    Quite possibly. And that doesn't mean Bitcoin wasn't leveraged a certain way.
gricardo99 11y ago
"Why is it beneficial for all of society to make these people millionaires and potentially billionaires if adoption was high enough?" I like your approach of looking at a technology and asking "who's going to get rich off of this". That can reveal a lot about certain actors motivations and behaviors. With bitcoin, if adoption is high that means there's a lot of value in the network and the technology. Increasing the wealth of a bunch of early adopters (who supported the network/technology when it was vital to do so), seems to me to be a feature, not a bug. You can further concentrate wealth among a select group of venture capitalists (who typically benefit from valuable innovations), or you can more randomly distribute it to early adopters.
- Nursie 11y ago
  Or, you can run a currency for the people using it, which makes any choice of instrument where there is a small, entrenched group already holding that currency a pretty terrible idea.
- loceng 11y ago
  "With bitcoin, if adoption is high that means there's a lot of value in the network and the technology." There is some value in it, however as I stated, these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have. A better system can exist where this unreasonable distribution doesn't occur. Bitcoin in its current form isn't the only possible version, so why not compare it and break it down into "oh, well there is high adoption so there's enough value that we should look the other way and ignore better ways where value is even higher for even more people - or even everyone."
  - gricardo99 11y ago
    "these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have" It sounds like you're dismissing the innovations around bitcoin over a broader grievance against speculation. A few more points on this: 1) They risked their money. I agree that sometimes a very high return seems unfair/unwarranted (again, true of speculation in general). 2) Many people holding a lot of bitcoin (e.g. the Winklevii) are working very hard towards bitcoin's success. They believe in the technology. If that turns them into billionaires, I don't see that as any more unreasonable than Facebook billionaires. Aside from those who are working hard, with any technology/startup there are usually some "passive" investors that hit pay dirt. Would you cap Mark Zuckerberg's upside since there must have been some people invested in, or employed by, Facebook that really didn't do anything, yet made quite a bit of money? Who's going to decide what's reasonable? 3) Let the market decide. There are competing alternatives, let's see what happens. If enough people are outraged by the thought of a few bitcoin speculators making billions, then perhaps that could kill it. I'm guessing that kind of broad dislike for speculators would lead to less speculative ventures, which doesn't sound good for innovation.
mirimir 11y ago
Some early users have retained their Bitcoin, for sure. And it's great if they get rewarded for their part in getting it going. But I and many others have just used Bitcoin. I earn a little, now and then, and buy what I need. With adequate mixing, it's usable semi-anonymous ecash. I don't mind speculators, as long as the price remains more-or-less predictable. The first three quarters of 2015 were OK. Now I must gamble on when to buy stuff, and it's annoying.

by loceng 11y ago

Kinnard 11y ago

I suppose they're being rewarded for their insight. Additionally, if you're just thinking of bitcoin as a currency, and not a global social paradigm shift, I think you're missing the point. You can issue your own currency on top of the Bitcoin blockchain— among the other myriad uses. This is about emancipation even more than enrichment.

loceng 11y ago
Much like an investor who claims to offer 40% returns, so you give him money - and then he gives you someone elses' money to convince you of his great returns. Of course that money is from someone who also bought into the scam. This goes on until someone catches on - or the person runs with everyone's money without paying that final amount; sells off their ownership into real currency. There's a reason pyramid schemes are illegal. Why can't a global social paradigm shift occur in a different way? It's the current structure of Bitcoin, not the other values that it does provide. If it didn't provide those other potentials then it would of had a much more difficult time taking off and getting adoption from anyone.
vectorpush 11y ago
/eyeroll. Bitcoin is not a global paradigm shift; it's an interesting technical novelty with some niche use cases. The never-ending hyperbolic glorification of bitcoin is a great way to foment the idea that bitcoin isn't worth taking seriously. > This is about emancipation even more than enrichment.
s73v3r 11y ago
I'm sorry, but this kind of pretentious schlock ("global paradigm shift", "emancipation") just makes me want Bitcoin to fail even harder. It's probably a nifty technology. Stop talking about it like it's the second coming of Jesus.

loceng 11y ago

Downvote parade after a few upvotes. How about instead some explanations as to why you disagree or as to why I am wrong? Would be appreciated to see what people are thinking.

clarkmoody 11y ago
Probably for the pyramid scheme trope. Bitcoin is technology and was released publicly with no scheme involved. It was worthless to begin with.
- loceng 11y ago
  Quite possibly. And that doesn't mean Bitcoin wasn't leveraged a certain way.

gricardo99 11y ago

"Why is it beneficial for all of society to make these people millionaires and potentially billionaires if adoption was high enough?" I like your approach of looking at a technology and asking "who's going to get rich off of this". That can reveal a lot about certain actors motivations and behaviors. With bitcoin, if adoption is high that means there's a lot of value in the network and the technology. Increasing the wealth of a bunch of early adopters (who supported the network/technology when it was vital to do so), seems to me to be a feature, not a bug. You can further concentrate wealth among a select group of venture capitalists (who typically benefit from valuable innovations), or you can more randomly distribute it to early adopters.

Nursie 11y ago
Or, you can run a currency for the people using it, which makes any choice of instrument where there is a small, entrenched group already holding that currency a pretty terrible idea.
loceng 11y ago
"With bitcoin, if adoption is high that means there's a lot of value in the network and the technology." There is some value in it, however as I stated, these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have. A better system can exist where this unreasonable distribution doesn't occur. Bitcoin in its current form isn't the only possible version, so why not compare it and break it down into "oh, well there is high adoption so there's enough value that we should look the other way and ignore better ways where value is even higher for even more people - or even everyone."
- gricardo99 11y ago
  "these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have" It sounds like you're dismissing the innovations around bitcoin over a broader grievance against speculation. A few more points on this: 1) They risked their money. I agree that sometimes a very high return seems unfair/unwarranted (again, true of speculation in general). 2) Many people holding a lot of bitcoin (e.g. the Winklevii) are working very hard towards bitcoin's success. They believe in the technology. If that turns them into billionaires, I don't see that as any more unreasonable than Facebook billionaires. Aside from those who are working hard, with any technology/startup there are usually some "passive" investors that hit pay dirt. Would you cap Mark Zuckerberg's upside since there must have been some people invested in, or employed by, Facebook that really didn't do anything, yet made quite a bit of money? Who's going to decide what's reasonable? 3) Let the market decide. There are competing alternatives, let's see what happens. If enough people are outraged by the thought of a few bitcoin speculators making billions, then perhaps that could kill it. I'm guessing that kind of broad dislike for speculators would lead to less speculative ventures, which doesn't sound good for innovation.

mirimir 11y ago

Some early users have retained their Bitcoin, for sure. And it's great if they get rewarded for their part in getting it going. But I and many others have just used Bitcoin. I earn a little, now and then, and buy what I need. With adequate mixing, it's usable semi-anonymous ecash. I don't mind speculators, as long as the price remains more-or-less predictable. The first three quarters of 2015 were OK. Now I must gamble on when to buy stuff, and it's annoying.