4 ms·

"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 l

"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.
- grubles 11y ago
  >these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have. Not true. Miners helped secure the network (and were rewarded with more bitcoins for doing so due to the mining difficulty) when bitcoin was brand new and vulnerable to attacks. It sounds like you haven't read much about how bitcoin works.
s73v3r 11y ago
"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." Why?
- gricardo99 11y ago
  because: "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"
  - loceng 11y ago
    Why do these VCs deserve to get access to this money this way? And how does this justify and make it reasonable now?
    - ksowocki 11y ago
      > Why do these VCs deserve to get access to this money this way? Circular comment thread is circular: > Increasing the wealth of a bunch of early adopters (who supported the network/technology when it was vital to do so)
      - loceng 11y ago
        It's for personal gain, not for the benefit of everyone. Yes, a structure that has many of the qualities of Bitcoin would be beneficial for all of society, everyone. If it was beneficial to everyone, without these unreasonable problems, then everyone would adopt it - including myself. A different structure can exist that has the same qualities as Bitcoin - that is what I am arguing for.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    I'm not seeing why either of those is desirable, or a reason I should care about Bitcoin.

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.
grubles 11y ago
>these people really didn't do anything to warrant the unreasonable amount of gain they have or will have. Not true. Miners helped secure the network (and were rewarded with more bitcoins for doing so due to the mining difficulty) when bitcoin was brand new and vulnerable to attacks. It sounds like you haven't read much about how bitcoin works.

s73v3r 11y ago

"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." Why?

gricardo99 11y ago
because: "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"
- loceng 11y ago
  Why do these VCs deserve to get access to this money this way? And how does this justify and make it reasonable now?
  - ksowocki 11y ago
    > Why do these VCs deserve to get access to this money this way? Circular comment thread is circular: > Increasing the wealth of a bunch of early adopters (who supported the network/technology when it was vital to do so)
    - loceng 11y ago
      It's for personal gain, not for the benefit of everyone. Yes, a structure that has many of the qualities of Bitcoin would be beneficial for all of society, everyone. If it was beneficial to everyone, without these unreasonable problems, then everyone would adopt it - including myself. A different structure can exist that has the same qualities as Bitcoin - that is what I am arguing for.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I'm not seeing why either of those is desirable, or a reason I should care about Bitcoin.