3 ms·

I think a deeper question to ask is whether the monetary controls of which you speak are designed to serve the masses or to maintain current power and wea

I think a deeper question to ask is whether the monetary controls of which you speak are designed to serve the masses or to maintain current power and wealth distribution? Consider how all the major cryptocoin supplies have been minted and distributed. Anyone with established wealth has had disproportionately easier access to take over these cryptocoin networks due to the supplies being produced in quantity early on and at low computational/energy/capital costs. Assuming the existing network is not made obsolete, and if there is any on-going demand then later users will need to sacrifice disproportionately excessive trade into the network as the early adopters simply horde the majority of the supply.

ballenf 9y ago
The difference is that it's a one-time upfront situation, whereas the current monetary systems in place have permanent ongoing rewards: the US federal reserve system where a select few chosen long ago have a permanent guaranteed income return that is written into law. I'd rather have transparency and one-time benefit to a select few than a permanent, secretive benefit. The US federal reserve system works pretty well and I don't really have a huge problem with it. My point is simply that the downsides to cryptocurrencies you rightly highlight have to be viewed in context of the current alternatives.
- nosuchthing 9y ago
  In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and many addresses have been used only once or a few times. (The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from early 2014 notes: "47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%"; and distribution "looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes China's and even the US' wealth distribution look like that of a workers' paradise Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir found in a 2012 study that only 22% of then-existing Bitcoins were in circulation at all, there were a total of 75 active users or businesses with any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a quarter of all Bitcoins in existence, and one large owner was trying to hide their pile by moving it around in thousands of smaller transactions. (Shamir is one of the most renowned cryptographers in the world and the "S" in "RSA encryption")" [1] "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain" via https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davidgerard https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davidgerard
- notahacker 9y ago
  A large share of an asset which appreciates over time is a permanent ongoing reward. The effect of a conventional fractional reserve currency is the opposite; inflation erodes the value of currency holdings unless they're directly or indirectly invested in producing stuff (Sure, who has access to what investment opportunities isn't even and nor is the initial distribution of wealth, but cryptocurrency doesn't attempt to solve that problem)

ballenf 9y ago

The difference is that it's a one-time upfront situation, whereas the current monetary systems in place have permanent ongoing rewards: the US federal reserve system where a select few chosen long ago have a permanent guaranteed income return that is written into law. I'd rather have transparency and one-time benefit to a select few than a permanent, secretive benefit. The US federal reserve system works pretty well and I don't really have a huge problem with it. My point is simply that the downsides to cryptocurrencies you rightly highlight have to be viewed in context of the current alternatives.

nosuchthing 9y ago
In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and many addresses have been used only once or a few times. (The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from early 2014 notes: "47 individuals hold about 30 percent, another 900 a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about 25% and another million about 20%"; and distribution "looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes China's and even the US' wealth distribution look like that of a workers' paradise Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir found in a 2012 study that only 22% of then-existing Bitcoins were in circulation at all, there were a total of 75 active users or businesses with any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a quarter of all Bitcoins in existence, and one large owner was trying to hide their pile by moving it around in thousands of smaller transactions. (Shamir is one of the most renowned cryptographers in the world and the "S" in "RSA encryption")" [1] "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain" via https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davidgerard https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davidgerard
notahacker 9y ago
A large share of an asset which appreciates over time is a permanent ongoing reward. The effect of a conventional fractional reserve currency is the opposite; inflation erodes the value of currency holdings unless they're directly or indirectly invested in producing stuff (Sure, who has access to what investment opportunities isn't even and nor is the initial distribution of wealth, but cryptocurrency doesn't attempt to solve that problem)