4 ms·

As Satoshis minting algo was used, why should one user receive significantly more coins for such low effort simply for running the software at an early date? T

As Satoshis minting algo was used, why should one user receive significantly more coins for such low effort simply for running the software at an early date? The end result is early users exploiting users who join the network after them. Ponzi style.

celticninja 9y ago
Because at the point he started the network the coins were worthless, he got paid less per block than someone who mines a block today even though the mining reward is 1/4 of what it was in 2009.
- cryptodogemoon 9y ago
  No, this is purely the internal economic model of bitcoin production concerning work/energy/value input versus output to workers. Imagine someone tells you they've created a money printing machine that prints 21m BTC, and they design the machine to give them most of the BTC and when it arrives in your town the man says "well it looks like the rules have changed now and your work isn't worth as much as my work because you encountered the magic box after me" The users who ran the software on the network in 2010 required much less value input to generate bitcoins. Acording to Satoshis design, a user running the software now on an identical computer would not produce the same rewards for their work. This is essentially an intentional ponzi design. Users who aquired bitcoins for low capital input are incentized to psychologically convince late adopters to purchase their bitcoins for more than it cost to produce and acquire.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    The rule change was fully known about in advance, it didn't suprise anyone. And you could contend that the work is now worth more. For a long time mining was economically unrewarding, miners created a blockchain and provided it with power at their own cost and without any guarantee of success or return. Those who joined later were joining when their work would be immediately rewarded with profit because it became economically feasible to mine. These late arrivers actually pushed out a lot of the early miners by using more powerful and efficient equipment. So they may have taken more of a capital risk but less of a risk in terms of knowing a return was possible and would repay their investment.
    - superbrama 9y ago
      If later comers took more capital risk, in what way did they take less risk, exactly? The semantics matter here. Perhaps the later comers were more opportunistic and optimistic about the likelihood of achieving a favorable return. But they had to take more risk, since they were later to the party and risked more capital (as you noted).

celticninja 9y ago

Because at the point he started the network the coins were worthless, he got paid less per block than someone who mines a block today even though the mining reward is 1/4 of what it was in 2009.

cryptodogemoon 9y ago
No, this is purely the internal economic model of bitcoin production concerning work/energy/value input versus output to workers. Imagine someone tells you they've created a money printing machine that prints 21m BTC, and they design the machine to give them most of the BTC and when it arrives in your town the man says "well it looks like the rules have changed now and your work isn't worth as much as my work because you encountered the magic box after me" The users who ran the software on the network in 2010 required much less value input to generate bitcoins. Acording to Satoshis design, a user running the software now on an identical computer would not produce the same rewards for their work. This is essentially an intentional ponzi design. Users who aquired bitcoins for low capital input are incentized to psychologically convince late adopters to purchase their bitcoins for more than it cost to produce and acquire.
- celticninja 9y ago
  The rule change was fully known about in advance, it didn't suprise anyone. And you could contend that the work is now worth more. For a long time mining was economically unrewarding, miners created a blockchain and provided it with power at their own cost and without any guarantee of success or return. Those who joined later were joining when their work would be immediately rewarded with profit because it became economically feasible to mine. These late arrivers actually pushed out a lot of the early miners by using more powerful and efficient equipment. So they may have taken more of a capital risk but less of a risk in terms of knowing a return was possible and would repay their investment.
  - superbrama 9y ago
    If later comers took more capital risk, in what way did they take less risk, exactly? The semantics matter here. Perhaps the later comers were more opportunistic and optimistic about the likelihood of achieving a favorable return. But they had to take more risk, since they were later to the party and risked more capital (as you noted).