5 ms·

They could have been doing something else with their time. Instead they were mining, promoting, and trading this technology. By definition there is an opportuni

They could have been doing something else with their time. Instead they were mining, promoting, and trading this technology. By definition there is an opportunity cost to being an early adopter instead of going with the flow - so indeed they took a risk.

pessimizer 9y ago
The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Does that opportunity cost justify owning a meaningful percentage of all of the coins that will ever exist?
- googletazer 9y ago
  What does "justify" mean here? Are you somehow saying its not fair that early adopters have a lot of coins?
  - scotty79 9y ago
    If at some point bitcoin will suck significant portion of saving of whole world then they will own huge share of all of that which seems a bit unfair.
    - ric2b 9y ago
      So buy it from them. It's a completely voluntary system that requires no permission to participate, has been from the start. I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?
      - scotty79 9y ago
        > So buy it from them. You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell untill bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth. > I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else? I have no idea why would you assume that. Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. No need to re-distribute. Share is the thing that matters not the amount. On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return. Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.
        ric2b 9y ago
        > You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell until bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth. They do sell though, billions of dollars worth, everyday on several exchanges. > Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. So now we're responding with force to a completely voluntary system? Great. And by the way, that is still redistribution, all other assets would go up in value in response. > On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return. > Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them. I agree on copyright, because it's a far different beast with tons of problems, but the others are essentially stores of value that you can get in a voluntary exchange by doing things others find useful. There is inherited wealth, yes, but I've never found a way that works that solves that birth inequality.

pessimizer 9y ago

The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.

UncleMeat 9y ago

Does that opportunity cost justify owning a meaningful percentage of all of the coins that will ever exist?

googletazer 9y ago
What does "justify" mean here? Are you somehow saying its not fair that early adopters have a lot of coins?
- scotty79 9y ago
  If at some point bitcoin will suck significant portion of saving of whole world then they will own huge share of all of that which seems a bit unfair.
  - ric2b 9y ago
    So buy it from them. It's a completely voluntary system that requires no permission to participate, has been from the start. I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?
    - scotty79 9y ago
      > So buy it from them. You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell untill bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth. > I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else? I have no idea why would you assume that. Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. No need to re-distribute. Share is the thing that matters not the amount. On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return. Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.
      - ric2b 9y ago
        > You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell until bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth. They do sell though, billions of dollars worth, everyday on several exchanges. > Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. So now we're responding with force to a completely voluntary system? Great. And by the way, that is still redistribution, all other assets would go up in value in response. > On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return. > Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them. I agree on copyright, because it's a far different beast with tons of problems, but the others are essentially stores of value that you can get in a voluntary exchange by doing things others find useful. There is inherited wealth, yes, but I've never found a way that works that solves that birth inequality.