6 ms·

It seems you have a problem with other people having large pieces of pie, rather than the more important point that all people that have pie have it grow.

Retra 9y ago
Let's hear you say this next time you try to run a political campaign against someone who can outspend you a thousand times over. You'll lose, and they'll have everything they need to take whatever scraps of pie you have on your plate.
- hndamien 9y ago
  What are you referring to?
- loceng 9y ago
  Interestingly my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16867880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16867880 - ties into the concern you voiced.
loceng 9y ago
I really don't see how you could make either of those assertions from what I wrote. If I steal $100 from you, and now I have $100 and you have $0 - would you have a problem with that? That's a generally asinine accusation to make.. Isn't the most important part that something happens fairly - or is your argument that collaboration at all costs is okay? All people having the pie and wanting it to grow (it's what we technically have now, except capitalistic for-profit structures suffocate distribution of and capture the majority of the value), that may be the case in the initial stages because of everyone "profiting" from the increase in value because of demand, however then that's totally forgetting or ignoring the long-term impact once you reach the "tipping point" - that everyone after "50%" now are subsidizing all of the previous "profits" that will want to be realized by the earlier adopters --- and the value can't keep going up unless you have unlimited people to scale it to, which there isn't. Late adopters won't be incentivized to collaborate, as they're not earning "profit" from the incentivized crypto-assets. Also, your statement seems to be a straw man fallacy, whether you meant it to be or not.
- hndamien 9y ago
  I have no idea what you are talking about. People that buy crypto currencies are exchanging money for digital rights (which some believe are better forms of money). How that relates to you stealing $100 from me is beyond my comprehension. People that hold USD have their pie diluted, and they are even lied to about it by using a CPI figured calculated from consumer goods and not a more rounded figure of all asset prices (or actual new money injected/ removed).
  - loceng 9y ago
    Sorry, that was a bad example, and that I didn't explain - making even less comprehensible. It was an attempt to counter your assertion that I "have a problem with other people having large pieces of pie" - which is as ridiculous, as if I stole $100 from you [which gives me more money than your $0], and asking if you're okay that I stole $100 from you. Your accusation was completely baseless/shallow, I should have just said that. Re:"People that hold USD have their pie diluted" Ah ha! I think we can get somewhere now. Early adopters, their pie piece gets bigger, and late adopters -- their pie gets diluted (because they're covering the cost of bigger pieces of pie of the earlier adopters). If USD is bad because the pie gets diluted (because of monetary policy/governance etc), then why isn't it equally bad for the late adopters that their pie is diluted too? Or you only are thinking/care about the early adopters? Does this make sense to you now? You understand how late adopters are covering the early adopters "profits"?
    - hndamien 9y ago
      I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand the economics of what is happening with all due respect. If you mean that when an early adopter sells, this is diluting, then you are wrong. It just moves ownership, there is no dilution. In fact, this is something we should all want to happen, because it improves distribution. It is mostly of little consequence though. When money is created and injected into the money supply, real dilution happens, and the creator/ injector gets the benefit of that money first, not an early adopter that through holding helped everybody. These are vastly different concepts.

Retra 9y ago

Let's hear you say this next time you try to run a political campaign against someone who can outspend you a thousand times over. You'll lose, and they'll have everything they need to take whatever scraps of pie you have on your plate.

hndamien 9y ago
What are you referring to?
loceng 9y ago
Interestingly my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16867880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16867880 - ties into the concern you voiced.

loceng 9y ago

I really don't see how you could make either of those assertions from what I wrote. If I steal $100 from you, and now I have $100 and you have $0 - would you have a problem with that? That's a generally asinine accusation to make.. Isn't the most important part that something happens fairly - or is your argument that collaboration at all costs is okay? All people having the pie and wanting it to grow (it's what we technically have now, except capitalistic for-profit structures suffocate distribution of and capture the majority of the value), that may be the case in the initial stages because of everyone "profiting" from the increase in value because of demand, however then that's totally forgetting or ignoring the long-term impact once you reach the "tipping point" - that everyone after "50%" now are subsidizing all of the previous "profits" that will want to be realized by the earlier adopters --- and the value can't keep going up unless you have unlimited people to scale it to, which there isn't. Late adopters won't be incentivized to collaborate, as they're not earning "profit" from the incentivized crypto-assets. Also, your statement seems to be a straw man fallacy, whether you meant it to be or not.

hndamien 9y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. People that buy crypto currencies are exchanging money for digital rights (which some believe are better forms of money). How that relates to you stealing $100 from me is beyond my comprehension. People that hold USD have their pie diluted, and they are even lied to about it by using a CPI figured calculated from consumer goods and not a more rounded figure of all asset prices (or actual new money injected/ removed).
- loceng 9y ago
  Sorry, that was a bad example, and that I didn't explain - making even less comprehensible. It was an attempt to counter your assertion that I "have a problem with other people having large pieces of pie" - which is as ridiculous, as if I stole $100 from you [which gives me more money than your $0], and asking if you're okay that I stole $100 from you. Your accusation was completely baseless/shallow, I should have just said that. Re:"People that hold USD have their pie diluted" Ah ha! I think we can get somewhere now. Early adopters, their pie piece gets bigger, and late adopters -- their pie gets diluted (because they're covering the cost of bigger pieces of pie of the earlier adopters). If USD is bad because the pie gets diluted (because of monetary policy/governance etc), then why isn't it equally bad for the late adopters that their pie is diluted too? Or you only are thinking/care about the early adopters? Does this make sense to you now? You understand how late adopters are covering the early adopters "profits"?
  - hndamien 9y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand the economics of what is happening with all due respect. If you mean that when an early adopter sells, this is diluting, then you are wrong. It just moves ownership, there is no dilution. In fact, this is something we should all want to happen, because it improves distribution. It is mostly of little consequence though. When money is created and injected into the money supply, real dilution happens, and the creator/ injector gets the benefit of that money first, not an early adopter that through holding helped everybody. These are vastly different concepts.