5 ms·

When I first got into bitcoin I thought it could be a wonderful alternative to the current monetary system, I especially hoped it would be more equitably shares

When I first got into bitcoin I thought it could be a wonderful alternative to the current monetary system, I especially hoped it would be more equitably shares. Unfortunately it’s turned out to be as unequally shared as our current wealth is, if not more. Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. That’s an interesting idea for how a currency would work and I’m half tempted to ask you to explain if everyone had the same where is the value in it... but more tempted to suggest you develope a currency based on human fingers as most of us start with the same number.
- ianai 8y ago
  One idea I’ve had and heard similar descriptions of elsewhere is to give people grants for various things. Ie. If you’re diagnosed with skin cancer you’re given a grant to fund the treatment. There’d have to be an algorithm in place to settle on the optimum grant - and I don’t claim to know it. Maybe it’s a grant that establishes a reimbursement contract between the service provider, the government, and the patient with an allotment for a maximal amount of profit. But giving people blocks of money is compatible with the capitalistic market. They would still have to choose how to spend their stipend(s) and the associated trade offs. I liken it to filling in missing data with the average value. Making sure everyone made at least the average per capita income wouldn’t change inflation, I think.
- bitcoinisqueen 8y ago
  80% of people will spend/lose money right away. The reason people have no money, is because of the power of their habits and their lack of imagination and discipline. Money is merely s measurement tool that reflects your captured reciprocal altruism (or piracy of course). Tons of "poor people" regularly blow $100's/month on drugs such as caffeine, tobacco, beer or even illegal drugs and lottery tickets. Others will extend themselves with shiny clothes and new cars. It's frankly hilarious and apalling at the same time. Primary reason: predatory governments who make you spend 12 years in school and teach little to nothing of finance/value creation.
sgt101 8y ago
It was interesting to see the various give away schemes that used to exist for bitcoin, and how they have dried up and disappeared.
akvadrako 8y ago
There is Manna, formerly GrantCoin, which is about basic income. They issue every person with an account about $0.006 every week, so it's inflationary.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > issue every person with an account Every wallet, not every person.
kartan 8y ago
> Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. That is why the Monopoly game was created. All players start with the same amount of money and the same rules. Skill and mostly luck accumulates all money in the hand of just one player. Monopoly games can be long, be it is not so long until one player has everything.
biql 8y ago
As along as everything else is unequally shared in the world, distribution of coins will merely reflect that as it's a medium of exchange. Even if material wealth was reset and equally redistributed, the same processes that caused it to be unequally distributed in the first place, will apply again.
- afterburner 8y ago
  Even if the doctor could fix your broken leg, you'd die of old age eventually anyways.
  - biql 8y ago
    Equally distributed wealth is not as common as non-broken legs. In fact, the reason you call a broken body part broken is because it diverged from what its natural state.
    - afterburner 8y ago
      It appears you've entirely missed my point. Just because redistributing wealth is a constant uphill struggle doesn't mean you should never do it.
sparkie 8y ago
One idea would be to create a cryptocurrency where the currency supply increases following a Gompertz function rather than a log function. If you could magically guess the right variables so supply approximately followed adoption rate, you'd create a currency where the supply/demand was near enough constant, and the price would hardly change after the market had given it a rate. Lets say you expect demand to double each year for N years, where N is where peak adoption rate occurs, then your function would be 2^y for N years, after which you have a gradual decline in the supply. The earliest adopter who mines for N years would gain at most (assuming equivalent mining power), twice as much as someone who mines during year N only, since each year effectively doubles the entire supply up until N. The real question is, who would mine for N years when it is basically unprofitable? Since everyone else can have the same mining opportunity and the value is approximately constant. An early adopter would only get up to a 2x advantage over someone joining in year N, but would need to put in N years of mining to get that. Also, if demand does not increase as expected, the currency value will half year on year. Nobody will invest in this kind of currency when there are many others "promising" potential 100x gains by overly rewarding early adopters. You'd also never actually guess the right rate at which adoption is going to grow, and you'd jinx whatever values you expected by specifying them, because there'd be an attitude of "If I can start mining in year N, and still have essentially the same opportunity as everyone else, I'm not gonna bother investing right now, I'll do it when it's close to the time." As a result, you'd end up with nobody actually participating initially, smart people would invest during peak supply, and everyone else would FOMO as the supply rate is declining, which is effectively the same as happened for Bitcoin. Of course, the process Bitcoin underwent can't really be repeated. Most altcoins are get rich quick schemes, which utilize the log function of coin supply to pre-mine or whatnot to give the "founders reward," with the expectation that if the currency gains any popularity and has liquid markets, the founders can cash out before anyone realizes their currency is useless.
anjc 8y ago
You don't think that people should be rewarded for risking their time and capital on an eventually-successful niche technology, versus people who haven't risked anything, or contributed anything? Bitcoin isn't magic beans, it has been successful due to these people that you're (implicitly) chastising.
dingo_bat 8y ago
> Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. What would be the point of such a currency? Trade and wealth exist because of inequalities. Having the same amount of a currency is same as having none of it!
- justincormack 8y ago
  No, trade exists to get things from one person to another precisely because they have different things.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

>Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. That’s an interesting idea for how a currency would work and I’m half tempted to ask you to explain if everyone had the same where is the value in it... but more tempted to suggest you develope a currency based on human fingers as most of us start with the same number.

ianai 8y ago
One idea I’ve had and heard similar descriptions of elsewhere is to give people grants for various things. Ie. If you’re diagnosed with skin cancer you’re given a grant to fund the treatment. There’d have to be an algorithm in place to settle on the optimum grant - and I don’t claim to know it. Maybe it’s a grant that establishes a reimbursement contract between the service provider, the government, and the patient with an allotment for a maximal amount of profit. But giving people blocks of money is compatible with the capitalistic market. They would still have to choose how to spend their stipend(s) and the associated trade offs. I liken it to filling in missing data with the average value. Making sure everyone made at least the average per capita income wouldn’t change inflation, I think.
bitcoinisqueen 8y ago
80% of people will spend/lose money right away. The reason people have no money, is because of the power of their habits and their lack of imagination and discipline. Money is merely s measurement tool that reflects your captured reciprocal altruism (or piracy of course). Tons of "poor people" regularly blow $100's/month on drugs such as caffeine, tobacco, beer or even illegal drugs and lottery tickets. Others will extend themselves with shiny clothes and new cars. It's frankly hilarious and apalling at the same time. Primary reason: predatory governments who make you spend 12 years in school and teach little to nothing of finance/value creation.

sgt101 8y ago

It was interesting to see the various give away schemes that used to exist for bitcoin, and how they have dried up and disappeared.

akvadrako 8y ago

There is Manna, formerly GrantCoin, which is about basic income. They issue every person with an account about $0.006 every week, so it's inflationary.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> issue every person with an account Every wallet, not every person.

kartan 8y ago

> Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. That is why the Monopoly game was created. All players start with the same amount of money and the same rules. Skill and mostly luck accumulates all money in the hand of just one player. Monopoly games can be long, be it is not so long until one player has everything.

biql 8y ago

As along as everything else is unequally shared in the world, distribution of coins will merely reflect that as it's a medium of exchange. Even if material wealth was reset and equally redistributed, the same processes that caused it to be unequally distributed in the first place, will apply again.

afterburner 8y ago
Even if the doctor could fix your broken leg, you'd die of old age eventually anyways.
- biql 8y ago
  Equally distributed wealth is not as common as non-broken legs. In fact, the reason you call a broken body part broken is because it diverged from what its natural state.
  - afterburner 8y ago
    It appears you've entirely missed my point. Just because redistributing wealth is a constant uphill struggle doesn't mean you should never do it.

sparkie 8y ago

One idea would be to create a cryptocurrency where the currency supply increases following a Gompertz function rather than a log function. If you could magically guess the right variables so supply approximately followed adoption rate, you'd create a currency where the supply/demand was near enough constant, and the price would hardly change after the market had given it a rate. Lets say you expect demand to double each year for N years, where N is where peak adoption rate occurs, then your function would be 2^y for N years, after which you have a gradual decline in the supply. The earliest adopter who mines for N years would gain at most (assuming equivalent mining power), twice as much as someone who mines during year N only, since each year effectively doubles the entire supply up until N. The real question is, who would mine for N years when it is basically unprofitable? Since everyone else can have the same mining opportunity and the value is approximately constant. An early adopter would only get up to a 2x advantage over someone joining in year N, but would need to put in N years of mining to get that. Also, if demand does not increase as expected, the currency value will half year on year. Nobody will invest in this kind of currency when there are many others "promising" potential 100x gains by overly rewarding early adopters. You'd also never actually guess the right rate at which adoption is going to grow, and you'd jinx whatever values you expected by specifying them, because there'd be an attitude of "If I can start mining in year N, and still have essentially the same opportunity as everyone else, I'm not gonna bother investing right now, I'll do it when it's close to the time." As a result, you'd end up with nobody actually participating initially, smart people would invest during peak supply, and everyone else would FOMO as the supply rate is declining, which is effectively the same as happened for Bitcoin. Of course, the process Bitcoin underwent can't really be repeated. Most altcoins are get rich quick schemes, which utilize the log function of coin supply to pre-mine or whatnot to give the "founders reward," with the expectation that if the currency gains any popularity and has liquid markets, the founders can cash out before anyone realizes their currency is useless.

anjc 8y ago

You don't think that people should be rewarded for risking their time and capital on an eventually-successful niche technology, versus people who haven't risked anything, or contributed anything? Bitcoin isn't magic beans, it has been successful due to these people that you're (implicitly) chastising.

dingo_bat 8y ago

> Perhaps some kind of coin where everybody in the world is issued the same amount or something. What would be the point of such a currency? Trade and wealth exist because of inequalities. Having the same amount of a currency is same as having none of it!

justincormack 8y ago
No, trade exists to get things from one person to another precisely because they have different things.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]