4 ms·

Care to link those two unrelated concepts together a bit better? Money isn't effectively and fairly distributed and it's obviously not a pipe dream.

ForHackernews 8y ago
Money is more fairly distributed than cryptocurrencies. Credit Suisse found that 97% of bitcoin is held by 4% of addresses (though some may belong to exchanges): http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-97-are-held-by-4-of-addresses-2018-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-97-are-held-by-4-of-a...
- dnautics 8y ago
  If you compared apples to apples, then, instead of people "all legal entities", aka corporations and sovereigns, would your analysis hold up?
- kakarot 8y ago
  And the top 1% of the American population controls around 40% of the wealth. In accordance with the power law, the top 20% of the population owned 86% of the country's wealth. Still doesn't seem like a pipe dream.
  - lostjohnny 8y ago
    Wealth, not money. Money is heavily regulated. Crypto are not.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      That's circular logic. Wealth is equivalent to money.
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        Not really, the vast majority of wealth isn't in the form of money (cash or direct debt), it's in the form of ownership of non-money assets such as real estate and productive companies.
- sowbug 8y ago
  Addresses do not necessarily correspond to people or institutions. Those 4% of addresses could represent any number of holders. The other 96% of addresses could be someone's buggy script gone wild.
lostjohnny 8y ago
money have replaced values already owned by people it didn't pop-up from nothing crypto currencies need to be acquired using either real currencies or through some form of mining, that requires real currencies to acquire the resources needed to bootstrap it the crypto space is already a place where rich got richer, less rich got sometimes more rich, most of the times nothing changed for them, really poor individuals from really poor countries couldn't even get started
- kakarot 8y ago
  Couldn't get started on what? The point of cryptocurrencies wasn't to make people rich. Anyone can buy in at market value and start using coins for their stored value. That is the point. Your anger in the fact that crypto didn't magically create money where there was none before is misplaced. Really poor individuals from poor, economically wrecked countries had quite a lot to gain from the accessibility of cryptocurrency. Look at Venezela's attitude towards Bitcoin.
  - lostjohnny 8y ago
    > Couldn't get started on what? On owning them. > Anyone can buy in at market value and start using coins for their stored value Not everybody can, that's the point. Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. It's not really a democratic and open process. It involves a lot of prerequisites that are usually not met by the general population. > Look at Venezela's attitude towards Bitcoin. You mean Maduro's? AFAIK Maduro made bitcoin mining illegal in Venezuela and arrested more than a few miners. Or do you mean the Petro Coin (a total scam currency) that Maduro tried to force down Venezuelan's throats?
    - kakarot 8y ago
      > Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. Now expand on this point. What about crypto is preventing people from owning some that isn't also preventing them from owning regular money? > You mean Maduro's? It's pedantic to differentiate between a State and its actors when discussing policy like this. I mean Venezuela. I'm talking the Petro Coin, the raids, everything. The whole policy was a response to fears of increased economic freedom for Venezuela's poorest citizens at a time when the government was trying to offload the pain of its bad economic decisions onto them.

ForHackernews 8y ago

Money is more fairly distributed than cryptocurrencies. Credit Suisse found that 97% of bitcoin is held by 4% of addresses (though some may belong to exchanges): http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-97-are-held-by-4-of-addresses-2018-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-97-are-held-by-4-of-a...

dnautics 8y ago
If you compared apples to apples, then, instead of people "all legal entities", aka corporations and sovereigns, would your analysis hold up?
kakarot 8y ago
And the top 1% of the American population controls around 40% of the wealth. In accordance with the power law, the top 20% of the population owned 86% of the country's wealth. Still doesn't seem like a pipe dream.
- lostjohnny 8y ago
  Wealth, not money. Money is heavily regulated. Crypto are not.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    That's circular logic. Wealth is equivalent to money.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      Not really, the vast majority of wealth isn't in the form of money (cash or direct debt), it's in the form of ownership of non-money assets such as real estate and productive companies.
sowbug 8y ago
Addresses do not necessarily correspond to people or institutions. Those 4% of addresses could represent any number of holders. The other 96% of addresses could be someone's buggy script gone wild.

lostjohnny 8y ago

money have replaced values already owned by people it didn't pop-up from nothing crypto currencies need to be acquired using either real currencies or through some form of mining, that requires real currencies to acquire the resources needed to bootstrap it the crypto space is already a place where rich got richer, less rich got sometimes more rich, most of the times nothing changed for them, really poor individuals from really poor countries couldn't even get started

kakarot 8y ago
Couldn't get started on what? The point of cryptocurrencies wasn't to make people rich. Anyone can buy in at market value and start using coins for their stored value. That is the point. Your anger in the fact that crypto didn't magically create money where there was none before is misplaced. Really poor individuals from poor, economically wrecked countries had quite a lot to gain from the accessibility of cryptocurrency. Look at Venezela's attitude towards Bitcoin.
- lostjohnny 8y ago
  > Couldn't get started on what? On owning them. > Anyone can buy in at market value and start using coins for their stored value Not everybody can, that's the point. Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. It's not really a democratic and open process. It involves a lot of prerequisites that are usually not met by the general population. > Look at Venezela's attitude towards Bitcoin. You mean Maduro's? AFAIK Maduro made bitcoin mining illegal in Venezuela and arrested more than a few miners. Or do you mean the Petro Coin (a total scam currency) that Maduro tried to force down Venezuelan's throats?
  - kakarot 8y ago
    > Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. Now expand on this point. What about crypto is preventing people from owning some that isn't also preventing them from owning regular money? > You mean Maduro's? It's pedantic to differentiate between a State and its actors when discussing policy like this. I mean Venezuela. I'm talking the Petro Coin, the raids, everything. The whole policy was a response to fears of increased economic freedom for Venezuela's poorest citizens at a time when the government was trying to offload the pain of its bad economic decisions onto them.