3 ms·

I want a cryptocurrency which is egalitarian - evenly distributed among people in the world, rather than one in which a few people own the majority and profit h

I want a cryptocurrency which is egalitarian - evenly distributed among people in the world, rather than one in which a few people own the majority and profit hugely.

sowbug 8y ago
What happens on Day Two?
- ric2b 8y ago
  The people with businesses get a lot of the new currency from the people that need to work for a living and we're back on track to be right where we started. A currency is just a measurement device, it's not a replacement for resources, I don't know why people forget that so often.
williamdclt 8y ago
The discussion is not about cryptocurrency anymore at this point
- smokeyj 8y ago
  Actually Dogecoin was a major hit.
manifestsilence 8y ago
Yes! And I think there is one aspect of Bitcoin that is precisely backwards in relation to both this and the energy crisis: proof of work is a substitute for proof of identity so it can be anonymous. Imagine a currency that everyone is born with a certain amount of, with the only price of admission your ability to prove your identity. Suddenly, we have solved the problem of proof of work for allowing this to be a distributed ledger since the trust can be based on reputation. Also, we can impose limits such as perhaps a logarithmic scale of wealth interpretation, where ten million dollars isn't all that much more than one million, if it's all in the hands of one person. The digital age could be an age of fairness, if we choose to use these tools to design a fair game instead of an unfair one. Note that I mean "fair" not in the sense of two people starting out exactly equal, but where the winner can use their advantage to win more over time until the "match" is over, but one that tends towards a fairness equilibrium, where the advantages gained by one person or group over others are minimized over time or at extreme scales. This is how I write when I have gotten less than 4 hours of sleep, but hey, I can dream. :)
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Okay, let's "imagine a currency that everyone is born with a certain amount of". Assuming that I predict that this currency is going to be valuable, then I can invest $100,000 to organize a shipment of rice to some poor African areas where this thing isn't gaining traction yet, and offer to trade everything that they've been born with for a hot meal. And it (or similar strategies) would plausibly succeed to some extent. See the biblical example of Esau's birthright for an obvious analogy. Would that be a new age of fairness?
- AgentME 8y ago
  I don't think you could possibly have a decentralized proof of identity though.
sparkie 8y ago
An early adopter will always have an advantage over somebody who gets on board later. The only way you could prevent this is by actively punishing early adopters. Good luck achieving adoption if you try this.
- tromp 8y ago
  It suffices to not punish the late adopters (something that admittedly the vast majority of cryptocurrencies do).
  - sparkie 8y ago
    Bitcoin doesn't punish late adopters, it just does not give them the same advantage as the earlier adopters. Somebody who adopts Bitcoin today will still have a major advantage over somebody who adopts it in 10 years from now, but it might not be of the same magnitude as the people who adopted it 10 years ago have over the people who adopt it today. The decline in rate of inflation is what prevents punishment of the older adopters. Inflation is inherently punishing of people who are saving an asset, because it steals value from them, or at least would do if demand didn't outpace supply. If bitcoin offered the same reward to newcomers as it did to the people who adopted it 10 years ago, then nobody would've adopted it 10 years ago, and the result would be that everybody is punished, because the world at large would've ignored a great innovation. You can't have both! Either you punish the savers by taking value from them and giving it to newcomers, or you let savers keep their value which pushes up the price for newcomers as demand increases. Socialist ideology fails to understand economics as usual. Now you might argue that the rate of bitcoin's reduction of inflation is just too high, and should've been more gradual, or over a longer period of time. There might be some merit to that idea, but nobody could've accurately guessed the rate at which adoption would occur for a brand new technology. After everyone is aware of what Bitcoin is, it doesn't really matter how long you make the halving. There will still be risk-takers and there will still be laggards. Some of the laggards will leave it until they can no longer go around with their eyes closed and must acquire some Bitcoin in order to make some purchases. Others will acquire it now (and 10 years ago) even when it is an extremely risky investment. Most people are somewhere in between. So you have the option right now that you can either: Acquire some Bitcoin while it is apparently still cheap (relative to where it may be in a few years) Or you can: Chose not to acquire some bitcoin because you think it is overpriced, and in a few years, complain again that bitcoin is overpriced, when it is worth significantly more than it is today. Late adopters punish themselves by ignoring economic reality, either intentionally (because they are driven by ideology), or accidentally (because they don't take the time out to learn). Once you grasp it, there is only one direction which bitcoin can go over the long term.

I want a cryptocurrency which is egalitarian - evenly distributed among people in the world, rather than one in which a few people own the majority and profit hugely.

sowbug 8y ago

What happens on Day Two?

ric2b 8y ago
The people with businesses get a lot of the new currency from the people that need to work for a living and we're back on track to be right where we started. A currency is just a measurement device, it's not a replacement for resources, I don't know why people forget that so often.

williamdclt 8y ago

The discussion is not about cryptocurrency anymore at this point

smokeyj 8y ago
Actually Dogecoin was a major hit.

manifestsilence 8y ago

Yes! And I think there is one aspect of Bitcoin that is precisely backwards in relation to both this and the energy crisis: proof of work is a substitute for proof of identity so it can be anonymous. Imagine a currency that everyone is born with a certain amount of, with the only price of admission your ability to prove your identity. Suddenly, we have solved the problem of proof of work for allowing this to be a distributed ledger since the trust can be based on reputation. Also, we can impose limits such as perhaps a logarithmic scale of wealth interpretation, where ten million dollars isn't all that much more than one million, if it's all in the hands of one person. The digital age could be an age of fairness, if we choose to use these tools to design a fair game instead of an unfair one. Note that I mean "fair" not in the sense of two people starting out exactly equal, but where the winner can use their advantage to win more over time until the "match" is over, but one that tends towards a fairness equilibrium, where the advantages gained by one person or group over others are minimized over time or at extreme scales. This is how I write when I have gotten less than 4 hours of sleep, but hey, I can dream. :)

PeterisP 8y ago
Okay, let's "imagine a currency that everyone is born with a certain amount of". Assuming that I predict that this currency is going to be valuable, then I can invest $100,000 to organize a shipment of rice to some poor African areas where this thing isn't gaining traction yet, and offer to trade everything that they've been born with for a hot meal. And it (or similar strategies) would plausibly succeed to some extent. See the biblical example of Esau's birthright for an obvious analogy. Would that be a new age of fairness?
AgentME 8y ago
I don't think you could possibly have a decentralized proof of identity though.

sparkie 8y ago

An early adopter will always have an advantage over somebody who gets on board later. The only way you could prevent this is by actively punishing early adopters. Good luck achieving adoption if you try this.

tromp 8y ago
It suffices to not punish the late adopters (something that admittedly the vast majority of cryptocurrencies do).
- sparkie 8y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't punish late adopters, it just does not give them the same advantage as the earlier adopters. Somebody who adopts Bitcoin today will still have a major advantage over somebody who adopts it in 10 years from now, but it might not be of the same magnitude as the people who adopted it 10 years ago have over the people who adopt it today. The decline in rate of inflation is what prevents punishment of the older adopters. Inflation is inherently punishing of people who are saving an asset, because it steals value from them, or at least would do if demand didn't outpace supply. If bitcoin offered the same reward to newcomers as it did to the people who adopted it 10 years ago, then nobody would've adopted it 10 years ago, and the result would be that everybody is punished, because the world at large would've ignored a great innovation. You can't have both! Either you punish the savers by taking value from them and giving it to newcomers, or you let savers keep their value which pushes up the price for newcomers as demand increases. Socialist ideology fails to understand economics as usual. Now you might argue that the rate of bitcoin's reduction of inflation is just too high, and should've been more gradual, or over a longer period of time. There might be some merit to that idea, but nobody could've accurately guessed the rate at which adoption would occur for a brand new technology. After everyone is aware of what Bitcoin is, it doesn't really matter how long you make the halving. There will still be risk-takers and there will still be laggards. Some of the laggards will leave it until they can no longer go around with their eyes closed and must acquire some Bitcoin in order to make some purchases. Others will acquire it now (and 10 years ago) even when it is an extremely risky investment. Most people are somewhere in between. So you have the option right now that you can either: Acquire some Bitcoin while it is apparently still cheap (relative to where it may be in a few years) Or you can: Chose not to acquire some bitcoin because you think it is overpriced, and in a few years, complain again that bitcoin is overpriced, when it is worth significantly more than it is today. Late adopters punish themselves by ignoring economic reality, either intentionally (because they are driven by ideology), or accidentally (because they don't take the time out to learn). Once you grasp it, there is only one direction which bitcoin can go over the long term.