3 ms·

You are just bitter. Folks that bought Amazon or Apple stock at IPO did nothing either. In fact, a great deal of wealth floating about wasn’t wasn’t earned by t

You are just bitter. Folks that bought Amazon or Apple stock at IPO did nothing either. In fact, a great deal of wealth floating about wasn’t wasn’t earned by the holders at all. Are you angry with every house owner who’s property appreciated, every investor to took to risk with assets?

lottin 5y ago
No, I don't have an issue with people making money from their entrepreneurial activities, in fact I applaud who people do that. I have an issue with people being handed millions of dollars when all they've done is downloading a computer program and running it on a god-damn laptop. I don't agree with that. I think it's a scam, and this is why I'll never buy a cryptocurrency or accept it as payment for anything, because I don't I agree to these people getting rich at my expense.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Nobody is getting paid millions to run software. It doesn’t work that way. Some folks took a risk early by buying it and were very compromised for it. (All the mt gox trade and KYC data leaked, passports etc). Nobody is making millions mining without spending a compatible sum on hardware to do it. That sounds entrepreneurial to me. Solo CPU mining was such a small thing to a small niche, maybe those super super early folks deserve something for their efforts. Some folks are getting paid to stake, which may be more of a scam, and we can agree on that, they sacrifice nothing to produce more wealth. You haven’t said why it is a scam, except that people were entrepreneurs or investors in risky assets who were rewarded for their risk? Lottin you have been passionate against this for a long time, are you sure you are rationally evaluating this?
  - lottin 5y ago
    The early producers of bitcoin were not entrepreneurs. Early production of bitcoins didn't require special equipment and would not incur any significant costs at all. Note that over 60% of the bitcoins in circulation right now were produced before 2013. This means the adoption of bitcoin disproportionally benefits these early producers who didn't take any risks at all. A change in the monetary system should not produce a redistribution of wealth, why should it? It should be neutral in terms of wealth allocation. This is why I see Bitcoin as a scam. It's a plot to transfer wealth from late investors to early investors, wrapped around some ridiculous libertarian rhetoric.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      By 2013 mining was already occurring in a entrepreneurial industrial mining fashion. Large pools. ASICS were introduced in 2012, and created a billion dollar hardware industry. Before that, 2011, GPUs. It was not a risk free operation. All had ongoing energy cost to produce. You said “$1” to make most coins. It is much much higher than this. If you are talking 2010, sure, the sub 100 or so folks that were actually mining and are actually on this board might think they did extremely well for themselves. Some have died with their coins since. Some have had tragic lottery winning misadventure. Of the ones I know, they absolutely deserve it and make the world better because of it. Either way, it’s not like most of the early coins have not changed hands many many times. There are early coins, but the vast majority are not in circulation. It’s not nearly as bad as it seems. Significantly better. And most early holders sold years and years and years ago. Most of the circulating coin today is young. The exchanges have about 1.3M trading today. Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Especially the early coins, where it was the real hardcore math and crypto nerds that were rewarded. Don’t imagine that the early folks are those NFT and shitcoins shilling charlatans. This is a true cypherpunk revolution.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        > Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Amongst whom? Do you have some studies showing the distribution relative to normal fiat?
yunohn 5y ago
> randomhodler84 > You are just bitter Username checks out.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Damn straight. You stacking sats too? I buy BTC at least once a week. Yeah, 2021 BTC was all over the place and didn’t 5x like Eth. But I am very confident in its future.

lottin 5y ago

No, I don't have an issue with people making money from their entrepreneurial activities, in fact I applaud who people do that. I have an issue with people being handed millions of dollars when all they've done is downloading a computer program and running it on a god-damn laptop. I don't agree with that. I think it's a scam, and this is why I'll never buy a cryptocurrency or accept it as payment for anything, because I don't I agree to these people getting rich at my expense.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Nobody is getting paid millions to run software. It doesn’t work that way. Some folks took a risk early by buying it and were very compromised for it. (All the mt gox trade and KYC data leaked, passports etc). Nobody is making millions mining without spending a compatible sum on hardware to do it. That sounds entrepreneurial to me. Solo CPU mining was such a small thing to a small niche, maybe those super super early folks deserve something for their efforts. Some folks are getting paid to stake, which may be more of a scam, and we can agree on that, they sacrifice nothing to produce more wealth. You haven’t said why it is a scam, except that people were entrepreneurs or investors in risky assets who were rewarded for their risk? Lottin you have been passionate against this for a long time, are you sure you are rationally evaluating this?
- lottin 5y ago
  The early producers of bitcoin were not entrepreneurs. Early production of bitcoins didn't require special equipment and would not incur any significant costs at all. Note that over 60% of the bitcoins in circulation right now were produced before 2013. This means the adoption of bitcoin disproportionally benefits these early producers who didn't take any risks at all. A change in the monetary system should not produce a redistribution of wealth, why should it? It should be neutral in terms of wealth allocation. This is why I see Bitcoin as a scam. It's a plot to transfer wealth from late investors to early investors, wrapped around some ridiculous libertarian rhetoric.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    By 2013 mining was already occurring in a entrepreneurial industrial mining fashion. Large pools. ASICS were introduced in 2012, and created a billion dollar hardware industry. Before that, 2011, GPUs. It was not a risk free operation. All had ongoing energy cost to produce. You said “$1” to make most coins. It is much much higher than this. If you are talking 2010, sure, the sub 100 or so folks that were actually mining and are actually on this board might think they did extremely well for themselves. Some have died with their coins since. Some have had tragic lottery winning misadventure. Of the ones I know, they absolutely deserve it and make the world better because of it. Either way, it’s not like most of the early coins have not changed hands many many times. There are early coins, but the vast majority are not in circulation. It’s not nearly as bad as it seems. Significantly better. And most early holders sold years and years and years ago. Most of the circulating coin today is young. The exchanges have about 1.3M trading today. Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Especially the early coins, where it was the real hardcore math and crypto nerds that were rewarded. Don’t imagine that the early folks are those NFT and shitcoins shilling charlatans. This is a true cypherpunk revolution.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > Bitcoin has redistributed wealth. Amongst whom? Do you have some studies showing the distribution relative to normal fiat?

yunohn 5y ago

> randomhodler84 > You are just bitter Username checks out.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Damn straight. You stacking sats too? I buy BTC at least once a week. Yeah, 2021 BTC was all over the place and didn’t 5x like Eth. But I am very confident in its future.