4 ms·
Of course in a negative-sum game, most people will lose money in the end of the day. The $$ going in is equal to the $$ going out of the system. However, som o
by dybber 4y ago
Of course in a negative-sum game, most people will lose money in the end of the day.
The $$ going in is equal to the $$ going out of the system. However, som of the $$ goes to miners as transaction fees. Therefore, for the non-miners, it will be a negative-sum game, where less money will go out of the system, than what the traders are putting into it.
- quantified 4y agoEssentially red, black, and 0 + 00
- mrb 4y agoNot at all. Here is a simple counter-example: A has some bitcoins, he sells a few to B. Later price increases, and A sells more bitcoins to B. In total, the same $ went in as the $ that went out, but both A's and B's wealth increased.
- Beltalowda 4y agoSo as long as Bitcoin's price keeps going up everyone can get infinitely rich?
- mrb 4y agoThe price could remain constant after the second time A sells to B. Their wealth still has increased, hence demonstrating it's not a zero-sum game (let alone negative-sum). Some things that are actually zero-sum games are futures or options markets.
- woojoo666 4y agoWhere is A getting their bitcoins? If they didn't need to buy them, then they are miners, which seems to agree with GP's comment