3 ms·
> Early miners/adopters were (exponentially!) closer to the money in bitcoin. True, this initial distribution of Bitcoin isn't desirable longterm. The importa
by ephbit 4y ago
> Early miners/adopters were (exponentially!) closer to the money in bitcoin.
True, this initial distribution of Bitcoin isn't desirable longterm.
The important question is: do the fundamental dynamics of the system lead to a less unequal distribution or to even more concentration in the longterm?
I'd say the longterm dynamics of a system that's capable of reaching some equilibrium are hugely more important than its initial state.
Every time, some Bitcoin whale buys something with their coins, they're very likely flattening the distribution.
Since Bitcoin doesn't earn any interest, whales cannot just spend the earnings and keep a constant balance. Every time (almost) they spend, the distribution becomes more flat.
As long as the Bitcoin price were to rise, the incentive to buy something else with it would also increase. Combined with people having finite lifespan this will probably lead to most whales spending sooner or later.
- tromp 4y agoFor reducing wealth concentration and thus better distribution, it's crucial that initial whales keep getting diluted, as they would be with a fixed reward.
- ephbit 4y agoThe word "crucial" here implies (to me) that it's almost impossible for the distribution to become less concentrated if there is no dilution. So you think that flattening of the distribution of Bitcoin is (almost) impossible? As I wrote, I do think the distribution will flatten. Or do you mean the flattening is possible but it is just too slow? So slow that it might become a cause for Bitcoin to fail?