4 ms·
But to insinuate with absolutely zero understanding that the creators of bitcoin did this to get rich is just plain nasty. Maybe they did want to get rich (in d
by corresation 13y ago
But to insinuate with absolutely zero understanding that the creators of bitcoin did this to get rich is just plain nasty. Maybe they did want to get rich (in dollar terms) but there is nothing obvious on the block chain that proves that they cashed out.
Why is that "nasty"? Why even debate or get so defensive about this point?
For very strong reasons it does absolutely seem that the creator of Bitcoins did an early and heavy accumulation of the currency. The fact that they didn't "cash out" (which is rather irrelevant to whether it is "wealth" or not, as an aside) doesn't justify their mining, but actually makes it significantly more questionable -- they added no liquidity, instead actually restricting liquidity by doing a land grab of the easily mined coins. That is not altruistic.
Having a single, mystery figure holding a substantial quantity of a currency is absolutely worthy of debate.
Personally I think Bitcoin will be a v0.1 to something similar in the future. But I do absolutely believe it is effectively a pyramid scheme right now, and the rise in the currency is a combination of limited liquidity coupled with mainstream news and a gold rush mentality.
- trekky1700 13y agoI agree with this. People are concerned with wealth distribution in the physical world, while in the bitcoin world one man owns nearly 10% of all money. The fact that this man is its creator is even more dubious. This is the equivalent of one American, someone like the head of the federal reserve owning 1.05 trillion US dollars. Even if one day we'll have 21 million Bitcoins out there, that's still around 5% of all wealth being owned by one man, the currencies creator. Sounds crazy to me.