pull down to refresh
444 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln 22 Feb \ on: Free Advertising Or Desperation ? bitcoin
Devil's advocate: it's a fair point.
At the same time, now the distribution of wealth is also at the expense of the less sophisticated, but for different reasons. Reasons based on where you are born and who your ancestors were. Not that different.
At least now, any one can "step in". Even though reality shows that it is still mostly the existing privileged of the fiat world that have spare money to save in Bitcoin.
Under-rated point. The existing distribution of resources is unfair by virtually any definition of 'fairness' aside from might makes right. Given that fiat wealth allows you to purchase btc wealth, it stands that the resultant btc distribution will also be unfair by that same standard.
I believe it was @Undisciplined who responded to this critique with (paraphrasing): yes, but after the initial distribution, subsequent btc exchange will trend increasingly toward fairness, as sound money asserts itself. That's where I've come to rest on the matter, personally.
reply
Exactly this. With bitcoin you won't get more bitcoin just because you have a lot. There is no yield. You have to continue to create value to get more, and in this stage as price increases some will sell, and redistribute, bitcoin volatility also helps redistribution.
reply
I don't recall saying that, but it is what I believe, so I'm willing to accept credit.
I also agree with the point about how it's more fair, for the time being, because anyone can get in early. In the same way that entrepreneurial profits are fair, if you have the vision to get in early (and things break our way), then you earned it by taking on the early risk.
reply
You know what would've had happened if all of the ~ twenty-one million bitcoin would've been distributed evenly across the global population?
In my opinion, some would've exchanged their share immediately for materialistic wants or because they're simply not interested, others would've lost their share due to bad luck or faulty practices and another group would've held onto it, even increased their stacks.
In that scenario, you'd have people with 0 BTC, people with some BTC, people with BTC, but without access to it and people with stacks of BTC, but with acces to it, or in other words: it wouldn't be that much of a difference.
You will have people whine about it being not fare either way, no matter how you'd go about it.
People like to blame other's for their mistakes.
reply