pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @hueso 19 Feb \ parent \ on: When did the 'bitcoin is not fair' narrative take off? bitcoin
The whitepaper did not specify any emission schedule or halvings.
Consider this scenario: If halvings happened every 2100 blocks instead of 210.000 (producing 90% of supply in the very first month) would you still consider it fair?
I think most would agree to call it instamine.
So 2100 is clearly not fair but somehow 210.000 is? What about 21.000? Fair-ish?
Halvings introduce distribution imbalances and they are not necessary part of the system.
Don't get me wrong: I think bitcoin is one of the most fairly distributed forms of money, but it's not perfect. The 'bitcoin not fair' narrative has some valid points.
Yes, it would still be fair. To me, it's fair because the key principles haven't changed: the supply and issuance are still fixed, the system is open and no participant is intrinsically privileged over another.
Even with halvings every 2100 blocks, anybody could come in and start mining at any time. This is fundamentally different to a pre-mine, where even if you wanted to, you can't start mining until a privileged group allow it, which is actually unfair.
Fair doesn't mean equal outcomes. Just because most people didn't know about the network doesn't make it unfair, because the information was still published openly on the internet for anybody to seek out.
reply