Re:Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of th...
by Freak_NL on Friday September 08, 2017 @04:06AM
(#15198639)
Risk and reward should be in balance if you want to see Bitcoin as the type of currency people would actually use as a significant part of their economy. The first miners may have risked some (real) money, but that is nothing compared to the massive wealth¹ they would hold if Bitcoin ever did supplant local currencies — even if people used it just for coffee.
The amount of (untaxed!) wealth owned by those early miners would dwarf that of Gates and Buffet. That kind of Ayn Rand level of capitalism doesn't seem to agree with most people — although it does seem palatable amongst Bitcoin aficionados.
1: https://cointelegraph.com/news/who-owns-bitcoin-universe-fro...
Re:Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of th...
by nosuchthing on Friday September 08, 2017 @01:57PM
(#15202476)
Satoshi's design for the minting of supply to himself and the few individuals who scooped up the first 6-12 million coins is part of the design, for others to consider regardless.
As mainstream adoption took place, we've now seen large capital holders acquiring BTC in proportion with their current wealth.
The hodlers play a game of chicken prisoners dilemma, and it's worthwhile to consider what beanie baby they've acquired and how the sausage was made.
Bitcoin being mainstream and safe is a very new thing. I remember just a couple years, everyone was freaking out because they were worried that China was going to ban bitcoin.
And years before that, the worry was that the US, or whoever, would try to force AML regulations onto it.
And a couple years before THAT the worry was that the US would do all of that AND arrest everyone involved in the system, and send them to jail for facilitating money laundering.
Being involved in bitcoin was a risk for early adopters, and that risk was rewarded.