Live data from Hacker News

The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

bloomberg.com

131–140 of 327 posts

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#131
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in order for libertarian society to work as desired we first have to... evenly distribute the wealth? I don't think we'll find any libertarians taking that position.

Does even (or rather, less uneven) distribution of wealth imply involuntary coercion? I don't think it has to.

The person who coined the term libertarian (Joseph Dejacques) argued that all property rights were restrictions on freedom, and for even distribution of not just wealth but income, on the basis of an ideal where maximizing liberty was the most important goal.

But right-wing libertarianism prioritize property rights over liberty.

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#132
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in order for libertarian society to work as desired we first have to... evenly distribute the wealth? I don't think we'll find any libertarians taking that position.

Does even (or rather, less uneven) distribution of wealth imply involuntary coercion? I don't think it has to.

You assert there are conditions under which the oligarchs would relinquish some portion of their holdings voluntarily?

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're a hypocrite. If you think people in Africa aren't getting paid enough, why are you not selling your PC / smartphone to help them out? It's easy to tell other people how to spend their money helping the poor, but when it comes to your own wealth, you're still typing into this tech forum.

> If you think people in Africa aren't getting paid enough, why are you not selling your PC / smartphone to help them out? Because that would not solve the problem, and it's quite naive to think it would. This gets into lots of debates in ethics that are far from solved. I do however donate regularly to groups that do economic development in African communities across the world though (more than the cost of a new iPh…

It would not solve the problem globally, but you can feed a person making a dollar a day for a long time. Yet you're not doing it. And that's why I'm not buying your argument. You want the redistribution of wealth, but not your wealth.

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does even (or rather, less uneven) distribution of wealth imply involuntary coercion? I don't think it has to.

You assert there are conditions under which the oligarchs would relinquish some portion of their holdings voluntarily?

If the holdings were devalued on the market, does that qualify as involuntary relinquishment?

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#135

It's interesting to see how this is playing out. Libertarians have long argued that government-issued fiat currency is a tool of state oppression. Now we have a real-world experiment demonstrating on a grand scale what happens when you create a currency by consensual fiat. I'd be interested to hear what libertarians think about this: Is Bitcoin truly the kind of currency libertarians have been advocating? Have I misc…

Government-issued currencies usually come with legal tender laws and citizens are required to pay taxes using the government money. Since taxes are not voluntary, this creates built-in demand for the fiat money. The creators of alternative competitor-money are punished as well. The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first.

A side note here about capital controls: Bitcoin allows money to be borderless, which is natural. Capital controls are an artificial construct of the state, often used to prop up the perpetually failing fiat money.

The second issue is economic. When the money supply of your currency is not constrained (by gold, or otherwise), then it inevitably inflates, often unpredictably and uncontrollably. The death of a fiat money usually has disastrous effects on the people, especially on the poor. Unfortunately, fiat money has a short lifespan, on average.

The libertarian position on wealth inequality is that as long as the distribution of wealth was determined voluntarily (without state privilege, in particular), then there is no problem. Bitcoin is such a system: all participation in Bitcoin has been voluntary. Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology, and some have been rewarded with handsome returns.

Early writing about cypherpunk money usually mentions anonymity, which Bitcoin does not have (yet).

> Where is this experiment going in the long run?

Isn't that the trillion-dollar question? :-)

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#136

It's interesting to see how this is playing out. Libertarians have long argued that government-issued fiat currency is a tool of state oppression. Now we have a real-world experiment demonstrating on a grand scale what happens when you create a currency by consensual fiat. I'd be interested to hear what libertarians think about this: Is Bitcoin truly the kind of currency libertarians have been advocating? Have I misc…

I have a very difficult time separating "true" libertarians with members of libertarian parties. Like people don't readily give up how pragmatic they are. On one end, there seem to be people who really yearn for pure individual freedom with no government at all. I'm pretty sure that was tried for the first 50,000 years of humanity and the results are well documented. (spoiler, for populations larger than ~100 people,…

I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, which off the top of my head basically means that:

1. I believe very strongly in the sovereignty of the individual.

2. I prefer more open and incentive-driven markets.

3. I’m skeptical of governments, particularly large and powerful ones, because they’re inefficient, rely on coercion, and are too tempting as prizes to be captured for power, prestige, and wealth.

However, these are all on a spectrum and I’m open to trying other points along that spectrum if they work better than our current system. I also recognize that the optimal system may be too distant from where we are today to even move towards it directly.

So for healthcare for example, our system is dreadful, but I’m not sure that pure free markets would be better. But I’d strongly prefer a public option (and maybe even single payer), or a well-designed hybrid system like Singapore or Switzerland has to fully nationalized healthcare like UK.

Similarly, I’m open to trying basic income, a land value or VAT instead of income tax, and other alternative systems. I’m particularly in favor of systems that are more stable and resistant to changing from the whims of the current government.

I personally don’t understand how anyone who thinks the government is awesome can continue to believe that when they watch episode after episode of unchecked police brutality, or constant encroachments on civil liberties, or the entire Trump administration.

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#137
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the former method of creating currency is fairer and more transparent.

Is this how 250 kWh of energy usage per BTC transaction is supposed to be considered ethical?

It is more ethical than financing wars through deficit spending.

A on-chain bitcoin transaction allows an arbitrary number of off-chain transactions.

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#138
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's obviously not necessarily more transparent. I know that the Fed is creating money, I can find out how much it's creating and I can listen to government officials explain why we should create more/less money or why we should make money in this instance but not that one, etc. I can even vote for people whose dollar creation opinions line up with mine. In BTC I don't know who's creating it, what they believe a…

If you disagree with money printing, your vote will not matter. In bitcoin, the inflation schedule can be checked very easily. It doesn't matter who is creating it as long as the supply is stable and predictable.

>If you disagree with money printing, your vote will not matter.

It would matter more than my (non-existent) vote in bitcoin would.

>It doesn't matter who is creating it as long as the supply is stable and predictable.

So to be clear, your problem isn't that the fed is centralized and btc is decentralized it's that btc is regular and the fed can be irregular?

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#139
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Committed ideological Bitcoin supporters commonly believe in a network effect race condition spiral they call 'hyperbitcoinization' which models a world where a sort of event horizon in market adoption had been crossed, and everyone on Earth is forced to use bitcoin either directly or indirectly. In this techno-feudalist scenario, being one of the Bitcoin 1% or even 10% means the world is at your feet, and if you've…

>and if you've maintained good opsec Don't exchanges verify identity? Wouldn't you be committing fraud by maintaining good opsec? Point being is that someone may eventually leak an exchange database with those details. Then the word's out. Kind of like Equifax.

Lets say you never maintain much in the exchange, and always tumble coins before moving them in/out.

It would certainly be possible to prove identity when transferring BTC in/out of an exchange, but make it exceedingly hard to prove that they ultimately make it to/from wallets you control.

But of course possible does not mean it is likely.

Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market

#140

It's interesting to see how this is playing out. Libertarians have long argued that government-issued fiat currency is a tool of state oppression. Now we have a real-world experiment demonstrating on a grand scale what happens when you create a currency by consensual fiat. I'd be interested to hear what libertarians think about this: Is Bitcoin truly the kind of currency libertarians have been advocating? Have I misc…

Government-issued currencies usually come with legal tender laws and citizens are required to pay taxes using the government money. Since taxes are not voluntary, this creates built-in demand for the fiat money. The creators of alternative competitor-money are punished as well. The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. A si…

>> Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology

I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.

Post reply on HN