Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

251–260 of 327 posts

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

#251
post #244

In classic gambling, whales are the people you comp high worth rooms, food, drugs to, because they are willing to drop huge sums on the games of chance. You nurture whales, to make a living off whales. You fly your whales to interesting casinos and then quietly wait for the odds to fall in your favour. Is this the metaphor the bitcoin-digerati want?

The whale metaphor in this sense means something completely different. Language is highly subjective, so no the gambling metaphor is not applicable here.

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

#252
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left-libertarians definitely find property law coercive.

Turns out if you're consistent in applying the NAP then homesteading becomes illegitimate as any exclusive claim on land which was previously free for anyone to make use of is an act of force against literally every other person in the area.

Yup, the homesteading principle is interesting and workable iff there is infinite land of the same sort of quality easily available to everyone.

IIRC the guy that came up with it agreed with that reading on it!

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

#253
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK doesn't have fully nationalized healthcare. * GP surgeries (doctors offices) are private businesses, and may provide NHS services or private services. * The NHS contracts out for a growing number of services, ranging from operating whole departments (e.g. Virgin operates the out-of-hours walk in centre for non-emergency care next door to the A&E/ER at my local hospital) to cleaning. * The NHS rents out facilit…

OK, you're sort of shining a spotlight on my ignorance here, but a few thoughts: 1. Maybe "fully nationalized" isn't technically true, but my understanding was that the UK was widely regarded to have a nationalized healthcare system. Not really interested in whether that's technically true at the margins unless there's some major policy impact. 2. "Cost-effective" is an interesting term, because it assumes we agree o…

> 1. Maybe "fully nationalized" isn't technically true, but my understanding was that the UK was widely regarded to have a nationalized healthcare system. Not really interested in whether that's technically true at the margins unless there's some major policy impact.

Which countries do you consider not to have a nationalized healthcare system, then we can make a comparison?

Note that even in the US, the government covers roughly half of all healthcare expenditure. The UK government covers about 79%.

> 2. "Cost-effective" is an interesting term, because it assumes we agree on what "effective" means. I want choice, innovation, better health outcomes, more convenience, shorter wait times, etc., and I'm willing to pay some premium (but not 4x or something) for them. For these reasons, I don't want want the NHS system here (nor do I think it'd work here), despite it being better for some values of "cost-effectiveness".

Even if you for some reason believe you don't get this with the NHS (meanwhile most people here considers the US system to be terrifying), you have all of that by combining the NHS with private top-up insurance. The average cost of combining NHS and private insurance in the UK is far lower than the average cost of healthcare in the US.

So you can get the benefits that socializing services have in ensuring universal coverage and ensuring nobody drives up overall costs by waiting until things get more expensive to treat, with the ability to pay for whatever extra services you want.

Fewer people go without coverage, and you get cheaper coverage and more choice since you can still pick and choose from private providers but also get a public option if you prefer that.

In fact, because of the ability of the NHS to rent out resources, even privately paying for operations etc. tends to be so much cheaper even at top end London specialists that if you're in the US and need elective care it is worth checking the cost of flying to London, having it done, and staying in a nice hotel while recovering. For a lot of conditions that'll be cheaper.

Personally I find it telling that it is almost impossible to find people holding your positions in places where people have experienced these socialized systems unless they have the money to pay far more for care that is out of reach of most people.

For 3., note that you're referring to PPP adjusted numbers. The UK costs have also increased more the last few years than I realized. Even so, while the PPP adjusted data does not have the UK stand out as much as it used to, the gap between the UK and e.g. the US still illustrates the most important point.

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

#254
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of answering your question, I will leave this: Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.

What is a "natural right?" How is one identified? How is it distinguishable from a right that is not a "natural right"?

It's begging the question by making the basics of your political philosophy axiomatic.

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, casinos have the edge, it's almost never mathematically sane to engage with a casino. I considered what would happen if something like bitcoin would become a global internet currency, and any way I sliced it, the upside was too huge not to try.

I don't think you're being creative enough with your slicing. Consider what happens when 90% of the primary world currency ends up concentrated with a few thousand - 100K people in the tech world and if that's really any sort of upside for the world.

First of all, I don't think 90% will get concentrated between just 100K people by the time cryptocurrencies actually do take over (and they will, in some form). And then I don't mind money being more concentrated among tech people, they are generally more rational and tend to spend on important things.

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

#256
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

They could have been doing something else with their time. Instead they were mining, promoting, and trading this technology. By definition there is an opportunity cost to being an early adopter instead of going with the flow - so indeed they took a risk.

The question was whether it was a "big" risk. Every action, including the decision not to take a particular action, is a non-zero risk.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he 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. I'd like to remind the world there are such things as consequentialist Libertarians who view the value of their policy preferences based on their outcomes rather than the NAP.

Do you have any good reading material on consequentialist libertarians? I only ever run into deontological ones.

Honestly not really, the blog "bleeding heart libertarians" tends to focus on the consequentialist arguments more, but most of the contributors seem to be deontological in outlook.

Most of the consequentialists wind up becoming pretty standard neo-liberals as they are willing to consider government intervention when needed.

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

#258

I really enjoy investing in cryptocurrencies. However, I have a lot of doubt this is going to make the world a more fair or better place. It's going to create a wealth gap like has never been seen in first world countries.

I dont believe so. The network can align the interests of the users properly.

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

#259
post #20

I really enjoy investing in cryptocurrencies. However, I have a lot of doubt this is going to make the world a more fair or better place. It's going to create a wealth gap like has never been seen in first world countries.

It seems pretty obvious to me as well. Given huge speculation surrounding them at the moment I'm surprised we don't hear more people warning about these things. I don't think I want to live in a world where BTC replaces the USD/EUR/... Untraceable money means that corruption and tax evasion would be easier than ever. Democratic governments would be worse off in dealing with that, because unlike totaliatrian regimes t…

Bitcoin is not untraceable. It is confidential but it is not anonymous, they are different things.

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

#260
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of this satire post from reddit (4yrs old). https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_time...

It correctly predicted BTC at $10k in 2017. So much for satire!

It also incorrectly predicted it from 2013-2017.
Post reply on HN