Earlier quoted context omitted.
so instead we have “not banks” that are less accountable?
bitcoin has no banks, period.
right, most people keep their crypto in exchanges which are definitely not just worse banks
It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
31–40 of 116 posts
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#32> This concentration not only risks to threaten blockchain's own premises [...] BTC was designed specifically to avoid any kind of _state control_ and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank. Adding protections here and there will inevitably lead to a system that is similar to current financial system with all the bells and whistles. I think you're missing the point: BTC tries to sell la…
The silly thing is that crypto is now following the stock market for the most part, at least the big coins like BTC/LTC/Doge/etc are. Market goes down, crypto seems to go down with it. Look at something like 1-month BTC and 1-month APPL or something. It's not supposed to be doing this. I think this is happening because it's become so easy to purchase that people now just have it in their "portfolio", basket of everyt…
> It's not supposed to be doing this.
Is it really not? Both stocks and cryptocurrencies act as inflation hedges against the central bank.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#33Wallets != people. Without proof of personhood, you never know the distribution.
This right here. Everybody running and screaming about the OP statistic have 0 knowledge how bitcoin works or purposefully spreading false information.
It's like the elections being stolen, or anti-vax propaganda or whatever other idiocy being spread on FB on any given moment.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#34>It is quite famous that 95% of Bitcoin is owned by 2% of accounts. This concentration not only risks to threaten blockchain's own premises, but also exposes minor investors to risk of whales who lead the market and can easily speculate on prices since they can influence the price trends.
It doesn't threaten it though. It would only threaten it if miners colluded. Crypto may be manipulated, but so is everything else, like Gamestock stock in 2021.
The crypto bubble is already deflating, with btc having fallen 40% in the past 2 months. These problems will fix themselves as the bubble continues to deflate.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The silly thing is that crypto is now following the stock market for the most part, at least the big coins like BTC/LTC/Doge/etc are. Market goes down, crypto seems to go down with it. Look at something like 1-month BTC and 1-month APPL or something. It's not supposed to be doing this. I think this is happening because it's become so easy to purchase that people now just have it in their "portfolio", basket of everyt…
> It's not supposed to be doing this. Is it really not? Both stocks and cryptocurrencies act as inflation hedges against the central bank.
It’s really not. It is highly correlated with high risk assets and growth shares. It is anything but an inflation hedge, which is why it has been plunging as inflation rises and will fall more if interest rates rise.
If it were an actual currency things might be different, but instead it’s just another high risk speculative asset.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#36Bitcoin is not proof of stake so I’m not sure why this would matter.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#37> This concentration not only risks to threaten blockchain's own premises [...] BTC was designed specifically to avoid any kind of _state control_ and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank. Adding protections here and there will inevitably lead to a system that is similar to current financial system with all the bells and whistles. I think you're missing the point: BTC tries to sell la…
lack of any kind of control Multiple choice question: Which of the following groups have lots of control over BTC? A. BTC Core Developers B. BTC Exchanges C. Credit Card Processors/ACH Entities/Payment apps that allow people to buy BTC from fiat without exchanging physical cash D. BTC Miners E. Any judge in the country that can order you to hand over your BTC just like he/she can order you to dig up the cash he/she s…
Proof that it’s F is that the protocol is extremely slow to change.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#38>It is quite famous that 95% of Bitcoin is owned by 2% of accounts. This concentration not only risks to threaten blockchain's own premises, but also exposes minor investors to risk of whales who lead the market and can easily speculate on prices since they can influence the price trends. It doesn't threaten it though. It would only threaten it if miners colluded. Crypto may be manipulated, but so is everything else,…
Jul 16 2021, bitcoin was 30k, today it’s 40k, how is this a deflating bubble?
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#39> This concentration not only risks to threaten blockchain's own premises [...] BTC was designed specifically to avoid any kind of _state control_ and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank. Adding protections here and there will inevitably lead to a system that is similar to current financial system with all the bells and whistles. I think you're missing the point: BTC tries to sell la…
lack of any kind of control Multiple choice question: Which of the following groups have lots of control over BTC? A. BTC Core Developers B. BTC Exchanges C. Credit Card Processors/ACH Entities/Payment apps that allow people to buy BTC from fiat without exchanging physical cash D. BTC Miners E. Any judge in the country that can order you to hand over your BTC just like he/she can order you to dig up the cash he/she s…
I understand your larger point but to be fair to gp you're responding to, he was scoping the word "control" to Central Bank since he actually wrote:
>and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank.
So central bank control would be something like "expansion of money supply beyond 21 million bitcoins". Therefore, your options (B) Coinbase/Binance (C) Visa/MC/banks and (E) courts -- really have no "control" over that "central bankish" aspect.
EDIT reply to: >Central banks [...] don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves.
The Federal Reserve (central bank) in USA is the entity that adjusts the fractional reserve requirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requir...
> The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale.
It could theoretically be done but it would require the coordination of the Bitcoin developers + miners + node validators. A crypto-exchange like Coinbase can't do it.
As a previous case study, Coinbase was part of the group that aligned with majority miners to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase the block size -- but all that influence and miner support still couldn't get the Bitcoin network to adopt it.
Re: It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution
#40Wallets != people. Without proof of personhood, you never know the distribution.
Isn't this a problem?
More specifically: assuming we can't derive it by some clever means, or approximate it from some tax reporting data, isn't it a problem that we can't get such a distribution?
I mean this not as a moral judgement, but more as a system dynamics concern. It's easy enough to see how wealth concentration can destabilize a money/value system absent other factors. So my concern isn't about what's right or wrong socially, but whether there might be a reason to question the implicit trust that the maths will work out.