Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 327 posts

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

#81

Post by adjkant »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #53
adjkant wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these people are likely affected by capitalism to an extreme: imperialism. Much larger of an injustice than anything you listed. The people who are most able to take risks (in the investment sense) are those with the most. An exponential growth system such as this only widens the gap, voluntary or not. Everyone can get in, but the benefit is unequal. You need money to make money. This does not solve any equal…

Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts. You're right, imperialism did cause problems, but the extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it. I grew up very poor, as in barely enough money for basic food and new clothes once-twice a year. Now I'm in the top 3% of US earners (not counting Bitcoin).

> Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts.

I would argue they are very tied, but that is a much larger argument not needed here. To give the short and incomplete version, they are both derived from the idea of exploiting others for profit. The level of exploitation is just much less in capitalism and masked behind the guise of fairness, ignoring power dynamics, original capital, and exponential growth considerations, etc. Again, this argument is very incomplete as stated here, but they are not orthogonal concepts. How much of a connection they have is a very valid debate, one not needed here fully though.

> extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it.

Getting better does not mean that everyone can get out of poverty. We also haven't gotten that better. Most of Africa is still being exploited and most living there do not have any realistic means to get out of it. The countries as a whole still struggle on a macroeconomic level to get out of poverty due to the exact exponential growth issue seen in Bitcoin but with general investment.

The US is not representative of the rest of the world, and also is still far from equal opportunity. While we're on that subject, good luck easily buying cryptocurrencies (accessible to a non-tech audience) while living outside the US. Even my Canadian friends struggle getting Coinbase to let them.

Bitcoin is only really accessible to the tech community, an already privileged community.

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

#82

Post by testvox »

sevensor wrote: post #28

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…

If they are good stewards of the money and invest it well then they will keep it and we all gain from their investments. If not they lose it and someone, hopefully more responsible will have it. In the long run the right people (those who can make profitable investments) will have control over capital.

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

#83

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

VMG wrote: post #78
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between a government manipulating a currency and a cabal of wealthy individuals manipulating a currency? Or is your problem mainly that businesses have to accept dollars?

Anyone who has a miner can generate bitcoin. Only the FED can create new USD.

Sure, but what's the importance of that fact?

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

#84

Post by AdamSC1 »

tantalor wrote: post #47

> Because bitcoin is a digital currency and not a security And in that statement, there is the fraud.

No one has classified Bitcoin as a security.

Per Wikipedia:

>The U.S. Treasury classified bitcoin as a convertible decentralized virtual currency in 2013.[1] >The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, classified bitcoin as a commodity in September 2015. >Per IRS, bitcoin is taxed as a property.[2]

[1]https://www.fincen.gov/news/testimony/statement-jennifer-sha...

[2]https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidan...

In the US it is classified either as a currency, piece of property or a commodity, and as of Monday it will also be available as a futures contract of a commodity.

Neither commodities nor futures contracts are consider securities, as they fail the clause of the Howey Test that would make them dependent on a single entity or management group.

This is why commodity futures trade is managed by the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trade Commission) rather than the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission).

In fact, while some other tokens and ICOs have been found to be securities both in the US and abroad, no country has formally noted Bitcoin as a security - many treat it as a currency under a new classification for eMoney, Digital Currency or Virtual Currencies.

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

#85

Post by avar »

pc86 wrote: post #48
FLUX-YOU wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet that large holders of gold sell small amounts all the time without the market going nuts and kicking off volatility swings. But I could be wrong. It's less the mechanism and the implication that people imply by following whales. Why should a store-of-value market react when someone sells a small amount regardless of their current holdings?

I agree with you but this is an apples to oranges (or perhaps apples to 747s) comparison. The top 1000 holders of gold don't have anywhere near 40% of the market. Not to mention that 40% of the market for BTC is only a few million coins.

    > The top 1000 holders of gold
    > don't have anywhere near 40%
    > of the market.
You're right, they have a lot more than that. Total world gold reserves are around 30K tons. The US alone has 8K tons, Germany 3K, IMF 3K, Italy 2.5K etc.

So just the to 2 holders of Gold have almost 40% of the market, and the top 10 have 80%.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve

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

#86

Post by piva00 »

testvox wrote: post #82
sevensor wrote: post #28

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…

If they are good stewards of the money and invest it well then they will keep it and we all gain from their investments. If not they lose it and someone, hopefully more responsible will have it. In the long run the right people (those who can make profitable investments) will have control over capital.

Can you clarify what is your definition of "right people" in this specific case?

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

#87

Post by icebraining »

randlet wrote: post #70
empath75 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a few people own 90% of the bitcoin and everyone else just sort of shrugs and starts using a new cryptocurrency, instead.

This is what I don't understand. In the hypothetical case where we switch to using bitcoin won't early adopters be the only people with money? What about the 99.9(9?)% of the population who don't own any bitcoins?

How are you thinking the switch would occur? It's not like the "old" currencies will suddenly lose their value, you'll be able to exchange them for a long time.

Plus, most people don't own that much currency anyway; they either get a paycheck (which can start coming in BTC) or an asset like a house, which is valuable in any currency.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

zardo wrote: post #79
Klathmon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no libertarian, but wouldn't the fact that you can buy bitcoins with traditional fiat currency throw a wrench in this being a valid experiment? Since anyone that received an "unfair advantage" with government-issued fiat can turn around and use it to get an unfair advantage in bitcoin as well?

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.

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

Klathmon wrote: post #69
sevensor wrote: post #28

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'm no libertarian, but wouldn't the fact that you can buy bitcoins with traditional fiat currency throw a wrench in this being a valid experiment? Since anyone that received an "unfair advantage" with government-issued fiat can turn around and use it to get an unfair advantage in bitcoin as well?

Yes. Just the same as generational wealth in the real world. The problem with meritocracy is that ocracy implies some power over the system and in a true meritocratic system the first generation would corrupt it to help their kids. Meritocracy is an oxymoron because the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is a gradient, not a line.

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

#90

Post by devdas »

randlet wrote: post #70
empath75 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a few people own 90% of the bitcoin and everyone else just sort of shrugs and starts using a new cryptocurrency, instead.

This is what I don't understand. In the hypothetical case where we switch to using bitcoin won't early adopters be the only people with money? What about the 99.9(9?)% of the population who don't own any bitcoins?

Welcome to serfdom.
Post reply on HN