It's time for an inequality index for cryptocurrencies distribution

Post by imtringued » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

sqrt17 wrote: post #65

mrtksn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m baffled how people miss this even if it’s the mission statement of Satoshi himself: Bitcoin is a tool to prevent wealth re-distribution. It’s whole idea is to ensure that the accumulated wealth is preserved. In 2008 it was against the government bailing out the failed banks but it’s also against any government interventions, including easing the wealth inequality. In essence, the idea is that if a teenager in 201…

The difference being that BTC has no utility that people depend on. They can refuse to buy the BTC from the now-GenZer or even the Winklevoss twins if they'd rather have food or shelter or a chanel bag rather than BTC. The real world phenomenon that this corresponds to is consumer price inflation or asset price inflation (assuming your asset is production capacity and the medium of exchange is BTC) Being a landlord,…

Post by imtringued » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #5

> 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 The problem is that you can only associate value with a wallet, not an individual, and even that doesn't really make the market any safer; it just further exposes how terrible cryptocurrency is as…

Post by chrisco255 » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 9:00 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #15

chrisco255 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is that addresses are not measures of people. A lot of addresses are purposely generated as throwaway accounts, never to be used again. A single person may have or use dozens of wallets. Or a single wallet may be used by a large exchange which represents thousands of depositors.

So much for Bitcoin’s vaunted decentralization. In fact the inequality is probably far more pronounced. Since multiple accounts can belong to one organizatipn - but not the other way around :) PS: if a bitcoin wallet belongs to one centralized exchange, it’s still under centralized control!

Post by howdydoo » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #77

howdydoo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People give sales pitches for lots of things. You don't have to listen to them. > Are you sure about this? Whether I'm sure or not... I think everyone should be given the choice.

> People give sales pitches for lots of things. You don't have to listen to them. No, but when something has completely failed to live up to the sales pitch and then people try to pretend they'd never made those claims, it's important to remember that track record when deciding whether to trust the new claims. This is especially true in the case of cryptocurrencies which have no value other than social consensus beca…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 16, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

ashwagary wrote: post #73

zepto wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll need evidence for that, and a way to disambiguate Bitcoin’s performance as an inflation hedge from the speculative bubble. > it did a 5,000,000x plus return in that time Then it is self evidently not an inflation hedge.

BTC's monetary policy makes it an inflation hedge regardless of what humans are doing with it, the cycles just take 4 years to play out. The evidence is literally in the code. No need to complicate things, just focus on 2 key questions... 1. Is the BTC supply inflation rate lower than the US dollar’s (and other fiat currencies)? 2. Will it be lower for the forseeable future? That will give you the simple answer you a…