What stops a large organization or government from simply starting an alternative "BitCoin" and market the shit out of it, making BitCoin a thing of the past. And why don't they, because BitCoins are still relatively harmless (think tax evation, state tax, terrorism (just for marketing purposes), etc). I think once there is a crack, BitCoins will never recover.
So because we've been born into an unbalanced sharing of wealth, this somehow makes it OK?
WTF!! If it ain't about greed, then share your BitCoin wealth amongst ordinary people and get them involved in the market place. This should be an enabling technology, not an investment opportunity nor a pyramid scheme.
So because we've been born into an unbalanced sharing of wealth, this somehow makes it OK?
WTF!! If it ain't about greed, then share your BitCoin wealth amongst ordinary people and get them involved in the market place. This should be an enabling technology, not an investment opportunity nor a pyramid scheme. What stops a large entity from competing with Bitcoin? Nothing. But remember that Bitcoin is not governed by anyone. That creates a level of trust unreachable by any centralized organization.
I'm not saying that unbalanced distribution of wealth is ok. It has simply been pointed out that Bitcoin's wealth distribution is nothing new. I kindly ask again - is there a better practical alternative of introducing new currency without this injustice inherently build into it?
Yes there is, you peg it against gold.
Quote
Or, you start BitTulip (BitCoin 2.0), and you make it much harder and slower to produce currency from the onset (barely worth it), and most important of all, you introduce INFLATION into the system to promote spending, not hoarding, and you never cap the total amount of BitCoins that can be produced. If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.
Now I know that you are not the real Peter Schiff, because he would have never written the above paragraph.