I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal, with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.
I think you need to think about the points raised in response to you much more carefully, I don't think you understand the reasoning behind most. I have some questions to you, which may help us communicate better.
Imagine that you will now start this new currency you've been imagining. And let's assume you have the power to overcome the immediate obstacles like having to spend billions to implement some identification scheme that has never been done before. Now imagine how you would start.
How will you deal with cheating? How will you deal with the problems that centralization brings? How will you deal with the fact that the conformity of all individuals to this system will ultimately be used against them?
I'm not saying you can't. I'm just asking how you imagine to deal with these. What would be your strategy? Which technologies would you use?
People have been thinking about these problems for a long time. You need to look up and try to understand the reasons behind the continuing effort that led to the invention of Bitcoin, and why it can't solve what it doesn't. I recommend reading about why's and how's of DigiCash, and why radically different efforts like Ripple are too hard to implement (it was eventually implemented to a satisfactory degree, so I recommend you have a look at its internals too, if you have time).
Besides the technical difficulties mentioned above, and
most importantly, what will you do about the fact that all the money you distributed fairly will
very rapidly consolidate in few strong hands? (Consider free voucher privatization during Catastroika.)
You have no shoes, I give you a "token" which is worth exactly 0, since you can't exchange anything for it. Someone comes to you and offers you shoes. You are glad that you got rid of that useless token. After "the emerging elite" collect enough wealth to have the incentive to develop an ecosystem around this coin, its value increases rapidly and you begin calling "unfair".
That is,
if that someone ever came to exchange shoes for it. If it never happened, you still would have no shoes, and everything would be "fair".
So, yes, even if you could implement it, your system would not be fairer than Bitcoin, and has massive disadvantages.
Of course, you could, instead of waiting for someone to come give you something for the useless coin, help people with their chores in exchange for their useless tokens. Then
you would be the emerging elite.
But where is the incentive? Why would you even waste a second to get any of those tokens that are exactly worth nil? What is stopping another party coming in and issuing same sort of tokens? Anyone can do that? Hence, the tokens are infinitely worthless.
So either you take the risk and put your effort into this instead of something else, or you don't. In this case, putting effort into this might not be worthwhile anyway IMHO. Maybe I'm wrong and then deserve to miss on it. In Bitcoin's case it was. There are many things you can do in your life and most would not be worth it.
Think for a moment that there are millions of different ideas all over the place, all of which are made readily available to you. Some are the next big ideas that will change the world. Some are not so much but might make you wealthy. Huge majority are worthless. The way society deals with this problem is, reward people who pick the right ones. Why are you so against this?
So, you admit you don't understand how bitcoin works, and you don't think it's a good system, and you don't want to use it.
So.....why are you here, exactly? GTFO, socialist.
S/he might be here to criticize and discuss. Why not? Besides, why is being a socialist a bad thing? Though I agree that criticizing without understanding here might have resulted in wasting everyone's time.
remove the words "might have" from your last sentence, and i think it would be far more accurate. :-)
Discussion and reasoned argument are fine, but the OP is just blathering on and on, with no real basis for their stance other than "bitcoin isn't fair". Regardless of how they rephrase it, expand it, or try to wrap it in philosophical twat-waffle-ry, their argument just boils down to "bitcoin isn't fair, because I say so."
Well, some aspects of socialism aren't "bad" in and of themselves, but too often socialism is equated with communism, which sparks the democracy fire in us western-culture children. :-)
If Joe and I go to work in the fields picking peppers at $5 a bushel, and I bust my ass and pick 40 bushels of peppers, while Joe fucks the dog all day and only picks 10 bushels of peppers, yet at the end of the day, the bossman averages it out and pays us each for 25 bushels of peppers, how is that fair? I did $200 worth of work, while Joe only did $50 worth of work, yet we end up each being paid $125?
Likewise, I don't think the early adopters of bitcoin should feel guilty about having the foresight and the courage to invest in its potential. They saw something and said "this could be fucking HUGE", and they are now being rewarded for it. Good on em.
Anyway, tis a silly discussion from post 1, and it's gone circle several times in 5 pages, and is no further towards making the OP any smarter, so I'm out. :-)