LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.
I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?
It's absolutely bullshit. I got into a similar argument just a day ago with someone on here who believed the current Masons rule the world. Basically the illuminati is whomever happens to be rich and successful to these people.
So what? If you're poor and you work hard and become rich now you sold out? Now you're officially part of the Rothschild clan and a charter member of the Illuminati? So if you just join a lodge today then all this money and power will fall right into your lap without you having to have good character?
It's all crap. People who don't want to research about how the world works, or who don't want to put in any effort to learn certain things. Bitcoin is open source, if it makes people rich then that is a good thing. How is it wrong if peoples lives improve along with Bitcoin?
Are you reading the thread? None of those arguments are arguments that Red has put forward - I haven't seen any posts by them arguing that the current distribution of coins is the problem.
The argument I
have seen from him is that the exchanges, by virtue of their necessity in the current economy,
already possess a veto power over which chain is the "true" transaction record, which transcends the "longest chain" logic that justifies calling Bitcoin decentralized to begin with. They're arguing that if the exchanges wanted, they could declare some abandoned fork to be "the REAL Bitcoin" and since most users right now (more critically, most
miners) need to be able to exchange their coins for money reliably, they will have no choice but to agree. They're arguing that in the current economy, the longest chain and the miners and the decentralized design only matter because the exchanges haven't chosen to flex that power.
That's a problem, and has nothing to do with ideology.
Edit: Added a quote back in to make the context of my post clear.
I agree with him that the exchanges need to be decentralized. I don't agree that early adopters are a problem or that inequality by itself is a problem. I think inequality can be a problem depending on how extreme it is and depending on who is at the top. If the top is responsible then they'll invest in people on the bottom and inequality has social mobility. If we look at the current top which is irresponsible then social mobility is limited.
I'm for promoting social mobility but to do that we have to allow people to start at the bottom and get to the top even if it means by luck of being early adopters just so long as we agree on the rules of the game and don't change the rules for any player. The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.