Quote from: weisoq on June 18, 2013, 09:31:53 AM

Quote from: kjj on June 18, 2013, 12:57:50 AM

You are really reaching here. Go back and read the first post. Most of it is about division, not distribution. And his summary at the end even makes it clear that he is talking about the "limited supply".
Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written?

No Im not the only person who was able to discern what he was referring to. We could keep playing the game of analogy vs literal, but we dont need to as his first post was clarified by his second which stated:

Quote

There once was a man called Nakamoto. He printed a million coins. He was later joined by a few other guys who together printed yet a few million coins. Thereafter many people joined, but printing then became very difficult. Actually the printing press will slow down to zero. However, those guys who printed the first coins are willing to sell their coins to rest of the world. And if those other people of the world only can grab a fraction of a coin, don't worry - it can be divided by 10e8. Economy!

Quote

I can make no sense of this, which is strange because all of the words are familiar to me. If you'd like to try to restate it more clearly, feel free. Oh, and your dilemma in the second part is false: scarceness is necessary for money.

I dont see the confusion. Perhaps you dont like what it says. I can rewrite if it helps:

You have two choices.

The first choice is to maintain the myths of Bitcoin for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune to date, continue wasting good intellectual and capital investment in zero-sum endeavours where one group of techies screws over another, and therfore also waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains (or at minimum waste a heck of a lot of time in getting to that point).

The second choice is to recognise that something has to change with Bitcoin because either:

1) Bitcoins are scarce in which case at some point those who do not already have any will rationally find something else to use instead of Bitcoin (see the rise of altcoins and alternatives as evidence of this). This phenomenon was predicted on these boards from at least 2010 when I started reading it, probably earlier, and will not end because its an inevitability, or

2) Bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes with just a name change), in which case what is the value of a replicable and replicated digital asset offering no advantage over others?

Falling on either side of 1 or 2 without the existence of advantages or damn good reasons to prefer Bitcoin over alternatives (beyond marketing) therefore necessitates changes or precludes its demise beyond a blinkered niche. As to what changes are required, I will leave that to application of rationality and economics.

Quote

I never assume that anyone is an idiot until they've given me a reason. In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S. Confusion does not imply idiocy. Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people can if they put in the effort.

Everybody gets it. Whether they are able and willing to admit it is another matter. Perhaps unlike the bulk of people on this forum Id actually like cryptos to (be able to) replace state fiat not remain a token playthings between small groups. Thats not possible with Bitcoin unless it is changed. Rather than the continual trumpeting of any innate libertarian, free-market ethos to Bitcoin why isnt there more appreciation that the natural evolution of private free money and autonomy is that the next person or group will come along, compete with and improve it, likely resigning the previous form to the dustbin.

Either Bitcoin adherents accept there are flaws and moves with the times, or any objective observer has to conclude its just a pyramid because it doesnt work economically for the majority of economic participants who will rationally not adopt it when they work it out. And to be clear my perspective there is as simple as not discerning any great difference between one group of powerful cronies controlling the fortunes of everybody else and another - be that a government, us Bitcoiners or whoever. There is no special Bitcoin State that rewrites the rules of monetary theory or libertarian ideology and to think otherwise is naive or corrupt.

This is what I've been saying all along and it would be good to have you over at my thread. The economy would be lopsidedly deflationary and alt's like devcoin already combat this issue by providing scarcity by controlling supply in a public manor. 200 billion coins in 100 years from now is not inflationary by any means judging by how many people there will be to use the coins, infact it is highly deflationary still, but the best crypto example we have. Proponents of btc will say you can just divide up the currency units once it gets more scarce, but to me there is no proof from a supply/demand perspective to justify that this will stop a fully deflationary event where banks will stop lending and ppl defaulting on their loans.