Why is this topic so taboo that it can't be discussed even hypothetically? What I'm trying to say is if you believe in Bitcoin as a viable long-term P2P currency then you need to identify the inherent risks to its longevity. Shouldn't the fact that a very small portion of the overall community having the ability to bring BTC to its knees be at least something to discuss?
I don't understand why early-adopters need to be treated as gods and any sort of topic that comes up is automatically met with, "oh yeah just another guy trying to get rich off them." As if my ONE thread can somehow re-write history...
I am confused by everyone's assumption that the 'early adopters' took a risk...pennies worth of electricity is not a risk on generating thousands of worthless bitcoins is not a gamble. If anything, they gambled their brain power on something they saw as immensely useful. Those that propped up the system and invested in BTC for cash and began to offer goods and services for bitcoin are the ones bearing a risk...basically everyone that came in after the 'earliest adopters'.
The entrants into the current market are the ones bearing the greatest risk. Buying in at $14/per is a lot different than buying in for pennies...
Pennies of electricity is a risk. A very small one, but a risk nonetheless. Many people may have quit in the early days because it was 'raising their electricity bill for no good reason'. And in those early days, the chance of bitcoin becoming big was miniscule. Very tiny investment, very tiny chance of success.