Quote from: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 02:37:21 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 02:11:29 PM

Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

No I am equating it with transaction distribution (velocity), which is wealth generation (proportional to ~GDP) in the QTM.

Quote from: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 02:11:29 PM

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

How so? I think you are the one is not looking at that.

Quote from: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 02:11:29 PM

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

I don't understand. Appears you are inferring a premise on me that I have not made. Perhaps I think the opposite of what you wrote, if I understand what you might be trying to say. Seems to me the 0.005% have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' than the 5%, because they comprise 1000 times more unique brains.

Ahh. I meant in the sense of diminishing returns. E.g.: one person with $1B vs one person with $1M. The first million can really kickstart someone's dream life, whether it's repayment of house or car debts, purchasing lots of items, funding a hobby and/or business, or travelling to exotic places. On average, each subsequent million has a drastically smaller effect on overall "quality of life" than the previous million.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your original complaint about the power law distribution. In a previous thread you basically alleged that a large stakeholder, Joe, would not be able to redeem his bitcoins without crashing the system. That's a closely related issue. If a large batch of bitcoins are dumped on the market because the owner wants to "cash out their wealth", each subsequent bitcoin they sell nets a smaller amount of goods.

If anything, it could be said that political power fills the gap left by the invisible wealth. One could argue that rational actors don't want to harm their own values, so they would only speculate and manipulate the masses in ways that seem beneficial. Whether that's always the case, I don't know.