Quote from: Atlas on July 19, 2011, 10:59:32 PM

Quote from: digigalt on July 19, 2011, 10:50:40 PM

Quote from: Atlas on July 19, 2011, 10:48:17 PM

Quote from: Meatpile on July 19, 2011, 10:45:00 PM

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

It's irrelevant. The early adopters continue to sell-out. All they can do is lower the price a little bit once. They aren't that powerful.

In addition, if the majority of the world is in the system, somebody rich purchasing Bitcoins is only going to get 1 or 2, not a majority of the block chain.

Okay, we're not talking about hypothetical scenarios, though. We're talking about right now. The majority of the world isn't using bitcoin.