Sry i dont get it. wasnt i raising a fair argument?
No.
You strawmaned that
- we are building another foundation, even after my HELL; NO, which was to indicate that the opposite is happening.
- claiming that 80% of bitcoins are in hands of early adopters which is not true unless you define "early adopter" by the size of holding and make a cutoff, which would make FBI an early adopter, leading to contradiction.
- Jackson had a wealth distribution agenda (which he didn't but you seem to have).
ok,
1/ so what would be your new foundation's purpose exactly?
2/ i claim that similarly to $$, only a few thousands of people (early adopters or not) have more than 80% of bitcoins which make it not well distributed, hence sensitive to manipulation?
3/Jackson believed that ONLY the government should be allowed to deal with money supply, not banks or any other entity: so what about bitcoins?
i am not trolling, just trying to understand whats in stake at my little level.