Quote from: aminorex on February 27, 2014, 09:51:03 PM

Firstly, bitcoin is net dispersive of wealth, on a global basis: While it has a Gini comparable to some fiat economies, the population at the concentrated end of the distribution is largely non-overlapping with the corresponding population of the fiat economies.

Secondly I suspect that the various crashes and insolvencies have had a very dispersive effect.

Thirdly, circulation can be expected to have a dispersive effect.

Fourthly, why should your ressentiment play any role in bitcoin's success or failure?

It is known fact that having money, makes it easier to earn money. But with bitcoin system the money itself is generating new wealth. it's not just about having better investment opportunities with your money with bitcoin, and that is why wealth will be more concentrated with bitcoin then with fiat.

Quote

b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability

Quote from: aminorex on February 27, 2014, 09:51:03 PM

Since bitcoin supply is inflating, it's difficult for me to understand in what sense it is "deflationary". Restating an incoherent point does not make it more coherent. It is an effective propaganda technique, however.

If you mean that you require a non-market-driven price adjustment mechanism of your "competitive" coin, I can assure you that it will never have a snowball's chance of competing on a value basis with a coin which refrains from punishing savers. Certainly worthless coins are already available in abundance, and their sheer numbers prove them "competitive" on a reproductive basis, if that is your metric.

Price certainly has high variance, but this is because the network is growing so rapidly. Thus the variance of price is a positive indicator, rather than a negative one. Many applications will require that this be worked around with derivatives, futures, off-chain or on-chain, but many applications will not require such infrastructure, such as e.g. instantaneous fiat transfers. Any possible competitor will face the same issues, only in greater force, as it will be less mature in this regard, at the point where it begins to actually compete with bitcoin.

The price is deflationary, and exactly because the supply of bitcoins is inflating while the wealth of the world is increasing. I agree that you could run a currency with a stable 1% a year deflationary rate, but with bitcoin the rate is ridiculous. Everyone who knows anything about finance knows that a currency has to "punish savers" to work. Saving wealth in money is not good, because money should not be used in saving wealth but used for transacting wealth. If money will be taken as a source of wealth by itself, then it will mess up every chance of financial stability because people are actually considering something valuable that really has very little value. And that will cause unprogressive investments. Money should be something that accounts value, so trade can take place. Taking money as value is stupid and wrong.
The coin that succeeds is the coin that attracts people by it's utility and use, not because it seems attractive as an speculative investment oportunity.

Quote

c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spent while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.

Quote from: aminorex on February 27, 2014, 09:51:03 PM

While this is certainly a negative for many people, it is not clear to me in what sense it is a negative for bitcoin itself. We are already at a point where new mining hardware will not be purchased until/unless/except-upon-speculation-of a price increase. Existing purchases will be deployed and operated until/unless price drops below profitability. If the market values security at one price and you value it at a different price, it is reasonable to ask: which valuation is more likely to correctly reflect the economic value added by the security?

It is harmful on bitcoin itself because the entire system is supported by a network that is wasting resources without any gain. That means if an competitor comes, that can run the network with more constructive use of resources, then it will have a strong edge over bitcoin.
If bitcoin would become big, then it means that A LOT of worlds resources are spent on running a network that could be very well run by the network that is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% the size. And that is the vision that would have fitted perfectly in the movie "idiocracy". The future where things didn't make any sense anymore and resources were just wasted without any vision or gain.