Quote from: Vitalik Buterin on March 02, 2014, 05:09:18 PM

Quote from: GoWest on March 02, 2014, 04:26:27 PM

Is Bitcoin really a good store of value if 35% of Bitcoins are held in only 500 addresses?

As much as I don't like paraphrasing Paul Krugman, I think you're conflating normative and positive analysis here. You are basically making the argument that Bitcoin has a socially undesirable element to it because it has high wealth concentration. However, that does not mean jack to someone looking to preserve the value of their own wealth, and people who have wealth will not put their money into media that try to wash wealth disparities away. Bitcoin has among the lowest inflation rates of cryptocurrencies, with the exception of 100% premined/presold coins like MSC, XRP and NXT, but most importantly it has the Schelling point aspect of being the first cryptocurrency out there. Bitcoin is temporally antecedent to every other crypto, and that is one property that it will never lose; hence, it will always be "special" amidst a sea of innumerable other cryptos no matter how powerful they are. That's why I can see it maintaining its value for quite a long time as a digital gold.

You make a good counter-argument, but I'm not sure if "first mover" status is sufficient to generate a large ROI going forward. It might be, but I'm not convinced.