Search content
Sort by
Showing 19 of 19 results by ronenfe
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Ok, I want to ask a question, suppose you and 99 other men are living in a different planet, until now you trade things.
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Now suppose that the coins you decided to use had to be manufactured in an expensive process to prevent counterfeiting. When this became known 95 of the 100 people involved decided to not bother. As time passed more and more of them joined in and worked hard to create more and more coins.
Now some guy in the 20 who never bothered working for it decides it would be more fair if he gets a cut out of the work everyone else did "just because".
This is not the case here, the work is invented in purpose and could be avoided. In any case lets say that only 5 people willing to participate.the 1000 coins should be distributed between the 5 people that wanted to participate, each gets 200 coins. How will they decide the value of each coin? I think they will have to experiment with it until it's stabilized. later comes another one that wants to join, they can create him another 200 coins.
This fundamentally cannot ever be bitcoin, bitcoin is not designed that way.
However I had myself envisioned this is the ideal fiat currency for a government to issue (tied up legally so the ratio cannot be changed without 95% of eligble voters voting yes on it... not 95% of people who make it to the polls... so you first have to convince everyone to go out and vote... the 2012 US election had slightly under 50% turnout amongst eligible voters according to my math from data taken from census).
That is, new currency is created OR destroyed by the government until total currency matches 1000$/citizen alive. If population expands government supplements taxes with printing. If population contracts government must spend some of tax money to destroy money. With a build in 10% a year change cap.
The unanimous requirement for change will protect it from moronic temporary politicians who don't understand you can't muck about with currency with impunity.
And I don't think this can ever be an alternative currency. You need to know exactly how many people are involved and if the issuing body isn't the government then who gets the new coins? every wallet? if that was the case then many people will create a million wallets for the free money.
the work is invented in purpose and could be avoided.
No, no and again no!You still don't understand Bitcoin.
The work can NOT be avoided!
Even in the far future, when all <21million BTC are created the work still needs to be done!
Did you even read anything posted on the last 6pages? I guess not.
I meant that the work is needed because that's the way they decided the coins can be achieved. They could also decide to create all the coins in less time, maybe using different algorithm, couldn't they? But again It's true I don't understand completely how this work this way and why.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Ok, I want to ask a question, suppose you and 99 other men are living in a different planet, until now you trade things.
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Now suppose that the coins you decided to use had to be manufactured in an expensive process to prevent counterfeiting. When this became known 95 of the 100 people involved decided to not bother. As time passed more and more of them joined in and worked hard to create more and more coins.
Now some guy in the 20 who never bothered working for it decides it would be more fair if he gets a cut out of the work everyone else did "just because".
This is not the case here, the work is invented in purpose and could be avoided. In any case lets say that only 5 people willing to participate.the 1000 coins should be distributed between the 5 people that wanted to participate, each gets 200 coins. How will they decide the value of each coin? I think they will have to experiment with it until it's stabilized. later comes another one that wants to join, they can create him another 200 coins.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Quote
I read about it, but still didn't know how it works completely, because it's too complicated system. But I read enough to make my decision, after I saw that some people got a lot of coins , which discouraged me from using this system , so I asked and said that I think it should have been distributed equally.
Do you avoid Apple products because some people got in early and made a mint in Apple shares?
Do you avoid gold, because its price fluctuates sometimes? Do you despise people who bought gold when the price was low, and do you vow never to buy or handle any objects made of gold because of that?
If some rival businessperson has the foresight to invest in some new technology and their business gains more custom than yours as a result, is that unfair? When you finally realise that the new tech has merit, should you be retroactively compensated?
If you don't agree with all those things: How is this any different?
Also:
Say your magical FairCoins were given one to every person on the earth. Maybe they start with zero value, maybe they start with a certain value, that doesn't matter. However the point at which you decide to sell a product or a service for FairCoin, and you receive another FairCoin from somebody else, you are giving more value to a FairCoin. (Previously you could buy X different things with FairCoin, now you can buy X+1! To everybody that desires your particular product, FairCoin's subjective value has increased). So the people that trade early in FairCoin will likely be able to command a higher amount of FairCoin for their products than those who come later. (Just like Bitcoin!)
Or maybe the FairCoin will go bust, and drop in value. Either way, the value *CHANGES* and doesn't stay the same; either the early adopters will win and the FairCoin will increase in value, or it will fail and everyone will lose. (The early adopters more so, since they sold actual products for it and are now left with worthless FairCoin).
So I think it's entirely possible that FairCoin would have the same "problem" that Bitcoin does. Maybe not quite to the same extent, but you would never know, because you can't control or predict these things. You would have a new hindsight and be trying to re-invent FairCoin. And again and again, each experiment giving a different result...
It's not the same, I don't mind people buy things that get higher value in the future. This is not the case here, Money doesn't have a value on it's on, it's the ability to get things from it, that give it a value. This is about a currency system that wants to replace the current one, now people can decide if they want to cooperate with it or keep using the current one, and if people feel that the system made in such a way that some people will be richer than the others only because they invented it or were the first to join, people won't want to join it, and if people won't join it this system can't live, and the people also know they can harm the system by not joining it.
It's not the same if the value of the coin changes in the future, because each one has the right to keep the coin or use it later, but they all started with the same point, and anyway it's not clear if the early users lose or win, it depends on how the coin value will stabilize, in any case the difference won't be that high as now.
Think about it, half of the coins in the world are already mined, they are held by how many people? 0.00000001 percent of the world population? Do you think people can accept that? If I use my example of the other planet, it means just for demonstration that 2 people of the 100 will get 450 coins each and the rest get 1 coin.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Ok, I want to ask a question, suppose you and 99 other men are living in a different planet, until now you trade things.
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Suddenly you come with the idea it will be easier to use money instead of trading, everybody agree with you.
You all decide to create 1000 coins, now you want to share the coins between all of you. how many coins each one will get and why?
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Sharing all bitcoins initially is a very hard (impossible) thing to do. Think about it.
The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.
Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.
I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)
As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.
Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.
The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.
The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.
Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.
I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)
As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.
Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.
The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.
I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal, with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.
So, you admit you don't understand how bitcoin works, and you don't think it's a good system, and you don't want to use it.
So.....why are you here, exactly? GTFO, socialist.
I read about it, but still didn't know how it works completely, because it's too complicated system. But I read enough to make my decision, after I saw that some people got a lot of coins , which discouraged me from using this system , so I asked and said that I think it should have been distributed equally.
And people who use uncivilized words like you and some others here should be the ones to GTFO.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about. You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board
What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.
I also can say you are a troll because
Fixed that for you. Looks like you thing only YOU are allowed to comment, good luck on that one comrade. Time to turn your ignore to piss yellow. Yellow for the trolling troll.
BTW, I found your life story in the intarwebs:
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h428/keithh409/img8012.gif
From your replies it looks that you are the one that didn't want me to post, caliing me things. So you are the communist that can't deal with other opinions, only by posting childish comments.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
You are a troll because you did not bother to take the time to get even a basic understanding of the subject you are posting about. You just posted an idiotic opinion specifically to get a repsonse from the community of this board
What do you care what's my understanding is, I asked my questions here and people can answer, that's the idea of a forum as far as I know. You can open your new forum and ask people to take an exam before they are allowed to post.
I also can say you are a troll because you are an idiot, so?
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
So, let me rephrase that:
You don't know what Bitcoin is, how it works, or what it's good for, but came up with an idea that is somehow better?
How can you even decide that your idea is better, if you haven't understood the idea behind Bitcoin yet?
The whole point behind Bitcoin is, that it doesn't need a central authority.
You didn't even get that.
You have to do a lot of research.
That's right I don't know much about bitcoins expect to what i read in a few pages, I know it doesn't need a central authority. But based of what I did read which is that one person has 250000 coins which is 1 percent of the total wealth, and others also have too much, I can still say that a fair system is one that nobody starts with more than the other. I don't see any moral justification in which the first comer get the most, and I'm sure other better ideas can be thought to fix that.
It's also true I don't understand the reason bitcoins production is decided to work this way.
Nope. The system is based around the idea of an economy built on exchanges of bitcoin for goods and services. Provide or good or service, and you can get some bitcoin.
(Mining is just a footnote.)
This idea happens in all economies. I'm not talking about how the bitcoins exchanged later, I'm talking about the problem in creating bitcoins this way.
Also, the value of the currency will change over time. So if each new registrant gets only 1 equalcoin, early adopters may get a coin that is worth 1/10000th of a pizza, while later adopters will get a coin that may be worth 10000 pizzas! That's not fair, and not equally distributed.
It's fair enough because he could keep the bitcoins and get the 10000 pizzas, it's up to him if he decides to spend it earlier or not But I don't think the value will be higher, the value should be constant if each person that starts to participate in the trade gets his coin.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.
Obvious troll. Nobody is this stupid.I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.
I'm smarter than you if you waste resources on this system, this will never succeed this way. And what is a troll, somebody with different opinion than you?
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Sharing all bitcoins initially is a very hard (impossible) thing to do. Think about it.
The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.
Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.
I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)
As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.
Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.
The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.
The current method, maybe not perfect, but it *works*. Better something imperfect that works, than some idealistic notion that can never actually be implemented in the real world.
Also consider the nature of bitcoin being peer to peer. You cannot simply "give" everybody a bitcoin. Who's to decide who gets a bitcoin and who doesn't? How is that decision made? The Pope decides? Then it's no longer peer to peer and is controlled or influenced by some person or authority.
I don't think you understand how technically difficult "sharing coins equally" would be. That's the key here: not that everyone would be against the idea, but that it's technically hard/impossible to implement what you suggest in a method that is actually "fair". ("fair" also being subject to opinion)
As it is, it works much like investing in a startup company. It's like we're investing in Apple or Google or something in the early days.
Also you have to understand that the possibility of the early adopters earning a return is a great part of why Bitcoin is now successful. It's successful *because* it allowed early speculators to earn money; they drove its adoption and popularised it. If that had not been so, maybe they wouldn't have bothered so much and bitcoin would have failed or just been a niche curiosity.
The most important thing to know though is that this method is technically simple, very transparent (read: even if it's not considered "fair" by you, at least it's *HONEST* and everyone knows precisely how it occurs, and can easily make the decision whether to use it or not), and also roughly parallel to investing and speculating in something which is widely accepted as a fairly honest method of wealth gaining or creation.
I'm not saying i know well how bitcoins work or convert it to my suggested system. I'm saying a different system should be used where there is an authority maybe, something like paypal, with the proper monitoring to prevent cheating, this has to be thought and invented. each one can open an account and get the coin.
State currencies also not perfect but work. So we are replacing one flawed system with another flawed one?
The bitcoins system looks to me far more complicated to think about and invent than implementing my suggested system.
I think it a new method can be popular anyway even without the early speculators motivation because people should know how bad the current real money system is and will want a fair alternative, and it can be more popular than bitcoins because more people will join if they think they are not discriminated between them and the early joiners.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
The people in the third world can login to the website from anywhere and get the coin, they don't have to own a computer.Newborn People over certain age will get a new coin, people that die will leave the coin, the total number of coins would not be limited and it will rise over time.
You all talking about people worked hard to earn those coins, I don't see how wasting electric energy for useless calculations that do not benefit the society called work.
We could also decide that each hundred jumps in the air will get a coin.
At least it could be something useful like starting global projects and each one will have to donate somehow there in order to get the coins.
I don't think you know what communism is. I'm not saying people can't be richer than others or have their own businesses to earn more money.
I'm saying the decided method on how the total sum of coins is distributed is not fair, and the only fair method is to distribute it equally.
You all talking about people worked hard to earn those coins, I don't see how wasting electric energy for useless calculations that do not benefit the society called work.
We could also decide that each hundred jumps in the air will get a coin.
At least it could be something useful like starting global projects and each one will have to donate somehow there in order to get the coins.
I don't think you know what communism is. I'm not saying people can't be richer than others or have their own businesses to earn more money.
I'm saying the decided method on how the total sum of coins is distributed is not fair, and the only fair method is to distribute it equally.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
I am very interested in how equalcoin will work. Are you going to just give one equalcoin to each person on Earth? Assuming you do this then very quickly your equalcoins will no longer be equally distributed! Because some people will buy them and collect them and some people will consider them worthless and sell them.
Darn, foiled again.
Darn, foiled again.
Of course the distribution will change afterwards, if not the money is useless.
You give each person on earth say 1 coin, then each one can do with it whatever he wants, some people then become richer and some poorer, but they start the same.
it could have been done like each one that register the system gets one coin, they can use a biometric identification to prevent registering more than once. I am sure this system should not be harder to implement than the current one.
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
what risk did they take? they got it for free.
You funny! So very, very funny!
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h428/keithh409/chappeleRickJamesDirtyUpCouch.gif
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote
You are welcome to do the same, and 4 years from now you will have more of it than anybody else who is just starting then.
So what do I have to do? keep the bitcoin software running all the time?
Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Well, when you create a system from scratch it should be created fairly. they could also get 99% of the wealth and leave the 1 percent for the rest, would you still agree with that?
And people here talking about communism are mistaken. I'm talking about an equal starting point.
I know it may not be practical, but maybe it could have been thought.
It's like when you play monopoly, you give each one same amount of money.
So from what I understand the system is based on the idea that the earlier you start mining the richer you are going to be? and it decays exponentially?
And people here talking about communism are mistaken. I'm talking about an equal starting point.
I know it may not be practical, but maybe it could have been thought.
It's like when you play monopoly, you give each one same amount of money.
So from what I understand the system is based on the idea that the earlier you start mining the richer you are going to be? and it decays exponentially?
Re: It would be nice to put a message that newbies can't post in the top of the page
I am sure many would give up, it took me an effort.
It's the first time i see such thing, usually you get a verification email, which allows you to post after that.
how should people know they have to go to the newbie forum in the first place?
well nobody reads the registration terms
It's the first time i see such thing, usually you get a verification email, which allows you to post after that.
how should people know they have to go to the newbie forum in the first place?
well nobody reads the registration terms
It would be nice to put a message that newbies can't post in the top of the page
or in an alert, or a private message in the inbox.
After trying to find how to post for a while,
I had to search the web to find why i can't post here.
After trying to find how to post for a while,
I had to search the web to find why i can't post here.
Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
between all the people?
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.
I don't see the reason why a few people who were the first could gain a big share of the coins and people who want to buy coins now have to pay for them. and why would people will cooperate with such system.
I mean I only heard about this today, I would participate earlier if I knew about it.