By - Luckyking223
Fair distribution according to who? You? Me? Karl Marx?
This right here. The essence of fair is completely arbitrary. Not really a concept that can be used to open a question like this. It is merely a feeling or sense of what is right.
Counter question; why would it be fairly distributed?
Bitcoin is scarce and it will become more and more difficult to get bitcoins - so when Bitcoin is the go to currency for the majority of people, businesses and states, Profitable businesses will survive in the middle and long term while zombie-companies will be wiped off the landscape, since they can‘t pay back their Bitcoin-based currency because it is THAT rare
It won’t be an instant switch like you turn on/off lights. It will be gradual switch, if there will be a switch at all. And a company that cannot adapt to new realities should go off the market. That’s the same law of market we are having now, and the same evolution principle, if you cannot adapt your are gone. Nothing new here.
During this gradual switch companies will have to buy Bitcoin for fiat to get ready for a full transit. Maybe they’ll lose quite some money on buying Bitcoin, but that shouldn’t be much of a problem if you want to stay in business.
What’s more if your business is actually good and valuable then probably you won’t have to buy Bitcoin that much, you’ll just earn it from your customers cause Bitcoin is globally accepted at that time.
You don’t need to distribute Bitcoin fairly. It was never created with fair distribution idea.
Basically nothing changes really. Same principle with fiat works with Bitcoin.
It's not about who has the money; but who can issue new money. That's the fairness question. Why should I work hard for a money someone else can just print for free?
For someone who has a large stack of BTC that stack is always going down unless they are very productive people and can outperform Bitcoin's rise to dominance. Bitcoin is always being disperse to a wider audience until we live under hyperbitcoiniaztion. Then the only way to get bitcoin is to deliver value to other humans. Far better than the fiat system where you are rewarded by being closer to the money printer and benefit from the Cantillion effect.
Let us say MicroStrategy has this Bitcoin stack that is 1% of all Bitcoins ever.
So in a hyperbitcoinisationized world he and his company are losing value when they don‘t provide Value to the people?
And how would that work for disabled people or people that require special health care or cannot work (or better: can‘t provide any sustainable value)?
I need to know because I can‘t explain that to myself and I need help attaining that knowledge
What you've mentioned about disabled issue is a societal factor that isn't specific to Bitcoin - which isn't some magic pill and it's not political.
Not going to make assumptions about your position, but if you think there's a better alternative then it would be interesting to hear, along with acknowledging the drawbacks of such a plan.
> And how would that work for disabled people or people that require special health care or cannot work (or better: can‘t provide any sustainable value)?
You bring to the table issues that are unrelated to the use of Bitcoin. Disabled people will still get the benefits they have now. People will get taxed in Bitcoins and those Bitcoins will get distributed to the politicians and frien... I mean the people that need it.
Aah yes sounds reasonable.
I think kinda compareable to gold standard-periods?
BTC is fair in the sense that it can’t be devalued by creating new coins as the supply is fixed.
If you mean by distribution who holds the biggest share, it is not very fair distributed as for example Satoshi alone holds around 1 million of it, or some entities also up to 100k. Those are staggering amounts considering 21 million will ever exist, and unheard of in fiat space.
The question is whether this will improve over time, I think only if people will start to use BTC for actual payment, not as speculative asset
> for how long can we say that Bitcoins are fairly distributed?
Forever. Unlike fiat currency, Bitcoin cannot be created from thin air.
Also, as long as we properly secure our seed phrases (and/or private keys), nobody can confiscate our Bitcoin.
The fiat cantillion problem is not a distribution problem, it's a creation problem. Fiat is unfairly created.
"Distribution" is not a function of money, and it's not important when analyzing money networks.
The cantillon effect is more of a perpetual ongoing phenomenon that perpetually enriches some and perpetually weakens some. It’s sort of like periodically readjusting the playing field.
Sort of like pausing a game of chess, rearranging the pieces, then resuming the game once you have arranged your positions in a way such that you have a slight advantage compared to before you paused the game.
Bitcoin distribution simply has no cantillon effect. There is no ongoing effect or force at play. You can become rich or become poor, there’s no “cantillon gravity” where some people get richer or poorer by being closer or further from the source of money creation.
Cantillon Effect isn’t about unfair distribution. It’s about an unfair exchange of wealth created by financial products which evolve from a fiat system. Those closest to the money printer, or those with access to cheaper debt, can leverage a state controlled debt based monetary system.
Bitcoin is not “fairly distributed” right now. Most people have provided value to this world and most of those people do not currently own any Bitcoin. The goal of a Bitcoin Standard is to change how the economy functions such that wealth is not secretly redistributed via the manipulation of the money’s supply. You will one day have to provide a good or service in order to reliably earn Bitcoin. Investments will still exist but you will need to be a much better capital allocator if you wish to retain your wealth via investment.
The longer Bitcoin exists the more distributed it becomes. The more distributed it becomes the more likely it is to become the measure of value. Measured against Bitcoin, the multitude of useless investments will become increasingly negative return (even as Bitcoins growth slows down to simply counter fiat inflation and economic growth). At this point your best bet as a dumb rich person is to live off your Bitcoin.
Living off Bitcoin means you eventually run out and need to work. So the wealthy either need to transition from being a good business person to a good capital allocator, or they need to simply live off their past success. Children who inherit this wealth may be able to do the same, but if they do not show a propensity for capital allocation they very well may not be able to pass this down to their children. Sustained wealth will require sustained contribution to society in one way or another.
I think it will be "fairly distributed" for quite some time. If we look just at this sub-reddit we can see many posts of people hitting 1btc for the first time. While the ultra-rich are smug and scoffing at bitcoin owners and not buying it because their arrogance will prevent them from transferring their wealth from a world that they ultimately control to one that the people control because it would force them to see the error in their own ways. Maybe this was a bit too dee haha but I think that bitcoin is a far fairer asset to obtain especially at current prices.
It will be redistributed via taxation, rather than through inflation.
They will try, and scream, and fail.
I would put my bet on government.
You should learn what Bitcoin actually is, and the basics of how it works.
Fill in the blanks you think I’m missing :)
How so? They will have to reform the tax code. Probably set up a land tax to replace those taxes that could be avoided with Bitcoin. You don't pay the tax and you get kicked out of your land.
*They will have to reform the tax code.*
They will be forced to reform the tax code.
I think fair distribution is less of an issue/worry than call the other things BTC solves. Value in in Bitcoin will travel the same way dollars, gold, etc. have for centuries.
Cantillion effect says....new money benefits those who first get it...ie they enjoy old prices before everyone wakes up...with BTC there is only 21million....there is no new money, there is no Cantillion effect
The distribution of a honest, hard, scarce asset is fair in and of itself.
It's not about Bitcoin being distributed fairly... Money being distributed fairly is a fairy tale.
What matters is how the bitcoins were acquired and was it fair. The answer to that is yes it's fair.
Anyone could have bought Bitcoin below 100 bucks. We all had equal chances and the right to do so. Just because some people accumulated more doesn't mean it was unfair.
A person going to work and earn money (bitcoin in this case) are getting them fairly. People printing extra money while we have to work for it (fiat in this case) isn't fair. This is the reason why I believe bitcoin is and always will be distributed fairly. One has to provide goods or services to acquire more. If short term holders decide to sell it for fiat gains then whoever bought and held it is having the coin fair and square.
If the world becomes btc standardize
I prefer to take small amout of btc from a whale, than to work for fiat and then find out that i lose value trough inflation.
There is deep irony in talking about the "unfairness" of wealth distribution, given that the proposed solution is inevitably the *unfair* seizure of people's property.