

3 Ways Bitcoins Could Be Worthless? - pjbrunet
http://pjbrunet.com/3-ways-bitcoins-could-be-worthless/

======
nkuttler
Wow, somebody who doesn't understand mining writes about bitcoin. No, you
don't get the "majority vote" because you have more users. Complete nonsense.

~~~
pjbrunet
Why jump to that conclusion? I never said 1 person = 1 vote. What I'm saying
is, if Bitcoin takes hold (meaning it's really superior to fiat money, people
use it in daily life, etc.) then eventually a tiny percentage of people will
end up holding most of the wealth in the world.

Hypothetically, let's just say 1% of the world ends up with 99% of the
Bitcoins. That's generous because today it's more like .0000001% of the world
owns 99.99999% of the Bitcoins. Using some common sense and a maybe a lot of
imagination, the 99% of people who missed the boat will be pissed once they
realize what happened. They missed the mining boat and they didn't get to buy
Bitcoins for $1 either. The 99% won't just play along and say, "Golly, I'm so
glad there's only 21 million coins because that allows me to preserve my
wealth." LOL, yeah right!

(Again, we're assuming Bitcoin continues to gain traction over the next 100+
years, the value of Bitcoin is intrinsically tied up with its future
potential.) The 1% will be so vastly outnumbered, it won't be difficult for
the 99% to get control of the network. That's why I think the money supply
should keep increasing if Bitcoin wants to be accepted.

If you think the 99% of people who missed the Bitcoin boat will be "OK" with
Bitcoins replacing fiat money, then please explain why. Bitcoin won't make
people any less greedy.

~~~
nkuttler
> Hypothetically, let's just say 1% of the world ends up with 99% of the
> Bitcoins.

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Doesn.27t_Bitcoin_unfairly_be...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Doesn.27t_Bitcoin_unfairly_benefit_early_adopters.3F)

> it won't be difficult for the 99% to get control of the network

What does "control of the network" even mean? Do you realize that at best this
would make bitcoin totally useless resulting in a lose-lose scenario? Yes,
that's totally a worthwhile attempt.

> If you think the 99% of people who missed the Bitcoin boat will be "OK" with
> Bitcoins replacing fiat money, then please explain why.

Bitcoin doesn't have to replace fiat money to be successful. Besides, why
would they not be? Seems to be the same argument as above, so
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Doesn.27t_Bitcoin_unfairly_be...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Doesn.27t_Bitcoin_unfairly_benefit_early_adopters.3F)

~~~
pjbrunet
To address the link, I don't deny early adopters should be rewarded. They
should be. But if Bitcoin is adopted by even 1% of the world (whether its fair
or not) the "reward" could seem out-of-this-world extreme to the average
person, if it continues to grow in value at this rate.

If Bitcoin wants more participation (fewer enemies?) ten years from now, there
needs to be more incentive to keep it going. I think altcoins could alleviate
extreme wealth disparity but that's a separate issue I won't get into.
Bitcoins are already a target for theft and hardly anyone knows about them
yet, seems reasonable to assume that gets 10x worse as they grow in value 10x.

As far as "control of the network" I was deliberately vague. The more I
research Bitcoin there's a number of scenarios, I'm just repeating information
I found various places. And don't you think we have only scratched the
surface?

How about these?

1\. The blockchain is a big, slow-moving, easy-to-identify target that would
be easy (for say an ISP) to detect, destroy, corrupt, etc. People say Bitcoins
can't be blocked because all these pirated movies can't be blocked. There's a
big difference. Every movie is different. The blockchain is easier to
identify. Also people said Bitcoin transactions are small and therefore hard
to detect. Wrong again. If say Amazon or Walmart starts using Bitcoin the
blockchain will be enormous. Even if it can be trucated somewhat, that doesn't
change the fact it's a big, slow-moving and easy to identify target.

2\. Just the fact Bitcoin can be altered to truncate its blockchain means the
developers have only one chance to get a major change like that right. There's
no "dev server" to emulate a world economy. If there's some little flaw in a
major modification to the Bitcoin software, that could collapse all faith in
the network. Don't you think? Also the developers are only human. Who could
"save" Bitcoin if the developers made an unpopular or catastrophic change? I
think it would be more interesting if the Bitcoin software was frozen so that
it would not work at all if it was ever modified/reverse-engineered. Granted,
I don't understand exactly how Bitcoin changes over time but seems to me
experiments/improvements/updates should happen in the altcoins and Bitcoin
should be safe from tampering. If the Bitcoin software can't be changed, not
even by the developers, that makes the 21 million coin limit more real rather
than an imaginary LOL limit.

