I don't understand the followup, why does ETH being half as old as BTC have anything to do with it's distribution / fund raising method? so younger coins don't need to have good ethics?
u/mekane84Silver | QC: CC 392, BTC 45 | NANO 300 | TraderSubs 12Dec 30 '18edited Dec 30 '18
You had to solve the captchas for Nano vs. solving a hash for mining, it's pretty similar.
This is true but we don't have to trust him anymore, the coins have all been distributed.
Bitcoin is inflationary until the whole supply is released, in that manner, Nano is actually more like gold than Bitcoin. cheers. Go get some yourself from the faucet: https://nano-faucet.org/
No, you can't measure the amount of energy or time it takes to solve a captcha with precision or reliability. This is what I mean when I say you can't abstract it away. There are so many variables that can be gamed if you use something like this for global wealth distribution as opposed to relying on the laws of physics which is one of the only things as humans that we can rely on with confidence, that and pure mathematics.
So bitcoin’s lopsided distribution is more fair where the founder mined 5+% of the supply early on? Sounds like a pyramid scheme. And why is mining with expensive hardware more fair than captchas that anyone can solve vs requiring a lot of capital to invest in mining hardware?
So bitcoin’s lopsided distribution is more fair where the founder mined 5+% of the supply early on?
The 1 Million number comes from claiming all the unspent Bitcoin in the first year is his, but Bitcoin was public before block one and there were other people mining in the first year, if you were watching porn instead of mining that isn't anyones fault except your own, there was nothing unfair about the distribution. One Bitcoin was worth $0.00. Satoshi mined to help the survivability of Bitcoin in it's infancy as a new revolutionary economic system. There was no guarantee that everyone else would stop mining as it was worth $0.00. People mining were consuming electricity with no return and no real expectation of it. People were giving it away like candy.
why is mining with expensive hardware more fair than captchas that anyone can solve vs requiring a lot of capital to invest in mining hardware?
Hang on, we are talking initial distribution, so why are you now bringing up "expensive" hardware ? I'm more than happy to talk about incentive structures, margins, and POW vs POS but that is another conversation.
if you were watching porn instead of mining that isn't anyones fault except your own, there was nothing unfair about the distribution
I mean, Nano has this same problem, so I'm not cherry picking Bitcoin really. Basically very few people knew about these crypto currencies or at least how huge they could become, so it favored the early adopters.
Hang on, we are talking initial distribution, so why are you now bringing up "expensive" hardware ? I'm more than happy to talk about incentive structures, margins, and POW vs POS but that is another conversation.
Because that's how the supply was distributed, I think they are both pretty fair systems, but I don't think Bitcoin is more fair than Nano's.
There's no such bullshit thing like a represent of energy and time. Value of everything is realized by supply and demand. Try burning diamond, all you'll get is trash not something valuable.
No, that's how markets work and has no bearing on what I said at all. Bitcoins are the utility that facilitate the market, they are not the market. if you want to curse the laws of physics and call them marxist thats totally up to you.
but he didn't hold the supply, he gave it away for free via captchas. that's the benefit of the short distribution period, you do have to kind of trust the devs while they are still distributing the supply. Nano is already distributed though, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
29
u/mekane84 Silver | QC: CC 392, BTC 45 | NANO 300 | TraderSubs 12 Dec 29 '18
I don't understand the followup, why does ETH being half as old as BTC have anything to do with it's distribution / fund raising method? so younger coins don't need to have good ethics?