>> Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology
I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.
I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.
They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)
Some invested time learning about new technology that could've gone nowhere.
Very few. In more/most it's just taxable.
>> They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)
OK, sure, but again not a massive risk if your initial stake was tiny.
And it was a stake rather than an investment - it's not really an investment as you're not investing in a productive endeavour. More like buying and holding an asset.
From your perspective, isn't it a massive risk not to sell at this all time high value?
If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?
Not really, if you didn't tie up significant proportions of your net worth in the initial buy.
> If they hold or sell, do they deserve whatever outcome?
Deserve is a worryingly moral word to apply there.
My only dispute is that early adopters took a lot of risk. It's not like they sunk their life savings into opening a small business.
I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?
You can't do that if they don't sell and they won't sell untill bitcoin stores large portion of world's wealth.
> I assume 'fair' to you would mean taking it from them to re-distribute between everyone else?
I have no idea why would you assume that. Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin. No need to re-distribute. Share is the thing that matters not the amount.
On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return.
Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.
They do sell though, billions of dollars worth, everyday on several exchanges.
> Especially if you could achieve same thing just by destroying their bitcoin.
So now we're responding with force to a completely voluntary system? Great. And by the way, that is still redistribution, all other assets would go up in value in response.
> On more serious note fair for me is more or less how actual brick and mortar econony distributes things. You make things other find useful, you get share of humanity's wealth in return.
> Holding things, bitcoin, gold, real estate, copyright strays for me from 'fair'. I see it as the less fair, the less you contibuted to humanity to acquire those things and the more claim on share of humanity's wealth you have by holding them.
I agree on copyright, because it's a far different beast with tons of problems, but the others are essentially stores of value that you can get in a voluntary exchange by doing things others find useful.
There is inherited wealth, yes, but I've never found a way that works that solves that birth inequality.