Skip to main content

“.01% of bitcoin holders hold 27% of all bitcoin! That’s 100x the wealth concentration of the regular economy.”

Next time someone tells you cryptocurrencies and blockchain are about decentralisation, laugh in their faces. Loudly. While pointing at them.

# # # # # #

2 people reshared this

It seems as though you don't understand what decentralization means.
It seems you’re mistaken.
Like all can't replace mcdonalds with burger king and expect healthy food
bitcoin was the first, many followed, but nowadays, some projects do get the decentralization correct...

Crypto is an emerging technology, and it's staying in one form or another
acting like an asshole is never a good solution.
Neither is coddling assholes.
Münecat is becoming a really great video essayist. Always impatient for her next video. Her long-form Web3.0 video is free same goodness as this just much longer 😁
So that's down from 100% being held by one anonymous person in 2009.
Sounds positive to me.

Don't forget that it doesn't matter how much # you hold, it gives you no more control over the network than anyone else, unlike the current fiat systems.
It does, indirectly. If you are able to mine a lot of bitcoin you will also have access to a lot of real money, as you need that for "efficiently" mining them using cheap (often subsidized fossil) energy. The mining capacities grant power over the network. So it is an inverted cause and effect relation.
Mining capacity does not grant power over the network, as has been undeniably proven with SegWit2x, UASF and the block size war and subsequent hard forks in general. Where's the proof for your argument exactly?
We are really confused by your stance. The basic problem of PoW based blockchain applications is the 51% attack, which basically says: as soon as you have enough mining power you can control it. Of course this is not end of story, but the basic problem is there. Our point however was the inverse perspective: if you are rich you get more bitcoin and bitcoin will not solve any social or ecological problems. It is still unclear how much it will increase severity of specific problems.
This is patently wrong, and works exactly the opposite way to fiat money. where asset holders have profited from massive inflation, while poorer people lose purchasing power every day.

A bitcoin miner doesn't automatically earn more money from the coins they mined. They have to re-invest exactly the same amount of computing capacity, time, and electricity as any other miner competing with them, for every single block they try to mine.
Aside from that, you said "more money, more control", and now acknowledged, that one would need to gain 51% of mining power over the entire network. Which is basically impossible now.
Except if you already have power/money.
Vor control over a few mining pools. Just because the scenarios are unlikely, they are not impossible.
Mining pools are just service providers for single miners. You can't just buy what miners do, and as proven by SegWit2x and UASF, even a majority of miners cannot affect changes over the rest of the network. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about to be honest.
I concur.
I have given up replying.
If you are really interested in learning and understanding Bitcoin then create a Telegram group and invite me in.
I would be happy to explain.
Perhaps Rau would join us.
We're not using telegram for a lot of reasons, thanks for the offer though. As organization we are in touch with the scientific community and try to use that as a way to learn about the topic. Have a nice day!
The general "scientific community" has no special expertise over this topic whatsoever. The creators and contributors of bitcoin are literally their own scientific community, as you would know if you had looked even a little bit into the computer science, theoretical underpinnings, and ongoing protocol improvements of bitcoin.
It is not the general "scientific community" we are talking about those who specifically research the sustainability of blockchain technology e.g. at the Wuppertal Institute. It is uncommon that you talk about the scientific community as a whole when referring to them. You usually talk about the the researchers of the specific topic you're discussing.
Still no mention of specific research or falsifiable results/publications.

This is going nowhere, if you keep handwaving about the secret science that gives you special analytical abilities (which so far have proven rather misguided).
We use to talk to researchers directly to understand things, rather than just reading them and increasing the chances of misunderstanding. They however have published a lot of stuff. One example is here:
And just to remind you, besides a rather controversial YouTube Video you haven't proposed any sources yourself, while claiming we would be handwaving and "questioning" our competence to think at the same time. This conversation is rather unpleasant, and we will not participate anymore as it will continue this way.
# #