On Nov 27, 2013 1:25 AM, "Ted Smith" wrote:

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:

...

At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:

Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There are insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than

Says more about PhD's than Satoshi. The money he'll earn with Bitcoin has no direct relationship to his investment. It is unlikely that, through coincidence, his reward is set nearly right. Regardless of your idea of right. Lack of knowledge is the fail of all markets.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ted Smith wrote:

I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.

Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.

Indeed. His invention is worth whatever value the market assigns it, and it's nobody's business to judge otherwise. -Bill

--On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:06 PM -0500 Ted Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 01:36 +0100, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

On Nov 27, 2013 1:25 AM, "Ted Smith" wrote:

...

On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:

...

At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:

Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There

are

...

insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than

Says more about PhD's than Satoshi. The money he'll earn with Bitcoin has no direct relationship to his investment. It is unlikely that, through coincidence, his reward is set nearly right. Regardless of your idea of right.

Lack of knowledge is the fail of all markets.

I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography

Such as?

in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.

Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

From: Lodewijk andré de la porte 2013/11/27 Ted Smith I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a

number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.

Then how can you say his work was published into any sort of market?   Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't. Okay. Let me explain it a little bit.

Satoshi (and maybe some buddies in the very-very-early days) is (are?) estimated to have 1.5MBTC (M for million, m for milli, k?). That's worth >about 900MEUR now. Let's make a generous assumption, that Satoshi started working on Bitcoin right after DigiCash bankrupted (1998). That >assumption is a bucket of nonesense, I think 2/3 years would be more right. Thebitcoin wiki tells us he "has claimed that he has been working on >Bitcoin since 2007", the Bitcoin software was released 2009. Paper distributed in 2008.

Okay so: 1.5MBTC for 2 years. I doubt I'd have to show you that no other scientist, no matter his contribution, got quite that amount of money for >his efforts. In fact most scientists waive what little they get because they do not need it (their dedication is to science, not to carnal pleasures). >1.5MBTC for 11 years is still a pretty high salary. But this is in "employment terms".

If we compare to people like the creator of SnapChat, a hyperflawed consequence free multimedia application (media is deleted after being >viewed for a specified amount of seconds), who's product is apperently worth 4 billion on a functional market. We're doing okay right now, >because something far more usefull (it is) is priced at 1/4th of the price of SnapChat.

However if you believe Bitcoin will stay at around 600 euro's (oh wait it's 700 today already, haha) than that's quite strange. If you think it'll stay at >around 4x more (2400) than you're probably still thinking quite strangely. See, Bitcoin has a very unusual market mechanic. And Satoshi is >rewarding himself in how much the system is used, the sum of all banks his software replaces will be his money. But nobody is paying him directly >and his efforts are definitely not a markted good.

Why shouldn't it? Because if satoshi lives in a huge home, spending freely, with several people assisting him in whatever whilst owning some >companies that'll do things he deems important (squirrle rescue patrol, private police, education, art displays, helping the poor, etc) then he didn't >need this much. Having this much of what might become world wealth simply isn't reasonable for what the money stands for. Somewhere I feel it >unfair that someone who works at the top of his abilities in a more profitable field gets paid more, but it isn't actually unfair. But the amount of >buying power that Satoshi now represents is so exeedingly vast, and will be so much vaster, I cannot fantom it "fair".

The best we can go for is the amount being "realistic" and "result of a fair and honest process". And I think that because a buyer of Bitcoin has no >reason to be interested in economic or Satoshi, just in his personal profits, we have a game-theory situation where Satoshi is paid in a way that >nobody is interested in observing. After all, every Bitcoin you buy makes the Bitcoin scarcer at your expense and Satoshi profits. And because of >this game theory problem I don't feel there is a market-related effect being placed on Satoshi's efforts.

The bottom line is: wealth distribution fairness was never a core design goal of Bitcoin. BRAVO!   A magnificent explanation, and I agree in all the details.  The design of the Bitcoin system contained hidden 'features' (for Satoshi) that were designed to earn him the 'seigniorage'   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage of a rather large portion of the Bitcoins issued early in the process.  Accident?  I don't think so.  I've already said that I think Satoshi's entitled to about $1 billion (USD), approximately, as reward for what he has done.  Which, about now, he has received.  (At current Bitcoin prices, or at least as of a month or so ago.)  But, as you also noticed, the situation isn't static, and he is virtually guaranteed far more value if he simply doesn't cash-in his current Bitcoin holdings.  This isn't market-driven:  It is algorithm-driven, defined by the assumptions and decisions baked into the software Satoshi 'so generously' (<AHEM>!!!  Sarcasm-warning!) provided the world.  Had just a few things been changed, the amount he could reasonably have expected to 'earn' would have been very different.  Bitcoin should have been harder to 'mine' at the beginning than it was; Bitcoin should be easier to 'mine' now than it actually is.  I think that it is the ratio of these difficulties which define how much advantage an early-adopter has had over those who came later.  This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software.  And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.           Jim Bell

--On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:36 PM +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

2013/11/27 Jim Bell

...

This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.

I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011

That's why you whine about bitcoin's 'reputation' being tarnished by evil drug dealers eh? How long's the ponzi scheme going to last though?

2013/11/27 Juan Garofalo

wrote:

...

2013/11/27 Jim Bell

...

This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.

I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011

That's why you whine about bitcoin's 'reputation' being tarnished by evil drug dealers eh?

I would be totally fine with Bitcoin going darknet. Doesn't lower the value. Problem is that all legitimate dealings are made much harder, and humanity's freedom is decreased significantly. I wouldn't say I whined about it though. And the whole part about evil is just the opinion of the enforced legal system. Our dear dread pirate was an insane moron for living in America though. That doesn't change at all. How long's the ponzi scheme going to last though? This is the kind of scheme that could last indefinitely. I visualize a ponzi scheme as a funnel shaped like piramid growing downwards. Every "brick" layed at the bottom flows some air up and out through the tip. The tip flows towards the creator of the system. All the pieces higher in the piramid get some air too. In bitcoin the hole at the tip is closed. Although the pressure on the top increases (there's some gravity effect) there is no money dissapearing. There's a significant illusion that everyone involved in the system could "cash out" for a certain price. Market dynamics don't allow such an event to occur though. You'll note that all commodities follow the same mechanism, except for commodities being translatable to other valueable things intrisically. Currency, USD, EUR, JPY, pretty much all others too, follow the same mechanism completely except for the fact that governments can (and do) choose to inflate a currency. I answered this extensively because people have become allergic to discussing Bitcoin in the ponzi light. There's definitely similarities between Bitcoin and a Ponzi scheme. It is *VITAL *to note that *every currency* has those similarities, but they are not easily seen. Best regards, Lewis ps: thanks for remembering my earlier comments about drug dealers :)

Presumably, relatively few people have read the paper.  I am embarrassed to say that I only started paying close attention to bitcoin 2 months ago.  <sigh>  And I still don't own any.       Jim Bell ________________________________ From: Lodewijk andré de la porte To: Jim Bell Cc: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" ; "tedks@riseup.net" Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:36 AM Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) 2013/11/27 Jim Bell This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software.  And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009. I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Mike Gogulski wrote:

Jim, install a wallet and send me an address. I'll send you some coin :)

and it should go without saying; don't use a third-party wallet service! the bitcoin network is one of the most hostile networks in the world; the trail of pwn is long and continuous. wallet services, changes, pools, casinos, just about every BTC denominated service is operating at an elevated risk level traditionally seen in banking while running their operations like a self hosted blog...

On Dec 3, 2013 1:18 AM, "Cathal Garvey" wrote:

"Guy who publicly advocates spending anonymous currency to fund murder needs anonymous currency!"

er, no.

Doesn't mean he would do it or even like it. Damn square.