__________________________________________________________________

   From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com>
   To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
   Cc: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 5:54 PM
   Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re:
   Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)
   On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Vorick
   <[1]david.vorick@gmail.com> wrote:
   >> ... How do you prevent the early adopters from becoming stupid
   >> wealthy if the currency takes off?
   >high risk, high reward.
   >why should early adoption with high risk not pay more than late
   >adoption with significantly less risk?
   I certainly agree with 'high risk, high reward'.  But that begs the
   question of, 'how much risk v. how much reward?'.  I've already said
   that I fully agree that Satoshi should get $1 billion for what he's
   done.  (More, if BTC fully enables a system like Sanjuro's 'AM').  But,
   he's getting close to that level now, and everything I understand about
   bitcoin is that he isn't going to sell his BTC's, so he will get far
   more than that over the next few years.  _THAT_ level of 'reward' is
   absolutely uncalled-for, and I think when the public learns of that,
   there will be a great deal of anger.  If such a payoff were absolutely
   necessary to launch bitcoin, and there were no alternatives, I'd
   grudgingly say "yes".  But, I can imagine a digital currency with
   far-less early-adopter bias.  This is particularly true today:  We all
   know that the world needs something like BTC.  At this point, how much
   real 'risk' would there be in a new digital currency?  Far less than
   BTC.
           Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:david.vorick@gmail.com