[darkr]

> A currency where a single individual owns 4.7% of all currency isn't going to end well

It's not that far off from real world USD (if you limit it to the US, and extrapolate for number of users) where 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01% control 11.2% of total wealth

[dsharlet]

There's a huge difference in illiquid assets (most of that 11.2% is real estate, stock, etc.) and currency that is at least presumably intended to be liquid.

[puranjay]

Besides what others have already said, there's also the fact that the US families have no real incentive to flood the market with dollars or control price fluctuations. What are they then going to trade with? Pesos?

You could, however, control prices if you controlled 5% of Bitcoin, which you could cash out in USD or EUR.

There is no alternative to USD or EUR - at least not one that is widely accepted.

There IS an alternative to Bitcoin

[dagw]

The difference is that that wealth isn't cash hidden in a secret vault, but various assets that are already accounted for and an active part of the economy.

The closest real world analogy I can think of would be that if all the unaccounted for physical US currency that is floating around outside the US all of a sudden returned 'home'.

[omegaham]

I think the biggest difference is that those 16,000 families aren't just sitting on dollars that are stuffed into Scrooge McDuck vaults. Their money is invested everywhere and is part of the economy.

In contrast, Satoshi's coins are currently outside the system, and adding them to the system would cause a whole bunch of instability.