[hndamien]

I have no idea what you are talking about. People that buy crypto currencies are exchanging money for digital rights (which some believe are better forms of money). How that relates to you stealing $100 from me is beyond my comprehension.

People that hold USD have their pie diluted, and they are even lied to about it by using a CPI figured calculated from consumer goods and not a more rounded figure of all asset prices (or actual new money injected/ removed).

[loceng]

Sorry, that was a bad example, and that I didn't explain - making even less comprehensible. It was an attempt to counter your assertion that I "have a problem with other people having large pieces of pie" - which is as ridiculous, as if I stole $100 from you [which gives me more money than your $0], and asking if you're okay that I stole $100 from you. Your accusation was completely baseless/shallow, I should have just said that.

Re:"People that hold USD have their pie diluted"

Ah ha! I think we can get somewhere now. Early adopters, their pie piece gets bigger, and late adopters -- their pie gets diluted (because they're covering the cost of bigger pieces of pie of the earlier adopters).

If USD is bad because the pie gets diluted (because of monetary policy/governance etc), then why isn't it equally bad for the late adopters that their pie is diluted too? Or you only are thinking/care about the early adopters?

Does this make sense to you now? You understand how late adopters are covering the early adopters "profits"?

[hndamien]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand the economics of what is happening with all due respect. If you mean that when an early adopter sells, this is diluting, then you are wrong. It just moves ownership, there is no dilution. In fact, this is something we should all want to happen, because it improves distribution. It is mostly of little consequence though. When money is created and injected into the money supply, real dilution happens, and the creator/ injector gets the benefit of that money first, not an early adopter that through holding helped everybody. These are vastly different concepts.

[loceng]

I appreciate and am grateful for the dialogue/conversation and that you're engaging.

"If you mean that when an early adopter sells, this is diluting, then you are wrong."

No, I'm essentially saying the opposite. When an early adopter sells "now" - the "profit" they realized is based off of the current perceived value, and so that's transferring future buying power weighted towards the early adopters (once they sell to realize the "profit"). Essentially the future adopters buying power is diluted in comparison to how much the early adopters would have under normal circumstances (outside of a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme) would achieve, where if someone was simply paid USD (where the volatility is already removed/plateaued and being managed by the government with other governments using fiat currency, where people are keeping track and deciding the exchange rates based on the complexity of a society; yes, I understand the issue with a government printing money (which is real dilution) in order to say, fund a war that no one wants.

E.g. If you're paid $100 for work today, in a year from now, does it make sense for that $100 to now be worth $1,000 -- so you have $900 more of buying power?

Buying power (for people's services and/or resources) aren't in unlimited, immediate supply, and therefore they are also competing with others, e.g. who can pay the most.

If it was just "moving ownership" then the person buying it wouldn't be burdened with the risk associated with the volatility that is inherent to the beginning-to-end point of incentivized crypto-asset structure.

This isn't a very strong point, however it helps paint the picture: If an early adopter tries to say sell $1B worth of a crypto-asset, the price would would crash, right? Why is that? Well, it's reenforcing the idea that current value is only perceived value, and it's because there aren't enough new late adopters coming in to cover the cost based on the higher perceived value.

being extracted, because it's the future adopters that cover the "current" value -- the current value only being a perception and not 100% liquid, like if you had or were using cash.

What about a crypto-asset that wasn't incentivized, have you thought through that as an exercise to contrast incentivized crypto-assets?

What I do agree with is that once literally everyone is on an incentivized crypto-asset structure, then the volatility should diminish completely -- the fluctuations then will happen based on buying power, based on price of products/services and who can afford to pay more: who can afford to pay more will be heavily weighted towards the early adopters who have had let's say 40%+ of society's wealth/buying power transferred to them. I haven't seen these modelled or calculations nor do I have the resources to do them however much I'd love to clearly show what the long-term looks like; I'm sure VCs and companies, like Union Square Ventures and Coinbase, have complex private spreadsheets determining how much "profit" they're targeting with the ecosystem they're trying to create, a walled garden of sorts where you must buy into these Pyramid-Ponzi scheme structured blockchain crypto-assets.

It's a completely unnecessary reallocation of wealth/buying power, and the only people that want it are those motivated because they're in early enough - before the "50%" tipping point. It's a very clever design, however it's unfair. If it is somehow necessary, no one has shown or explained why - and of course there isn't very much money/investment/time going towards an alternate to the popular incentivized crypto-assets.

It's completely the beginning-to-end period when these incentivized crypto-assets are being "distributed" that is the problem, the very end point is good, along with the immutable ledger - however the solution needs to meet/reach the end point without the unnecessary reallocation.

Most people would be happy (as is the system everyone in the world currently uses, except for bartering) being paid a salary of say $100k/year to work on blockchain-related technology, however greed and hype has really excited people to unsurprisingly join and perpetuate a Pyramid-Ponzi scheme structure that's been built into what should be a neutral, unprofitable transactional layer; a somewhat parallel comparison relating to transactional layers: people who adopted email early didn't make money from using email and especially not being reallocated more money/wealth/buying power because future people started using email.

The solution isn't creating a new currency, especially not that's incentivized, the solution is converting existing currencies into perhaps multiple immutable ledgers, or combining existing currencies into a single immutable ledger. This process would respect the sovereignty of governments around the world and allow them to join the system when they are ready, without force. Through diplomacy this is possible.

What do you think about the idea of converting fiat currencies into immutable blockchain ledgers, where the currency paid is removed from regular circulation and converted into a crypto-asset, where the currency isn't simply handed over to the other party selling it?

I hope my further thoughts helps you better see my view point. I look forward to your response.

[hndamien]

Thanks for engaging and not immediately seeing my refutation as hostile as is often the cases when I speak with most people I disagree with despite trying my hardest to be diplomatic.

You raise many points that I think are mostly mistaken, but understandable from the viewpoint of our standard human psychology. These similar feelings were actually shared by people buying into Bitcoin early, thinking "oh, I rewarding these early people for doing nothing!". Now they look back and think "ha ha! I robbed those early people!". Those sellers may also feel it was a requirement to launch the currency as well. There were "faucets" giving our Bitcoin for free would you believe, just to increase distribution. The protocol works better when more people use it.

The fact that the supply is finite means that despite these wealth allocation drawbacks, there is a limit on how long that game plays out. Arguably it is infinite with constant growth, but if that is the case, this is hardly a problem for the community.

I think this is at the crux of the difference of our viewpoints. I see two systems. One you are in by default and is not transparent and is unconstrained. The other you can opt in, was vociferously prevented by the status quo (see centralised digital currencies), and is constrained. Those early people took a punt and deserve to be rewarded. Also, early is just relative term. Compared to the coming 9 billion, this is still early. However, investment now isn't at their expense, it is for their benefit. Everybody benefits from a common protocol for sound money.