Bitcoin is largely controlled by a small group of investors and miners, study finds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bluescreendeath

Posts: 244   +348
We've been saying collectivize the means of production for centuries for a reason guys.

People have tried collectivization for a century and it hasn't worked. Collectivized production is inefficient in most/a lot of cases. The USSR's economy is a prime example. India and China voluntarily moved away from collectivized production in the 1990s and 1980s respectively because collectivized economic sectors stagnated for decades.

Collectivization removes too many incentives for improvement. This leads to stagnation.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,333   +2,604
People have tried collectivization for a century and it hasn't worked. Collectivized production is inefficient in most/a lot of cases. The USSR's economy is a prime example. India and China voluntarily moved away from collectivized production in the 1990s and 1980s respectively because collectivized economic sectors stagnated for decades.

Collectivization removes too many incentives for improvement. This leads to stagnation.
It is not and the reasons those States failed it's because they were rigid, authoritarian states that just replaced Capitalism with State Capitalism, there was no real wealth redistribution or egalitarian and equal participation from the people themselves.

We're far beyond the scope of a tech forum but you're running on flawed assumptions from early 19 century debunked science about competitive behavior that was largely debunked by the work of Anarchists like Kropotkin and his contribution to Science (Yes, Science, not philosophy or politics) on his Mutual Aid book for example.
 

Bluescreendeath

Posts: 244   +348
It is not and the reasons those States failed it's because they were rigid, authoritarian states that just replaced Capitalism with State Capitalism, there was no real wealth redistribution or egalitarian and equal participation from the people themselves.

We're far beyond the scope of a tech forum but you're running on flawed assumptions from early 19 century debunked science about competitive behavior that was largely debunked by the work of Anarchists like Kropotkin and his contribution to Science (Yes, Science, not philosophy or politics) on his Mutual Aid book for example.
No.
First, India was not a rigid authoritarian state like China or the USSR. India was quasi-democratic and still failed in its collectivized policies. Modern China is still authoritarian and has even worse inequality than before...but is economically far more successful because its people overall and on average have become wealthier from their capitalist market reforms.

Second, Marxist definitions refers to it as state capitalism. But Marxist definitions of capitalism have always been a bit funky. Others say it was not state capitalism, but state socialism. Or by Marxist definitions, state capitalism and state socialism blended into something indistinguishable. Going by traditional definitions, capitalism by definition requires private ownership. Maoist China and the USSR mostly banned private businesses and everything was owned by the state (collectivization). So what they had does not meet the definition of privately owned production that is required for state capitalism. True state capitalism is privately owned corporations that are supported by the government - see WW2 era Germany for an extreme example.
If the govt/public directly outright owns and controls business, then it is no longer capitalism or state capitalism under traditional definitions.
However, if we want to use the Marxist definition that it is state capitalism, then there isn't much difference between state capitalism and state socialism. Both are still collectivized.

Third, China and the USSR transformed into authoritarian states to enact collectivization. Collectivization usually requires the forcible seizure of private property, which in turn requires an authoritarian state to enact. Advocates for collectivization have almost always advocated for taking property currently owned by others (instead of simply going off to form a new country with their own property)...and mass collectivization that involves the seizure of other people's property will require some level of authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:

elementalSG

Posts: 219   +360
No.
First, India was not a rigid authoritarian state like China or the USSR. India was quasi-democratic and still failed in its collectivized policies.

Second, Marxist definitions refers to it as state capitalism. But Marxist definitions of capitalism have always been a bit funky. Others say it was not state capitalism, but state socialism. Or at that point, state capitalism and state socialism blended into something indistinguishable. IMO, Capitalism by definition requires private ownership. Maoist China and the USSR mostly banned private businesses and everything was owned by the state (collectivization). So what they had does not meet the definition of privately owned production that is required for state capitalism. True state capitalism is privately owned corporations that are supported by the government - see WW2 era Germany for an extreme example.
If the govt/public directly outright owns and controls business, then it is no longer capitalism or state capitalism under traditional definitions.
However, if we want to use the Marxist definition that it is state capitalism, then there isn't much difference between state capitalism and state socialism. Both are collectivized.

Third, China and the USSR transformed into authoritarian states to enact collectivization. Collectivization usually requires the forcible seizure of private property, which in turn requires an authoritarian state to enact. Advocates for collectivization have almost always advocated for taking property currently owned by others (instead of simply going off to form a new country with their own property)...and mass collectivization that involves the seizure of other people's property will require some level of authoritarianism.
Like Bluescreen is saying, all collectivization in the real world starts with the forced “redistribution” of assets and property throughout all of history (China, Russia, you name it), usually through authoritarian methods.

The one day collectivization might work is if everyone who was rich somehow voluntarily gave all their wealth to people with less wealth, but only in a way that no single person is left with more than another at the end. Even then, there would be little incentive to advance or make something better at this point.

I will pray I live long enough to see such a day, but I am not holding my breath
 
Last edited:

kiwigraeme

Posts: 662   +503
I've claimed all along that BC would not collapse internally - as the big guys control the market.
They control the rollercoaster .
They control the pump and dump cycle.

Their BC holdings are probably steady - need income of $2 million - sell of 6 million in BC with others in group - price drops - use $4 millon to buy back same BC.

I've quoted this again and again - you can ride this rollercoaster they control to make money - except you sell all at top . Then buy on new low.

So the big guys won't let the price fall too much - as they owe 50% - so they will always buy to start a new bull run.

My other claim - it will fail from outside pressure - if they do not address the issues .
The main one is energy use - when people get more annoyed car and roads melting , crops dying in heat domes caused by global warming etc .
Secondly - illegal use and money laundering .

We are not at the moment moving to a world of tolerance - so BC will suffer a lot of pressure
 
Unbacked cryptos are making the corruption of mankind worse. No real good will come out of a robbery mechanic.

Democracy as a belief is envious. Quantity does not reign. The majority does not give authority. As the world becomes more diluted, only the smaller and smaller subset has the Truth. The better gets better and more.

Unjustly earned wealth is shame. Wealth is a deviative goal.
Better to eat dry bread or even starve whilst remaining blameless than amassing excessive fortune in viciousness without restraint.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,238   +805
It's not like a normal fiat currency. There is no regulation at all. No it's not the same regardless of the "whataboutism" defense.
Practical reality trumps all regulation rhetoric. Fact is the US wealth disparity far outstrips Bitcoin disparity. US wealth split trajectory is what exactly? That's right... even worse. So tell me how regulation is worthy of respect in this context? It has utterly failed the vast vast vast majority of people in the US.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,732   +1,788
TechSpot Elite
Basically, like a pyramid scheme.

Damn, I wish I thought of that! (y) (Y) :D
Because in the end if it gets regulated or even outlawed then a lot of people will have to suck it up and take the lumps. And there will be no buybacks or payoffs or restitution.

ICOs can be used as a vehicle for ponzi schemes, but that doesn't mean all cryptocurrencies are inherently a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are run by people or centrally controlled entities. It is therefore logically and categorically impossible for a "decentralized ponzi scheme" to exist. Ipso facto, bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme, though there are certainly ponzi schemes that could involve bitcoin.

Calling bitcoin a ponzi scheme is as factually inaccurate as calling it ransomware.

Exactly right. Look at the crap here. Ponzi scheme? Robbery?
So many of these folks scoured the internet to learn how to use "fiat" correctly, and yet don't know the first thing about the very subject of Bitcoin that they want to whine about.

Technically it’s a PONZI Scheme.
No it isn't. In fact it could almost be called the opposite of a Ponzi scheme.
The methods of bitcoin are not much different than the stock market.
You pays your money and you takes your chances. But if you win or lose it has no effect on others that are playing.

Calling it a Ponzi scheme is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Basically, like a pyramid scheme.
Rich people get scarce assets while cheap and then use it to create generational wealth. Average Joe points and laughs and later finds himself working his *** off for these rich people for fractions of a satoshi of what his work is actually worth.
 

godrilla

Posts: 319   +154
Imagine if the fiat banks hold the majority of crypto currencies. The heads are making bold statements that in the future you will own nothing and rent everything.
 

mattferg

Posts: 196   +185
Failure to understand the ecosystem, again.

(Sadly) most holders of BTC keep it on an exchange. As such, the majority of transactions you’ll see will be from one address with lots of coins. These few addresses belong to Kraken, Binance, Coinbase etc and skew the market.

As for %s, this is still far more diversified than the US dollar, there the top 1% control 50% of all the wealth, and it’s getting worse.
 

mattferg

Posts: 196   +185
I think most of us here would like crypto if they didn’t use graphics cards to mine it.

Also if you’re rich. Inflation is very high at the moment and it’s making all of us poorer. Unless you put your money into crypto.

Given that almost everything except Ethereum doesn’t, you can now change your stance.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 758   +1,003
Practical reality trumps all regulation rhetoric. Fact is the US wealth disparity far outstrips Bitcoin disparity. US wealth split trajectory is what exactly? That's right... even worse. So tell me how regulation is worthy of respect in this context? It has utterly failed the vast vast vast majority of people in the US.

You totally misunderstand what regulation actually means. It does not mean it evenly dispenses wealth but has in place rules/regulations to mitigate high level manipulation. Nobody says any governing body/regulations are perfect but when you have NONE that opens it up to huge manipulation and criminal activity. Try to do better next time.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,440   +3,769
You totally misunderstand what regulation actually means. It does not mean it evenly dispenses wealth but has in place rules/regulations to mitigate high level manipulation. Nobody says any governing body/regulations are perfect but when you have NONE that opens it up to huge manipulation and criminal activity. Try to do better next time.
Provide some evidence that crypto is being used for criminal activity in greater % than US Dollars (or any other currency)... you can't.... because it isn't...
 

godrilla

Posts: 319   +154
Provide some evidence that crypto is being used for criminal activity in greater % than US Dollars (or any other currency)... you can't.... because it isn't...
Some people forgot how to use Google
 

fps4ever

Posts: 758   +1,003
Some people forgot how to use Google

Don't bother they will change the target or argument. And I never made that claim anyway, just the fact that it is obvious to any normal person that there are more opportunities.
 

godrilla

Posts: 319   +154
Don't bother they will change the target or argument. And I never made that claim anyway, just the fact that it is obvious to any normal person that there are more opportunities.
This ponzi scheme has so much misinformation floating around and so much risk of hacks and currencies that can fall to zero and so much manipulation and personal greed that for me personally it's not worth the risk. The ones in the game obviously want to sing another tune. Million dollar bitcoin anyone? The marketing is surreal!
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,043   +869
Given that almost everything except Ethereum doesn’t, you can now change your stance.
You clearly do not understand cryptocurrency. There are several coins that can be miner on a GPU. But the one that is most affecting the market is Ethereum.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,238   +805
You totally misunderstand what regulation actually means. It does not mean it evenly dispenses wealth but has in place rules/regulations to mitigate high level manipulation. Nobody says any governing body/regulations are perfect but when you have NONE that opens it up to huge manipulation and criminal activity. Try to do better next time.
I understand exactly what regulation is. Criminal activity? Like extorting a large amount of the economy for the personal gain of the wealthy? Only reason it's not criminal is because of who makes the rules.

You can steal billions from workers (wage theft, underpayment and blackmail to not report it like losing your job) and get a slap on the wrist but a worker steals a snickers from 7Eleven and gets time.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 758   +1,003
Usually, when you allege something, YOU are supposed to prove it... but sure, here you go..


LOL that is not evidence that is a blurb piece on an unknown website, and the links go back to its own website. And researching Messari it was done by a pro crypto group. Yeah no. How do you come up with that argument in the first place if they are not regulated or legally obliged to report anything?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.