Just throwing non pertinent t docs at the argument doesn't help your argument right?
So let's dumb this down.
Let's say a bunch of lfuel efficient cars were created. Early on about 1% of the human population got 90% of them. No more will ever be produced.
Now here is the quiz....
Who owns all the cars?
Who doesn't own the cars?
Do you think the 99% who don't own one of these fuel efficient cars would be willing to give up all current cars when their chances of getting one would be next to nil?
Okay let's play your game then, each car and it's owner is listed on a public blockchain as a anonymous key, just like this one: 3J65t1WtEk25CNmQviecrnyiWadfRhWNLy, anyone can download this entire database of keys, but who owns the car(s) associated with the keys...?
Nobody knows, except for one smart ass, he doesn't have any proof whatsoever but he just knows. Oh, and the fact that there's another type of unique production line of cars which we know was banned to own back in the 70's, causing everyone to sell them to the Rothschild family doesn't bother this smart ass, that's still a good store of value and investment.
Tell me, how much gold does the Rothschild family have in their massive vault? we've seen the vault and we can estimate the amount of gold in there but no exact numbers has ever been revealed. And what about cash or bank money, that's an even bigger joke if you truly are against surveillance and lack of control.
1% owns 90%. Right? You are arguing the value of block chain tech. That's not the argument. Never was.
The argument is if 1% already owns 90% of BTC then switching to a btc as the currency basically had transferred almost all liquid wealth to that 1% who already owns all the BTC correct?
That's your claim, which you haven't yet provided any proof for. Nobody really knows who owns how much because there's no way to connect a big number to a identity. Unless explicit proven by whoever holds the private key. Only stupid people show of their entire net worth to the world.
What you're doing here is basically saying: okay 54534556456546 belongs to OneMoreTim3 and 1243454437383 belongs to anatidaephobia, but not a single attempt to prove how you come up with that conclusion. Why do you think 1% owns 90% of all the coins?
Check the rich list again, there's thousands of wallets before you've even counted to 90% of the coins, and most of them belongs to exchanges, that's basically shared wallets without one single owner, even tho you could argue not your keys, not your coins as if those coins belong to the exchange, which is correct. But that's just 1% of the coins owned by the biggest exchange.
Let's even pretend that 50% of the people in the world own 90% of BTC even though we both know that is a gross exaggeration.
In this scenario the same logic applies right? Declare BTC the currency and then half the people have currency to spend and half don't. Correct?
Half were made wealthier and half were made destitute.
It's because the "currency" has already been distributed correct? Some have it some don't. Some have thousands and they were made the wealthy class, some have .005 BTC which seems small but they still have much more than the half with nothing correct?
Just throwing non pertinent t docs at the argument doesn't help your argument right?
So let's dumb this down.
Let's say a bunch of lfuel efficient cars were created. Early on about 1% of the human population got 90% of them. No more will ever be produced.
Now here is the quiz....
Who owns all the cars?
Who doesn't own the cars?
Do you think the 99% who don't own one of these fuel efficient cars would be willing to give up all current cars when their chances of getting one would be next to nil?
Ever heard of supply and demand?
Okay let's play your game then, each car and it's owner is listed on a public blockchain as a anonymous key, just like this one: 3J65t1WtEk25CNmQviecrnyiWadfRhWNLy, anyone can download this entire database of keys, but who owns the car(s) associated with the keys...?
Nobody knows, except for one smart ass, he doesn't have any proof whatsoever but he just knows. Oh, and the fact that there's another type of unique production line of cars which we know was banned to own back in the 70's, causing everyone to sell them to the Rothschild family doesn't bother this smart ass, that's still a good store of value and investment.
Tell me, how much gold does the Rothschild family have in their massive vault? we've seen the vault and we can estimate the amount of gold in there but no exact numbers has ever been revealed. And what about cash or bank money, that's an even bigger joke if you truly are against surveillance and lack of control.
You completely skipped the argument.
1% owns 90%. Right? You are arguing the value of block chain tech. That's not the argument. Never was.
The argument is if 1% already owns 90% of BTC then switching to a btc as the currency basically had transferred almost all liquid wealth to that 1% who already owns all the BTC correct?
That's your claim, which you haven't yet provided any proof for. Nobody really knows who owns how much because there's no way to connect a big number to a identity. Unless explicit proven by whoever holds the private key. Only stupid people show of their entire net worth to the world.
What you're doing here is basically saying: okay 54534556456546 belongs to OneMoreTim3 and 1243454437383 belongs to anatidaephobia, but not a single attempt to prove how you come up with that conclusion. Why do you think 1% owns 90% of all the coins?
Check the rich list again, there's thousands of wallets before you've even counted to 90% of the coins, and most of them belongs to exchanges, that's basically shared wallets without one single owner, even tho you could argue not your keys, not your coins as if those coins belong to the exchange, which is correct. But that's just 1% of the coins owned by the biggest exchange.
Lol. Not following the logic are you?
I am not sure I can make it simpler but will try.
Let's even pretend that 50% of the people in the world own 90% of BTC even though we both know that is a gross exaggeration.
In this scenario the same logic applies right? Declare BTC the currency and then half the people have currency to spend and half don't. Correct?
Half were made wealthier and half were made destitute.
It's because the "currency" has already been distributed correct? Some have it some don't. Some have thousands and they were made the wealthy class, some have .005 BTC which seems small but they still have much more than the half with nothing correct?