2 persons are suspected to mine for bitcoins with overtaken computers worth 700.000€. this is such a dangerous threat that we need the cavallery! (source: german) http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/devisen-rohstoffe/digitale-waehrung-gsg-9-einheit-nimmt-mutmassliche-bitcoin-betrueger-fest-12694938.html
+0 / -0
|
Hasn't fefe got an RSS feed? ;)
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Denn auch wenn die Bitcoins ein neues Phänomen sind, sie sind doch so ungleich verteilt wie die etablierten Währungen. Die 100 reichsten Bitcoin-Besitzer haben 20 Prozent aller Bitcoins in ihren Beständen. Zum Vergleich: In Deutschland besitzen 380 Haushalte, das entspricht den reichsten 0,001 Prozent, 5,3 Prozent des Vermögens. |
It says: 100 Bitcoin-owners own 20% of all Bitcoins. 380 german households (0.001% of total number) own 5.3% money. Everybody who owns 3x as much as one human can earn in 40 years of hard work, effectively owns that much "human lifes", as there are always people which do everything for a part of that money. Should we not all want a different currency where everybody just get the same ammount paid out initially? I don't like exponential gain. Nowhere! :/
+0 / -0
|
"Should we not all want a different currency where everybody just get the same ammount paid out initially?" ->Nope. "100 Bitcoin-owners own 20% of all Bitcoins." ->Because they invested money at the very beginning of Bitcoin's existence. They invested that money with really big risk of losing them. Without that tiny chance of earning so much money they wouldn't invest in BitCoin - and BTC would die quickly without 'customers'. "Getting the same amount paid out initially" would be great. But it's not possible.
+2 / -0
|
The real crime they got arrested for was hacking computers.. Bitcoins is just what they used them for. quote:
"100 Bitcoin-owners own 20% of all Bitcoins." |
Early adapters probally own large share, which is imo bad start for new currency. But it is difficult to get precise numbers because the nature of bitcoins is that wallets and their owners are anonymous. One peopleperson can own multiple wallets. On other hand many wallets might just have been created for one transaction and then it is never used again and empty. Think like throw-away email adresses. Btw there is ongoing thread started by spring player varikonniemi who tried bitcoin mining: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30097
+0 / -0
|
I just think that 100x growth is too much. If you can expect more request and more growth, rich peoples know it first, simply because they can pay others to collect usefull investment information for themselves. Thus rich men have an advantage in getting the best offers - which let them stay rich. I worry that this will lead to 1% humans have ~50%, 4% another 40% and all others become slaves-of-money (I know, my example shows the very extreme) Peoples with "average" wealth would help the rich because they think the rich earned it, but how is "earn 100 million or 1 billion" in a life-span democracy or a fair reward for risks?
+1 / -0
|
Neon, almost all distributions in the world are around "20% own 80% of it". That's natural. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle, bitcoins are completely unrelated. They may indeed be a means of getting more money, but the fact that people make more money the more they have is not specific to bitcoins.
+0 / -0
|
Is 100x growth too much, when there is less than 1 percent chance of success? Some people are risking all their money, all their wealth having that 1 percent chance. When 100 people tried, one succeed - and he's rich. He deserve that, don't you think? Especially if he invested in some new technology (it's the most obvious high risk, hich reward investment) like some computers, programs, tools. BTC is new thing. Nobody could say about BTC if it's good or bad investment. Rich men cannot pay others for that information, because nobody knows. The can have only predictions, what means it's still risk. There is always risyk. And without men, who were risking there would be no new technologies or products. You simply don't see that 99 persons who failed developing or investing in something new. That's why you think 100x growth is too big. Because you see only winners, not losers.
+0 / -0
|
I had 38 bit coins which got 'lost', trouble with them is the systems which store the wallets are unsecure.
+0 / -0
|
Nothing against your argumentations. My main concern is about how these people use their money. Force others into liabilities just because they want more or avoid losing it by comiting crimes? - They are not chosen by public and they don't have to pass any trial on responsibility.   fishfinger: I think if you use a system (or encrypted virtual computers) only for 1 application and add protocol filters (only pass valid values) you can get a safe system.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I just think that 100x growth is too much. |
lol "I hereby declare that the price of X should not increase too much, 100x is too much." Just do what you gotta do. If you don't want to see a price increase, don't buy any bitcoin. If you don't own any and don't want to own any, the price of a bitcoin is none of your business. quote:
I don't like exponential gain. Nowhere! :/ |
Double-lol. I suppose what you wanted to say is: "I don't like when assets owned by other people have an exponential price increase." You won't fool us... we know you would love to see the price of something you already own increase by 100x. Don't lie!
+1 / -0
|
quote:
You won't fool us... we know you would love to see the price of something you already own increase by 100x. Don't lie! |
LOL All thiefs would raid my home I would have to spend 10% in security stuff. Do you know that - in germany - you only have to pay 100'000 € per year personal income taxes even if you would get 100'000'000 per year? But to have such a tax limit, you need a 1'000'000 € investment in Bitcoins. -> Rich ppls only pay 1%, poor people a lot more (relatively) to what they get.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Do you know that - in germany - you only have to pay 100'000 € per year personal income taxes even if you would get 100'000'000 per year?
But to have such a tax limit, you need a 1'000'000 € investment in Bitcoins. |
I do not understand what you say. What is the relation between the taxation model you country has chosen and bitcoins? What is the relation between income taxation and bitcoins? What about capital gain taxes or property taxes?
+0 / -0
|
I think, in neon-language, he says he dislikes exponential growth because it (supposedly) increases inequality. We'll never know for sure, though.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Do you know that - in germany - you only have to pay 100'000 € per year personal income taxes even if you would get 100'000'000 per year?
But to have such a tax limit, you need a 1'000'000 € investment in Bitcoins.
-> Rich ppls only pay 1%, poor people a lot more (relatively) to what they get. |
That's as far from the truth as you can get. Income taxes alone take away 45% of what "rich" people earn. Please have a look at the table in this section: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkommensteuer_(Deutschland)#Aufteilung_nach_AufkommenThe second column contains the average (not minimum or maximum, average!) yearly income of that respective 10% of taxpayers, the third column is the share they pay to the total income taxes, and the fourth column is their share of the total income. Please observe that the upper 10% pay for 50% of all the income taxes collected, despite only earning 25% of the total income. As the article notes, the 50% of the population with lower income pay only 6.5% of all income taxes. Rich people don't "pay only 1%", they pay more than all the others together. And don't start an argument about tax evasion please.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
[url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Einkommensteuer[/url]
Gegenüber dem Stand von August 2004 wäre in diesem Beispiel in Deutschland bei dem Einkommen von 90.000 €/Jahr eine Entlastung von 5.000 €/Jahr gegeben, bei dem von 15.000 €/Jahr eine von 739 €/Jahr.[3] Nimmt man den Sozialhilferegelsatz etwa von Berlin (2003) von 296 €/Monat als Grundlage (Haushaltsvorstand, alleinstehend), so kommt dieser ohne Mietzuschüsse oder sonstige Einmalleistungen bereits auf 3.552 €/Jahr. |
Every person has a fixed minimum expense for life support (home, water, food, electricity, way to work). It is the difference to your income which counts, not the brutto income. Quote> Income taxes alone take away 45% of what "rich" people earn. As long as a growth in bitcoin value also counts as "earned money" it is a valid point. Depends how governments handle it.
+0 / -0
|
