Sorry I don't understand what you're asking here. If you're looking for a technical explanation of my viewpoint I have no problem giving that, but rejecting the desire for "equality" as socialist/communist bs is kinda what it boils down to
@bottomshelfbtc yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think it's ok that the distribution is unequal. Lately, bitcoiners have resorted to evidence denial, in lieu of reasoning, and I wasn't sure if that's what you were advocating here.
I'm not saying it's not unequal. I'm saying that people will try to use that against Bitcoin. But the truth is the early miners deserve more. They put in when it was basically nothing. They took a big risk and it paid off. Those who want that redistributed now don't understand property imo.
Yes, there are some retarded virtue-signaling boy-genius bitcoiner OG developers that don’t get that if you distribute equally between two people (let alone 2 million) and come back 5 minutes later, your distribution is not equal anymore. These dumbasses are inadvertently advocating for absolute tyranny and are too stupid to realize.
The village idiots will still roam the crypto-citadels of the future... Selling pencils from cups is too good of an occupation for them.
@402PaymentRequired @bottomshelfbtc Well, the vitalik phenomenon was a combination of things that hit. The entrance of progressive demographics, joe lubin's rather shameless brand of confidence, and the popularity of the 'affected seer' trope. Certainly it had nothing to do with turing complete smart contracts :)
@bottomshelfbtc to me, sometimes, it seems that people show us 'the ideal' and tell us why we're not that. And, maybe we're not 'the ideal'. But, that doesn't mean we're not 'the best of what's available, given the limited resources'. So, I don't accept that our inertia will be displaced by a newcomer simply because the newcomer advertises a 'solution' to this perceived failing.