>do you think the distribution of bitcoin will be somewhat equitable as we approach 2140
I don’t see why the distribution of anything would be “equitable”, outside of a communist utopia/dystopia. These days that word is mostly used by people exploiting the empathy of others to gain power for themselves.
I see what you're saying. Forgive my choice of wording. Perhaps "equitable" wasn't the correct choice.
I more meant whether it will become a currency of the people. Or a store of wealth for the average person.
I'm looking at this through an African lens. Bitcoin showed a lot of promise for cheap and reliable remittance payments and one day a fully fledged currency for the masses. Gave us Africans lots of hope in many ways.
These days I worry it is increasingly growing more difficult to acquire. It's no longer destined to benefit the people.
I don't mean to imply that everyone deserves an equal share. I hope I'm making sense. I guess I'm more wondering about its overall accessibility long term.
It's ironic. Bitcoin can only keep going up if it becomes more accessible and more people use it. Yet people resist making it more accessible. It's like they are betting on a failing technology stack that will blow up after x amount of users.
I don't see why Bitcoin's technology stack is failing if it's what is enabling its current value.
Keep in mind as well that the protocol is mutable as long as people agree to change it.
Saying BTC is doomed to fail as it's living alongside a multitude of other cryptocurrencies that attempt to solve its shortcomings is also a dubious proposition to me. Take for example the Mina Protocol[0], which eschews proof of work, huge blockchains, and slow transaction speeds for solutions built on top of zk-SNARKs.
If BTC has value as a long-term store of wealth, and if other cryptocurrencies exist to transact at faster rates with more liquid capital, and if that capital can flow between systems freely (as fast at BTC will allow), then every system is working as designed, right?
Exactly. I came here to say this, but you've said it quite eloquently.
I'll just add that some inequality is also a good thing. If you don't have differential outcomes then you don't have a meritocracy where "better" is rewarded. You have a system where everyone is equally poor like the USSR and there is no incentive to improve.
I don’t see why the distribution of anything would be “equitable”, outside of a communist utopia/dystopia. These days that word is mostly used by people exploiting the empathy of others to gain power for themselves.