Piggybacking off yesterday's theme of periodic reminders, I thought it seemed like a good morning to remind you freaks that Bitcoin's initial distribution is extremely fair, and is possibly the fairest the world will ever see. If these comments trigger you, I highly recommend you read through the very concise thread from our friend Nic Carter on the matter.

Many in the mainstream and those pushing affinity scams in an attempt to replicate Bitcoin's success for their own gain will screech about "MUH, WEALTH CONCENTRATION!" "MUH, GINI!" "MUH, INITIAL DISTRIBUTION WAS TOO QUICK!" and many other nonsense phrases in the same vein that do little other than prove the commenter has made but a cursory attempt to truly understand the nature of Bitcoin as an economic and social phenomenon. How does one expect these things to proliferate? Airdrops don't work. The way money is created and distributed through the economy by today's central banks isn't fair. Hoping that a panacea to our monetary woes with all of the desired features one looks for in a money is dropped on our laps out of the blue doesn't seem like a very good strategy.

Do you know what is fair? A distributed system based on Proof of Work that entices risk-takers to run hardware at a loss for years to help bootstrap the network. Being rewarded with 50BTC block rewards to help compensate for their risk. Eventually being able to reap profits as others enter the network by selling a portion of their hard-earned bitcoins to those new entrants. Further distributing the bitcoin supply slowly but surely over time as more and more people find safety in sats.

Another beauty of Bitcoin, being that it uses Proof of Work to reach consensus, is that BTC cannot be used to buy influence over the network. Contrary to the Proof of Stake systems that others like to virtue signal about because of "MUH, THE ENVIRONMENT!", which are highly co-opt-able by those with concentrated wealth on the network.

Everyone's a scammer, freaks. Especially those selling knock-offs that attempt to denigrate Bitcoin over a non-existent "distribution problem".

Something to follow

One of the most important parts of being able to ensure that a cryptocurrency is truly robust and has the potential to be sufficiently decentralized is the ability for the layman to set up and use a full node on affordable hardware in a timely manner. Eric Wall embarked on a journey to download an Ethereum full node from scratch, verifying everything that has happened on the network since inception.

Many Ethereans argue that downloading all of this information is unnecessary and that fast syncing is sufficient. Though, in counter to this point, I have to ask, what happens if all of the nodes with the full state fall off the network? What happens if the costs to run and maintain one of these nodes makes it so only a few individual entities are maintaining the state?

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because the scaling challenges of the first iteration of Ethereum have become so cumbersome that the project is being scratched and they are building a completely new blockchain; Ethereum 2.0. Wishing them better luck this go around. Follow along with Eric's thread in the meantime. It's a great case study in Initial Block Download.

Final thought...

I wonder, I do.