someone with 1mil has a 1mil/1bil chance of mining a block while someone with 100k has a 100k/1bill chance to mining a block. That is, the 1mil is ten times as likely to mine a block.
Right. Do u think it's bad?
Yes because we're not guaranteed the top stakeholders will ever use their money... see the failure that is "
trickle down economics." They have too much leverage early on. Worse yet, if they wanted NXT to fail they could intentionally choose not to use their NXT... ever.
It would be different if they were initially mined like such that everyone has the same probability, as the distribution would be more spread and have a much more even decay.
I don't have access to all the NXT account balances, but if I did I would plot them on a graph. I guarantee the distribution is god awful and will be like that for a very long time. New adopters can ONLY get NXT if they buy them. It's too difficult to acquire. Stakeholders have no obligation to sell them.
I'm not trying to undermine NXT but these are SERIOUS issues that
NEED to be resolved if you want NXT to have shot of becoming successful.
Amazing! You say: "if they (big stake holders) wanted NXT to fail they could intentionally choose not to use their NXT... ever."
So tell me mr. genius in that case whose loss will be more, if big stake holders try to fail NXT that way??!
Of course these big stake holders will lose more, because as by their intentional action NXT fails and loses its value, they who hold a lot of NXT will lose more. Did you understand??! I am not sure!
The same thing applies to 51% attack: in PoS coins like NXT 51% is more expensive and less logical, because 1- you need to pay and acquire 51% of the stakes to be able to attack 2-Even if you succeed, after your attack the PoS coin loses value because of the attack and insecurity, and again the attacker himself loses more, as he owns 51% of coins and they lost value. Did you understand?
I remember I donated you 5K Nxt!
Is the ad hominem really necessary?
It was a hypothetical example, the point is they control the market. It shouldn't be that one sided, period.
Another thing, is what if one stakeholder feels like the others would "take care of" NXT distribution so he could hoard his? We're absolutely
counting on them to distribute the coins.
I don't understand why ya'll are getting so defensive with this issue. I don't think you guys realize how dangerous this is.
I thank you for the 5000K NXT.
I think your concern is valid.
All BTC are distributed through mining, so even a lot of BTCs are hold by the early adopters, the miners later can always get enough BTC to support the circulation.
The majority of Nxts are generated in the genesis block, and after that only a tiny part of Nxts are distributed to the miner. Even this tiny part goes back to the original holders because the PoS. So basically, people can only buy Nxt from the early adaptors.
Nonetheless, this does not mean the system definitely will fail. It's possible to reach a balance. Let's think in this way, people will only hoard when they think the price will increase. If enough people choose hoarding, and then there're no enough users and the price will drop significantly. Then those early adaptors may choose to sell at lower price until someone come to buy. In short, the market will decide the price so that there're always someone to buy and someone to sell. Certainly, the progress can be speed up a lot if more and more early adapters choose to sell and giveway in the beginning.
Moreover, the function of the system is the key. If Nxt is only used as an investment, it can hardly succeed. If the whole system is used as an decentralized exchange, then it can be adopted very quickly.
