100-more people with more coins is irrelevant to your profit. Bad argument.
Need is not the same as want. Bad argument.
If you couldn't care less, prove it and give them all to me sMXyNRxFVBBUANn2Zt51kb1AkDkY7B3VN8
That isn't all you did. False argument.
Why would I give SolidCoins to someone who is awful at handling money like yourself?
I will hold SolidCoins to support people and businesses as time dictates, because unlike most people, I want a global currency that works. I've already tried supporting Bitcoin, it's not good enough. I'm not the only one with that opinion.
Awful at handling money? Where did that come from?
If you want a real reason, and if you truly don't care less, you should give them to me because 1.) I am ethical in the sense that I am a fair seller/buyer/participant in any economy who will not scam others and 2.) I devote my time (even for a living) to try to help people. I do social work. Giving money to me will allow me to spend less cumulative time trying to secure my financial future so I can spend more of the remaining time helping others.
In 2 1/2 months I've made over 400% profit trading Bitcoins. And that's with $100 initial investment. The less money you have, the less money you make trading because of the fees even though the fee is a percentage.
No global currency will ever be entirely just. It can't be. Global currencies displace peoples' values onto something they otherwise wouldn't care less about -- a piece of paper, or a number in a computer. Otherwise, these things would be meaningless to us. But when it can suddenly buy you shit (only because everyone agrees that it can buy shit), it becomes associated with your identity (class system?).
Keep in mind, this applies to Bitcoin too. I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect, or even that SolidCoin isn't better than Bitcoin. In fact, I actually think SolidCoin is better than Bitcoin. But Bitcoin right now is bigger. Too much competition before any one single currency thrives can make them all fail. Think of an ecosystem with too few resources (akin to a thin economy) where you have already-weak creatures trying to survive. They will all die. That is why I think people should focus and commit to Bitcoin to make it strong before any other digital currencies come along.
If AOL, yahoo, google, bing, etc. all sprang up at once, all fighting with the other, it is likely that none would have thrived the way they did. They thrived because they built off the SUCCESS of the previous ones. This was demonstrated through increased simplicity. AOL was the most complex to use, and Google, the current king, is the least complex to use (seriously, check out the Google homepage and tell me that isn't genius in simplicity). I'm not saying it's impossible that a winner cant emerge from a small pack of infant currencies. But the successor to Bitcoin will have a much better chance if they wait for Bitcoin to become successful and prove that the free market can work. Otherwise, there will always be traditional fiat currency.
If you donate a large portion of SC to me, I will even donate 50% of them to other SC users. I will tell you who I sent them to and they can vouch for me that they received them.
