I just learned about bitcoins and think it is one of the most important ideas out there.
However, after watching a youtube video where gavinandresen addresses a C.I.A. owned trust fund, I realized that many entities like banks and government agencies are probably stashing themselves with bitcoins in order to control the market by owning a huge chunk of it.
To avoid a possibly unhealthy accumulation of wealth by parties that don't care about things like the common good, it would be beneficial to come up with a system where although the transactions remain anonymous, there exist incentives for the nodes whose transactions result in the most positive effect to the whole market.
In other words, each node or bitcoin wallet address should have some sort of a reputation given by the effect that its transaction history has had on the other nodes procurement capacity.
Does anyone else thinks this is a legitimate concern?
I just think this would fit much better into the bitcointalk forums :).
Bitcoin was never meant to solve the unfairness, and inequality inherent in capitalism.
It supports an economy but is completely neutral as to what that economy is.
You know what, instead of proposing a vague idea, work it out in detail, make an implementation, experiment and see how it works. Like Satoshi did. Even "bad" implementation win over "good" ideas because they can actually be adapted and improved over time. Good luck.
I'm closing this issue because it is not technical issue.
Diapolo and laanwj thanks for your feedback, I agree with both.
Also note Bitcoin was never meant to be anonymous either.