Topic: Are bitcoiners better people than the current rich? - page 2. (Read 2454 times)

The last part seems rather dubious to me.

Incidentally, it was international banking policies that drove Greece to the precipice of ruin. To claim that the bankster-schemed bail-in was their godsend is rather specious.

I might venture to guess that is as much a result of the self-selected age demographic than any other inherent bitcoin/fiat difference.

I hasten to add that there is nothing inherently immoral about yachts, cocaine, nor hookers.

This is a rather tough question. When bitcoin shoots the moon, many early participants will become very wealthy. While that is good for early bitcoiners, we cannot ignore the fact that this newfound wealth is the result of a wealth _transfer_. Overall wealth is not increased, we are just transferring that wealth from fiat-holders to bicoin-holders. Others will lose so bitcoiners will gain.

Does this make Bitcoin no more noble than fiat? I say nay. The transfer of wealth to bitcoin-holders will be completely voluntary. In contrast, the transfer of wealth to fiat-holders that has previously occurred, has occurred through the violence of coercive government and the legalized thefts called 'inflation', 'partial reserve banking', and 'seigniorage'.

Meanwhile in the off-topic section we have threads like what would you do if you had a million dollars and most of the answers are like:  "Yachts, Cocaine, Hookers".


Not to say the elite can't engage in those vices but last I check most of them put up the front of a traditional marriage with children.

To think about it, there are scammers that have more than the rich(TF, karpeles). So I guess that the majority of us are better, but some are also driven by corruption.

I can only offer my bias opinion really because right/wrong/good/bad seems impossible to know objectively.  To clarify im thinking i want no government involvement in monetary system.  Im keen to keep some kind of less powerful gov perhaps some kind of donation based regulation authority.  

The inefficiency of the banking system comes at a cost even if we initially chose this system out of demand, do we get enough back as a society for that cost at this point?   The demand for banking in current format could be reassessed now technology has shown us improvements.  Many financial sector workers could be doing other things.   Maybe bitcoin needs more time to prove itself?

Government polices aims are meant with good intention im sure but if you have more individual direct control to environment via voting with your wallet you relate better imo, you have motivation to relate when your decisions actually count.  People/life is too complex to have a 100 million person sized tribes all following the same ways.

Common denominators in humans seem to be we are all drawn towards pleasure and try to avoid pain.  We also all seem to display sympathy. Seeing someone in pleasure > seeing someone in pain.  Maybe the problem is if you have some kinda crazy "anarchy" world people cannot find sympathy for other different kinds of people if they become too different and we all kill each other? Although we find sympathy for animals so dont think so...

As regards Greece, lf the people own the land and are free to trade how they wish they both have the control and motivation to preserve quality of life.  With government running the show they lose direct control.   What happened with Greece exactly? seems like their people gave other people power to make decisions and these other people made bad/unlucky decisions? or did Greece suddenly turn non compatible for human life?  If not those then must of been that Greece were unlucky?   (excuse my ignorance)

Lastly yeah im not ok with people going around stabbing people randomly for no reason, i would hope to keep donation style gov to police this, if this is not possible then yeah i guess more brainstorming needed before we change to mad max apocalypse

I'm not sure I necessarily agree. First of all, I fail to see the why people have this perception that having no banks and a completely deregulated monetary system would be entirely good. Banks are just like any other service, they exist because there is demand for them and that demand comes from the fact people need a place to store their wealth as well as go to as a means of finding capital for investment. Government policies exist to try and maintain steady growth within the economy and reduce the swinginess of business cycles. While you might not agree with the way governments choose to go about with their policy - most of their aims are sound.

For example, imagine if Greece had no means of being bailed out because money was entirely deregulated. You would have chronic unemployment, a significant reduction in quality of life (as no one can afford services/goods) and probably eventually starve out the population without some sort of humanitarian aid from other countries. If anything that's even worse than what we have now. I don't care about being free if I have to have a hole in my stomach and die because of it because I don't have food to eat.

Secondly, whose to say you aren't currently the master of your own destiny at the current time/status quo? Aside from preventing things which hurt society as a whole, the way most democracy's are set up means they allow the freedom to do nearly anything. The only reason you can't go out and stab people because you feel like it is because it negatively impacts others. You have the freedom to anything else you like really.

And if you wouldn't mind clarifying - are you wanting to not have a government (which would be anarchy and complete chaos) or just no government intervention in monetary policy?

Well this is a tricky debate and i am bias but i think having a different means of transferring money would create a massive difference - i still think people will be "greedy" and highly competitive (BTC early adopters are) but thats different problem not to be tackled while we are low rating on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale:

Heres how i see the differences playing out, lets say everyone in the world is using crypto (just to make it easier to highlight my point)

So.... some basic philosophy if i may... humans and the external world are part of the same thing and dont divide at the end at the outer layer of human skin.  The external environment can influence the fundamental nature of humans imo.  Human is just a word.

Next... No banks/gov controlling money (gov without money control doesnt have much, if any power) - this changes peoples fundamental outlook on life, end result = more direct human judgement on issues closer to source. You are your own master of destiny without banks and gov.  Currently bureaucracy is the master of our destiny's - even the very rich get caught partially in the bureaucracy trap.   Right now people dont even bother to try and do something good because there is no point, the system is too anti socially mobile.

So in this new world you have greater power with a more liberated version of money (crypto).  You can do greater good or greater bad without gov and banks control.  

Conclusion.... freedom > non freedom - provided the source of freedom is stable. (kinda contradictory oxymoron but you get what im trying to say in this whole context? bitcoin seems stable enough to fit current step of human liberation growth)

I don't think that character of some person depends of his own wealth, job, fact that he use crypto curency or not, religion, race, nationality...
Everyone develop his/her character in the family first, and through life experience, education etc.
This is my opinion.

Yes, but once we are insanely rich, we will give it all to the poor.
You must have missed that part

{looks at the threads and suforums on bitcointalk.org, shakes head}


  What ever you say...

I'm not sure if you're thinking right about this. Having a different means of transferring money isn't going to be a catalyst to drive a change in fundamental human nature. While you could say there is some notion of this with evolution - I doubt you'd see much change in people between periods of 20 years or so. All your going to do is get the list of current rich and power hungry people and add to it eventually.

Oh sure.

I think yes they are but im bias. What do you mean by "better" ?

It seems the bitcoin elite are more charitable, more intelligent, more capable, younger vs current elite.   The world is in safer hands with bitcoiners but i get the feeling you wont get something for nothing like with our current system.

Haha. Exactly. Sadly it seems that 99% of people who get into bitcoin now do so because they think it's some kind of magical money making machine cash cow that is going to make them all millionaires. These people are just greedy and probably even worse than the existing rich that they constantly decry just out of jealousy and envy. If they got rich the money would probably just go to their head anyway and fritter it all away on crap and then become the people they claim to despise.

More average people then snobs.

let's see ... BFL, Mt. Gox, Bitfloor. GLBSE, CoinLab, MyBitcoin, Bitinstant, CoinLenders, Bitcointalk.org, Bitcoin Bounty Hunter,  ... tough question with no easy answer.

Anyone is better than leeches on wall st

No , we rely on bitcoin mechanism not moral .
Trustless is the core of bitcoin spirit