Topic: Bitcoin Elitists Ignoring the 3rd world (Read 1026 times)

I didn't say anything you said above.

The stock market emergency breaker system was an example for you to better
understand the true purpose of the "1MB limit". It has nothing to do with cheap
or fast transactions, that is very wrong. That is like saying a certain size petrol
tank is a restriction to cheaper petrol at the pump. It is not how things actually
function.

A "normal currency" is a government controlled device. So very simply, Bitcoin
is not and does not function like a "normal currency" since it is not controlled
nor subsidized by a government. Satoshi actually programmed the protocol to
contradict the current financial philosophy of currency.




Risking a contentious hardfork for only a 2MB bump is a very bizarre action
and shows lack of concern for network security and the actual users. This
2MB bump, if successful in not causing any problems now or in the future,
will never help the users in any meaningful way. The ignorant users are
being lied to about the cheaper and faster transactions. It is actually so
pointless, that it is more likely being used by miners or other unknown
entities for the purpose of intentionally causing two surviving chains. In
some circles, two chains is more profit, and in other circles, two chains is
a type of cryptocurrency attack vector.

As for governmental regulation of the protocol: What is you understanding
as to why governments did not make Bitcoin illegal originally, and why to
this day, do they not assert their obligation to bring it into conformance of law?
The governments regulate directly all things (water, land, property, air, petrol,
food, medicine, technology, etc), except the Bitcoin Network (currently). What
is your opinion as to why they do not do so? Why have you been allowed to
participate in this unregulated system by your government?  




In order to gain cheaper/faster transactions, something must be removed
from the network that causes an expense (like removing the truck or seat in
the automobile for a bigger petrol tank). The current expenses in the system
come from the decentralized aspects of the network and the government
unregulatability that comes from that designed and purposefully implemented
aspect. You can not add cheaper txs without equivalent subtraction from
somewhere else in the system.

You do not understand my "Ponzi pusher" example. What I am saying is that
IF Bitcoin becomes a ponzi due to the loss of decentralization in and of the
network and that network is allowed to continue, those ponzi pushers who
purposefully destroyed the system will go into the 2nd and 3rd worlds, and sell
those worthless bitcoin to uneducated poor. The poor will be told it provides
freedom, but will really only provide slavery and/or death.




We are at near perfection for what it's original purpose was. There is no middle way at
this point in time. Over longer time periods, it will be able to reach a more middle path,
but currently there is no change that is a true middle path. Sacrifices must be made at
this point in time, if you want blocksize changes. Some sacrifices are acceptable and
others are not. Your viewpoint is of a sacrifice I can not accept as being appropriate or
safe at this time. Your desire for cheaper/faster transaction ignores what Bitcoin's actual
function is. Bitcoin was not created to serve your individually.

Elitists and other elitists:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/someone-held-up-a-buy-bitcoin-sign-during-yellens-testimony-to-congress/vi-BBEj52F

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/12/business/12reuters-swiss-banks-falcon-bitcoin.html?mcubz=1

I am sympathizing with you on this issue. It has been a long time since many of the so-called Bitcoin leaders have been paying a lip service to the Bitcoin users from the third world countries. They have been acting as if we don't actually exist but the time is coming when majority (if this is not happening now) of users would be based not anymore in the Western world but somewhere else.

There would be a coming revolution for Bitcoin as far as users distribution is concerned. Unfortunately, Bitcoin is not having a democratic system where the voice of the majority of users can also be heard and verified. For now, many of us ordinary users and holders are treated as if non-existent in the continuing scaling debate.

I am wishing that there would be somebody who would present our concerns and voice too. As of now, there is no clear framework where people like us can be heard. And this is something we have to work for to make Bitcoin really a revolutionary tool for all of us.

Bitcoin was supposed to be a alternative for cash payments and over the years people has started to hoard it and it has become a store of value for the rich and the poor. It has already protected the wealth of many people in 3rd world countries, where their governments has basically destroyed their local currency with bad political decisions. Bitcoin has also been attacked by arrogant 1st world capitalists, like Roger Ver and this contributed to the higher fees.

You cannot stop people from being greedy, but you can highlight their mistakes and destroy their legacy that are based on greed. ^hmmmmmm^

Fast/cheap transactions don't mean the BTC price will fall and crash quickly like could happen at the stock markets.
It would just work like a normal currency (or isn't it to be a normal currency?)


Seems the 1MB limit isn't enough, otherwise they wouldn't increase it to 2MB.
Also, I don't understand why the system growing quickly would make it becomes legally regulatable by governments.


Why must we give up the decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly to have cheaper and fast transactions?
There wouldn't be directly intervention, the system would work by itself as it's now, but with proportional power to the number of transactions/users.

The only way these ponzi pushers you say could become rich is if they hold lots of coins and keep holding to make the BTC price increase (controlling the supply, increasing the demand) and then sell when they think BTC has a good price. Anyway, the risk this happen exists now too.


So, if Bitcoin seeks the perfection, Bitcoin could be destroyed in the middle of way?

Sure. I m completely with you. And I also do not want to move the poor into unsafe stuff.

Isn't it so convenient that you have voiced your frustration in the guile of the second and third world? Look op the fees are not in our hands, those are the miners fees whether you like it or not, there actually nothing one can do about it, better to live with it or if you want to quit Bitcoins fine do it, less negative people that's better. Bitcoin did not promise you anything or constant money and you are supposed to earn from a job or something so focus on that. Oh by the way Asian countries have adopted Bitcoins despite the fees.

No, there is two types of "technology improvement" that can exist.
 - One, is the improvement of technology by time and human innovation.
(for example, a horse & cart improved into an automobile.)
 - The other, is improvement of technology, by taking a current aspect away.
(For example, a slow bicycle with training wheels improved into a fast bicycle without.)

Bitcoin, as it currently exists, for "technology to improve" for faster and
cheaper transactions, something within the system must be taken away to allow
that ability. The current costs exist for different purposes that are important, they
were not throw in for fun. They are not a burden to the system, but in a way is the
nature of this type of enclosed online non-government secured payment system.

The costs do not increase because "pending transaction are piling up". The costs
increase in this system because the short term expense allocation increases too fast
to safely maintain and distribute throughout the node network. This prevents the
system from certain block attack vectors on the network. For an example, think
about the stock markets. When there is a run on the stocks and the markets fall
too quickly, the emergency safety breaker activates to stop the trading (in our
case it doesn't stop, but slows) When you feel the expense and time delay in
getting a transaction confirmed, that is the safety breaker attempting to bring
order from the current disorder. (The fee market that develops from this disorder
is only a byproduct designed to allow time sensitive txs to jump the queue.)

So simply, the 1MB limit helps distribute data for block work/validation in an efficient
and balanced manner. If the transactions could all be cheap and fast, then the system
will quickly grow to the point in which it becomes legally regulatable by governments
and thus valueless to users and society in general. The true value of Bitcoin/bitcoin
comes from it's non-conformance to the current legal and financial system.




No, I am not saying if fees are too cheap miners will lose interest, I am talking
about something different. What I am saying is if you want cheaper and faster txs,
you will need to give up decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly.
In my opinion, if that occurs, Bitcoin and its token, has no legitimate value except
as a ponzi. If you sold that new ponzi token to the poor in 2nd and 3rd world countries,
those ponzi pushers will become one of the worst of humanity and will go down in history
as immoral and unhonorable people. They might be super rich off the backs of the
scammed poor, but they will still be seen as the bane of society we attempted to correct.




Holliday said it in one concise sentence.
I fully agree and should probably work on writing less paragraphs. Lol.

Bitcoin realists refusing to "fix" perfectly functioning system in the hopes of achieving unrealistic goals which could potentially destroy the very unique properties which make Bitcoin useful in the first place.

There, fixed that title for you OP. You're welcome in advance.

In my understanding, the largest number of Bitcoin users are from the United States, followed by the European Union. Japan may be at the third place, followed by Russia and China. So it will be wrong to say that a majority of the users are from the developing world.

If the technology is improved no one must pay higher fees, as the system will work faster. The cost increases because the number of pending transactions increases faster than it finishes. If the network is "empty" of transactions you pay cheaper fees as yours will be processed instantly and you don't need to pay an expensive fee to be put on the top.

We, the users are paying all the costs. But may you are saying if the fees are too cheap the miners will lose interest on it, right?

1) Yes, the current 1st world financial systems take the wealth and future of their citizens
by inflation of their currencies. Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent that action
without majority consent. That consent by mining & verifying nodes in conjunction with
users buying and using/holding the token is Bitcoin's answer to Representation.

2) Yes, bitcoin as a financial instrument is extremely different between a 1st world and
2nd/3rd worlds. Any losses that could manifest in the 1st world could be an acceptable loss,
even tax deductible in some cases. Those same financial losses, no matter how small, in the
2nd or 3rd world could mean devastation. A poor 3rd worlder placing their life savings (or just
a percentage) in BTC, and then the market tanks or Bitcoin fails outright, does not have the
luxury to "wait for it to rise again" or "just declare it as a loss". In majority of those cases,
their family will suffer more than a 1st world family with equal losses. Maybe even death.

In majority of 3rd worlds (and some 2nd), a certain percentage of the country, does not
feed the poor itself. The funds and food in majority of those cases come from either aid or
donations by the 1st world and their proxies.




When you "improve technology" to make transactions cheaper and faster (which in theory
will help the 3rd world), where do you think the expenses for the cheaper and faster aspects
get transferred to? If you do not want the users to pay the costs, who do you think should pay
for the cheaper and faster transactions?

The Bitcoin network is more expense than average payment platforms because the expenses
are not subsidized by governments or banks, but is fully maintained by the users and the
network itself. It was designed like this so that there would be no middlemen or controls.  
In theory, every time a user performs a transaction, the expenses/cost of the network increases.

If you don't want users to pay the higher fees, who should be forced to pay them?

whatever reason this concerned should be take place since there's also a lots of third world people around this industry and paying that huge fee is really not a good option instead of doing some deal its much better to keep their bitcoin as an investment and for sure the reason why this chain was been build will not be follow bitcoin was created to be usable in every transaction that we have online i think it should be consider now.

Does world financial system takes wealth from the average 1st world people without representation for what?

Do you think the societies from 1st world and 2nd/3rd are so different that Bitcoin affects their countries in a different way? In all countries there is a little/medium parcel of society which "feeds" all the rest, in most of the cases the "average" citizen.

But here we are just asking for cheaper fees on transactions, that could be achieved just by improving the technology, making the transactions complete faster. This way Bitcoin can help third world countries instantly.

Finally someone making this thread , i can relate with this, using bitcoin in 3rd country is not cheap anymore i bet that people on those countries will not pay higher fee for transaction including myself, 30-40 dollars for a fee it such a ridiculous for us, it's ok if we send lot of money, but small transaction, it's a big no. Well, we will see bitcoin is not a currency anymore but something more precious, something that we must thinking twice before spend them. But wait, we still have alternative right? litecoin, dogecoin, etherum etc? i'm not a technical person who really undestand about bitcoin issue, so if that good for the bitcoin all i can do is just support it.

I think it's wrong to assume that people who deny Bitcoin's problems all come from first world, mostly it's just blind optimism about their investment. And as for adoption, it doesn't even matter if someone is from third world country or from first world, Bitcoin will not see any mass adoptions anywhere if the fees will keep growing, there are many other payment systems that work just fine. This will mean that Bitcoin as a currency will be mostly used by criminals like hackers, drug sellers, terrorists, etc., which will be very bad for Bitcoins reputation.

This is true, so mass adoption in 3rd world countries won't happen anytime soon, but perhaps in developing countries. For 3rd world countries, it would not be common and feasible for them to use Bitcoin as a digital currency with such high fees, but they still can use it as an investment (although I doubt so though). Most likely they would not care about such digital currency on the Internet.

I don't see any quick solution to this either, so you are right. Hopefully these countries will develop in the future with the possible help of technology, so as to introduce Bitcoin to them.

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin to help the poor in 2nd and 3rd world nations.
He created Bitcoin as a reaction to how the current world financial system
takes wealth from the average 1st world people, without representation.
This "stolen wealth" is then distributed to systems that have been corrupted
and caused the original problems that needed the "bailing out". This enforces
and creates a precedent that systems can become "too big to fail".

Satoshi was outraged by that economic belief and understood where it will
lead. It leads to a fully finalized ponzi credit system, where personal savings
is impossible to maintain, and the average person is forced to take on more
and more personal debt, just to buy food and pay for housing. This creates
a world of debt slaves. To counter balance this, the experiment was enacted.
Bitcoin is not a simple currency, it is a deflationary/disinflationary asset.
The purpose of this design type was to not destroy the current world system
or supplant it, but to bring it back into reform to complement the credit.

Only by helping ourselves and forming better financial systems are we than
able to reach out and help the poor. It is like being on a airplane and learning
the basic steps from the flight attendant, in the event of a depressurization.
First, you place the oxygen mask on yourself and then help the person/child
next to you. This ensures that both humans have the procedure to follow, that
best ensures the potential for both to survive.

We can not help the 2nd and 3rd world until we have made a more balanced
Bitcoin network that will not need to rely upon centralized legally regulated
systems such as corporate data centers or government licensed miners. The
Poor will not prosper within a totalitarian centralized Bitcoin, in fact, they will
be controlled and subjugated worse than what they currently exist under.

Thus, on loading the poor from 2nd and 3rd world countries at this point in
Bitcoin's lifespan is immoral and malicious. Lets not try to hurt the poor more,
so that your profits become slightly bigger with dreams that you are freeing
them. In actuality, you are using them and their economic positions as an
emotional argument to centralize the blockchain ledger to a point of failure.

Leave the poor of those nations out of the blocksize/centralization debate.
The truth is, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin for the 2nd and 3rd world.
It can become that, it could help them one day, but not in this way.
Lots of work still needs to be done before that point. If bitcoin fails soon,
the only people harmed are those of the 1st world, who have the ability
and society to recover from it. On the other hand, if that occurred with the
poor in 2nd and especially 3rd worlds, it could be a death sentence for
them and their families.

We should help free the poor only when we have truly freed ourselves first.
The longer Bitcoin survives in a balanced way, the more we will actually help
them. So, high fees are a current problem for mass adoption, but the true
question should be: "How much are you willing to pay for unregulated
decentralized financial freedom?". If you will only pay a very cheap price,
then your freedom will be equally as cheap.

I cannot but agree to this submission because I can really relate with it because I am equally from a developing country and I know the level of income around here which is no small thing. The issue of fees is something I even had to stop some days ago because of the issue high fees when I converted 40$ to my fiat I got to realize that its not small money and cannot be afforded to be paid as fees. Whether we like it or not, this is something that will really affect the penetration of bitcoin in this part of the world.

http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/