Topic: Does Bitcoin Cater to the Rich? (Read 2467 times)

10 years ago, this could have been an issue.

Now, with internet access more available, it is becoming less and less of one.

On a related note:

This miner In Brazil is reporting electric utility rates of more than $0.50 per kWh.
 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.761059

More about Brazil's electric industry sector:
 "In Brazil, large government-controlled companies dominate the electricity sector."
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Brazil

So if bitcoin is to gain traction in Brazil, it won't be because there are tons of miners there flush with coins.

But the point is, state policies (such as an energy policy like Brazil's) could make it so mining of bitcoins becomes unprofitable for its constituents.

That's a really good sociological observation...I would agree that bitcoins would further encourage income inequality through knowledge barriers

I would argue that Bitcoin actually caters to the poor. Try buying something online without a credit card. Poor people who cannot qualify for a credit card can use cash for in person transactions; however until Bitcoin came along there is no real, cost effective, international alternative for online transactions for those that are too poor to obtain a credit card.

Dear Sirs,

Maybe I am mistaken, but sense some confusion here:
Technologies are creations of culture (cultural artifacts, if You so will), and are thus embedded in a socio-cultural environment.
The access to them and their usage is dictated by the rules of the given culture/society PLUS their inherent possibilities. (Hard to use certain things in certain ways etc.)
The effect, that a given technology "caters the rich" comes form 1. the general tendency, that the activity of societies caters the rich (since richness means You have allocated the measurement units of value and/or control in a society, it comes with a power structure, thus ensures the processes of society reassure these structures) and 2. that it can inherently be used for a purpose (it has for example central point of control/failure...)

In the case of Bitcoin the second is not given by concept, so half of the equation is solved.
The first part is also arguable (hence it's inherent tendency to be used in "black market operations", that is transactions of value and power outside the mechanisms of societal control - see under "counter economics").

So my feeling is, that poor bitcoin gets some punches for general tendencies, in which it is by no means guilty!

IMHO!!!

Another "Bitcoin" revolution?

Ok, a new, useful technology appears. Wealthier folks start making use of it, and benefitting accordingly.

What options do you see for the non-wealthy?

Sounds like drugs.  Some stuffs good, some stuffs bad.  You try to suppress the bad stuff.  Sometimes an improvement on bad is still bad.  I'm not saying that's the case with Bitcoin, I'm saying I don't know.

You're creating a false dichotomy, and that's beside the fact that Bitcoin is trying to un-invent or suppress fiat. 

Considering the examples you gave, practically every new technology caters to the rich. Not much one can do about that; the only real options are to either whine and try to uninvent or suppress the technology (pretty futile,) or make use of it oneself as well as one is able.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "cater to the rich" in the way that you say "for the rich."

By cater to the rich, I mean that it will either 1) help the rich get richer at the expense (direct or indirect) of those less wealthy or 2) will naturally be easier for a rich person to acquire and use than a poor person.  I mean 'cater' in an accoutremental or ergonomic kind of way. 

As an example of #1:  If you can afford to buy a house outright (i.e. you are rich) then you end up paying less than if a poor person bought the same house because of the interest he would have to pay.  Thus, rich people are more likely to be homeowners (duh ).  This is where gentrification starts.  Rich people move near other rich people, property values go up; poor people move near other poor people, property values go down.  But, either way, anyone who isn't rich takes out a loan/mortgage.  Bitcoin is great, but I don't see Bitcoin being so equally distributed among the population such that everyone can afford to buy a home without a loan.  I haven't really spent time thinking about how we could manage to have bank lending on the scale we do if it weren't for fractional reserve banking.  How will Bitcoin change this?

As an example of #2:  If you are rich, chances are you were born into at least a fairly wealthy family.  You would have access to people with knowledge of how to handle money and invest it, have access to the latest and fastest technology...heck you can even have money to pay people to handle and invest your money for you using the latest and fastest technology.  This type of example was more along the lines of what I had in mind when I originally asked if Bitcoin catered to the rich.  Rich people have the time to learn about Bitcoin, would be more likely to be exposed to the type of media that would even consider mentioning Bitcoin, have access to the technology and knowledge (or people) to engage in all aspects of Bitcoin -- mining it, trading it, investing it, buying and selling with it, starting businesses.  Actually, they wouldn't even need to know anything about it.  They could just pay people to build an empire for them.

$84m. might not get you the super yacht of your dreams, but it would allow some rich people the monetary possibility of literally owning the entire Bitcoin market.  I believe that most rich people want to just keep getting richer (otherwise, why not retire or simply volunteer?), and having a lot of money allows you to make a lot of money.  There are thousands of people living today that could swallow the entire Bitcoin market at any given time.  And, while you can shift decimal places all you want, the more you do, the more power the rich are allowed.

At the current rate of around $4 and maximum of 21m coins = theoretical but not practical maximum atm is $84m.

You can not buy a half way decent decent super yacht for that......... so atm bitcoin is not for the rich

I asked "what?" because your argument makes absolutely no sense.

We're not talking about fiat.  Just because you can argue that fiat caters to the rich does not mean that you can make any conclusions about Bitcoin.  Both can cater to the rich, but if you believe Bitcoin does not, then I would like to hear an argument that makes sense.

Retard. 

...what?

No. Because the same can be argued in the case of "money".

i dont think so

To Richer or Poorer 

One you are full of shit.  Second as someone else said if the stick was encrypted how do you know what was on it.
Still in related news terrorists, drug dealers, war criminals, and dictators have been found with billions of USD.

Don't bother replying.  Obvious troll is obvious but not immune to ignore.

Link?
Was he forced to open the encrypted file?
How do people know what was in it?