Topic: If Bitcoin became the sole reserve currency... - page 3. (Read 4326 times)

What the hell you can use google for anything other that those two?

I think a flaw in your argument is that you are speculating about the future of bitcoin, but applying the current day bitcoin wealth distribution.  As if as we go from here to sole reserve currency, it won't change dramatically.

First attempt to prove that after bitcoins grow to the point of being sole reserve currency half the bitcoins ever created will still be in their current owners hands.  I think it's possible that there would be enough distribution of coins along the path that at the end of the road the concentration aren't in higher ratios than with our current system.

You should treat water as the precious and very limited resource that it is. You should do your moral part as someone who lucked out in the lottery of life and try not only to not be wasteful of water, but to help those without it. Naturally you don't, you're a self-righteous scumbag who feels entitled to things simply because of a luck of the draw.


You realize the energy it takes to power your high-tech toys is taken from other parts of the world? Do you realize that people are being killed every single day, and worse yet, live horrific daily lives, because people like you feel justified in their greed by their arrogant sense of entitlement ?

If you do, you're just another asshole. If you don't, you're an idiot. I don't know which is worse.

I'm also pretty sure that you are unaware of the fact that this brand of ultra consumerism is unsustainable, and sooner or later, we'll all be fucked.


In Somalia, they probably earn 1% of what you're earning. 10% of your wage going to them would automatically increase their wealth by 1000%, while decreasing yours by 10%. So maybe you shouldn't refuse your wage, but you could put it to a use that is something other than simply hoarding for yourself? You know, like helping others. Sure, I understand that charity can be a corrupt business, and that it's sometimes better to give a fishing pole, than actual fish, but we could so much more-- instead of being so damn blind to what is happening around the world.

In relation to Somalia, one of the stated reasons by the pirates for their illegal activities is the illegal dumping of toxic waste by western nations off of their shore. The waste is a direct bi-product of western consumerism.


How about using google for something more than Bitcoin speculation and porn?

Care to explain that singularity riddle? Also m-pesa, africa and bitcoins failed to create any hype so far although it shows potential for the currency.

So you say smart people dont see how usefull Bitcoin is ? You should maybe invest some time how is Bitcoin used, and not just look at price market...

So , should I stop washing myself because on other part of the globe people don't have drinking water?
Should we stop having big tv's or powerfull appliances because people on other side of the globe don't have electricity?
Should I refuse 90% of my wage because in Somalia they earn 10% of what i'm earning?
Should I stop using google because some people don't have a clue what internet is?

The singularity is near.   Some may be left behind .   Good news is that there are some signs that many are connecting and integrating.   Mobile technology in third world countries with things like M-PESA and such.

The smart would look at this as nothing more than a speculative bubble-- everything about it is a classic bubble. If they are smart, they will probably stay away. There is a difference between smart and informed. So the informed might say this isn't a bubble at all, but they will have an extremely hard time justifying that to someone who is rightfully skeptical and using their smarts.

The ordinary might only need to be made aware, but since they're already relatively late to the game, their success will depend on the people that come after them. If there are none, they will fail. The people that got in early, or have already cashed out are the only winners so far. Time will tell if anyone buying in now will profit, but the fact remains that they will drive the price up most for those who got in early. So the later they get on board the less of a potential payout exists, not only because they're late to the party, but because the more people that buy in, the less potential there is for every new 'investor'. That will make it harder to get any ordinary, smart, or even extraordinary folks to buy in.

When i 'm talking about bitcoins i 'm talking about cryptos in general. And no speculators don't hope for that. They just want as many options as possible in order to speculate 

The best case scenario would be the creation of a new altcoin, with superior features to bitcoin, and its creators to be humanitarian type of people who would market the new coin as much as possible to ordinary people, so that there would be (1) more early adopters, and (2) more diversity among the early adopters rather than only geeks. It would have to be a project in which developers would work together with philosophical, socially conscious type of people to achieve a common goal of a "people's currency" that spreads wealth around rather than concentrating it.

My honest opinion is that bitcoin itself is going to become the cryptocurrency for the financial establishment. It's already starting to be embraced by hedge funds, and sooner or later it will be traded as an ETF on the stock market, and within a few years it will be playing a store-of-value role similar to gold in billion-dollar investment portfolios.

I will continue to own bitcoin, because it's a good way to make money and it's a useful tool for sending money abroad without incurring large fees. But I don't believe it's going to fundamentally transfer power to the common folks or anything like that.


True. But that, alas, may be part of the human condition. The smart and the lucky have advantages. It is what it is.


There is nothing actually stopping ordinary people from buying bitcoin. They just need to be made aware of it, and they need to be persuaded that it's worth the risk. Even somebody who buys a few hundred bucks worth of it today, could still make thousands of dollars from it within a few years.

It's not so much my opposition to wealth disparity in general, but my concern with how Bitcoin (cryptos) can potentially make the extreme disparity we have today look a lot less extreme in the future.

You say anyone should take the chance, but my point is that not just anyone can take the chance, nor will they.

I appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion. With that said, I think your position can be questioned. You say that this is a chance for ordinary people to get a fairer share, but if self-limited cryptos are the way of the future, then aren't a very small amount of early adopters and/or the ones with enough money to invest, going to always form a very small and highly disproportionate amount of wealth holders-- as is already the case today?

Like I said, a tiny amount of the population already holds over half the total amount of Bitcoin. I'm pretty sure the disproportion in other alt-currencies is even more pronounced because they are even less known. And if the amount of potential new currencies is unlimited, then wouldn't it make their very reason for existence pointless?

The philosophical issue you keep coming back to is your opposition to an unequal distribution of wealth. The problem is, in a free market economy, wealth naturally accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, the poor overthrow the rich through a violent revolution. Then some of the poor revolutionaries become tyrants, as you pointed out. The cycle repeats.

I don't know if there is any permanent escape from this cycle. It seems to be a consistent feature of human history.

What I do know is that for reasons of personal survival, it would be very smart for the average person with a low net worth to be accumulating cryptocurrency right now. Because I certainly don't think the economy is going to be improving anytime soon. All around the world, there is chronic structural unemployment, governments deep in debt and in some cases practically owned by for-profit banks, and a lack of money velocity in the economy because more and more money is being concentrated in the hands of a few people who have so much that they don't need to spend it.

The only people who are truly free are those who have enough assets to live off of their wealth (passive income) rather than needing traditional employment. Cryptocurrencies offer ordinary people a chance to reach that level as this technology explodes over the next few years. I suggest that anyone who can do so, take that chance while it still exists.

P.S. I certainly hope that people who become wealthy from investing in bitcoin will share their newfound wealth with needy people and worthy causes. It would be great to see more philanthropy by bitcoiners.

You drooling buffoon, I am speculating on the future of Bitcoin.

If it matters to you so much, find the threads, and point me in the right direction. It would be so much more useful and you would make your point with one goddamn post. You would help cleanse this forum (apparently it matter to you that much!), and I would ask a moderator to close and move this thread.

Instead, like the useless waste of disgusting flesh that you are, you resort to insults and stupidity.

 

I think it's a totally valid question; don't mind all the others giving you a hard time, they're just butt hurt and in a bad mood today for obvious reasons.

Any proportion of any group will structure itself in the same way. You will still have greedy geeks-- or are they somehow immune to human nature?

Revolutionaries become tyrants, it has always happened throughout history.

Regardless, the proportions would remain the same. Would these geeks one day, in a moment of mass enlightenment, redistribute the wealth?

And one more point-- it is no longer the just geeks, but rather geeky speculators and speculators alone who are driven by greed that are buying up the most coin and form the the majority of cryptocurrency holders.

I just want to point out that it hasn't even fulfilled that niche yet. Bitcoin as a niche financial instrument is useful for making money transfers between people and businesses in different countries, to avoid bank wire transfer fees, Western Union fees, PayPal fees, etc. Most of the people and businesses who could save money by using bitcoin for this purpose aren't even using it yet.

Why the fck you think you can have a "discussion" on "fundamental flaw" in a Speculation forum?

Idiot, go do a search, and if you're genuinely interested you will find the discussion and read over all the points that were brought up.

What a lame attempt, troll.
 

Personally, I would rather have a bunch of geeks own most of the money than a bunch of corrupt banks and the governments they buy off.

If cryptocurrencies become the only currencies, doesn't that still leave a shitload of people behind?

Isn't every single speculator, consciously or not, hoping for that?

Not if the cryptocurrencies are dependent on technological progress/know-how. It still leads to the same scenario.