Topic: Is Bitcoin democratic or are we just transferring wealth? (Read 814 times)

Early adopters who paid a penny for a handful of bitcoins didn't lose much but gained a lot as the current price shows.

Since Bitcoin is NOT being used as a major medium of exchange, its time hasn't come yet.

We don't know for sure where Bitcoin will go. Perhaps someone will find a bizarre way of breaking it tomorrow. Perhaps it will become the world trade currency someday.

The democratic thing about Bitcoin is, almost anybody who has a little cash can own a little of it. Bitcoin is simply a gamble as far as an investment goes. It isn't anything else as far as being a practical trade medium for poor people.

If a poor person is into investing, Bitcoin is as good as any other investment or better. Why? Because a poor person can get some from a faucet for free, or for a small amount of computer labor. He can save up $20, and buy a fraction of a bitcoin. Often, this is difficult for him to do with other kinds of investments.

If bitcoin really starts to take off, those who are hodling now, no matter how small the amount, stand to gain many times over in value. If Bitcoin is going to become a major currency in the world, now is the time to invest, since the past is gone. If Bitcoin goes down, we lose, just like any other investment.

Bitcoin gives poor people an easy chance... especially welfare people who are living high-on-the-hog off what Obama gives them. Bitcoin is way more democratic for these people than they are for the rest of the country.

Yes, I'd say that's what the point was. If Bitcoin was revolutionary, poor people would have lots of it and rich people would trade their worldly goods for those coins.

I think you just summarized his point. Bitcoin is no more noble, altruistic, or romantic than the current commodity market. Well, maybe a bit more romantic...

Bitcoin is special for its access and infrastructure...it's not saving the world.

What's your point?

You'd like for Bitcoin to make everyone equal? To "spread the wealth"? Not happening.

Bitcoin is pure unadulterated crack capitalism cocaine. Of course bankers, traders and every one that is power hungry will love it.

The system is basically just reproducing the inefficiencies and inequalities that exist in the wide world and reprinting them in a micro scale. I don't see a difference between the Bitcoin market and any other commodity market, prices are determined by irrational market forces rather than some reasoned, understandable force.

Bankers on Wall Street shift Bitcoin in huge amounts and probably buy a lot of coins when they are cheap to profit on. Arbitrage traders would be all over Bitcoin, it's amazing. But Bankers on Wall St. want cocaine, and cocaine can be purchased with Bitcoin.

Are Cartels and Mafia groups using BTC?

I agree with your points but I don't think this demonstrates democracy. It demonstrates equality in access. Which is a GREAT thing and not possible with all traditional banks.

As for your wealth transfer comment, in the traditional sense it refers to taking money from the wealth and  redistributing it to the poor, which makes things more equal but it also hurts ambition and takes away the reward that comes from people taking risk or working  hard in the market.

I'd rather be lead by brains over power hungry pigs any day of the week.

The principles or theories of Democracy and wealth transfer are not dependent on each other.

You can have a democracy and there can be a vote on whether wealth transfer should exist and majority of people in that democracy can vote against wealth transfer and you have a perfectly executed democratic decision AND decision not to engage in wealth transfer.

You're asking two separate questions:

1. Is Bitcoin democratic? No. The discussions of the fork recently demonstrated that a few developers could make decisions for Bitcoin. In this case the fork didn't happen, but it wasn't because of some democratic process that "defeated" the intention to start a fork.

2. Is Bitcoin a form of wealth transfer? Yes, but not in the sense that it's taking  from the rich to give to the poor. But any system that enables wealth to be moved from one person to another is wealth transfer.

Yes, BTC is very democratic. Anyone can get a wallet, and all wallets are equal. This is better than banks. Some people cannot open a bank account because they've been through a bankruptcy, or there's a court order against their belongings. And equality doesn't exist with banks. The blue collar worker doesn't have the same account, nor the same bank than a surgeon.

Wealth transfer? What are you talking about? I haven't seen any of that.

The perfect and fair system does not exist. Bitcoin wasn't made to make us all having the same wealth.It's more about financial independence, freedom and having a choice.
The super early adopters of Bitcoin deserve the amounts they have as they were able to see it's potential in a time were many thought this is bogus or just a kind of fad or toy money.
And yes Bitcoin is also a transfer of wealth.

I don't think you can make a perfect system, even if you tried to and planned everything well in advance, the reality is that many things would go wrong and end up far away from perfect.

I see many people complaining about Bitcoin distribution, but the truth is that it is what it is. Let's say that I have 5 BTCs today. That's nothing compared to Ver's stash. If Bitcoin succeds in future and makes it big, 5 BTCs will maybe be a fortune and some people with 0.01 will be jealous and will cry a river to everyone.

That's just the way I see it. I do know one thing for sure, in general, Bitcoin is 100 times better and fairer system than any Fiat system out there.

Earlier adopters of bitcoins is a good price to pay, if we want to have this system implemented , i will never care about earlier adopters of bitcoin, they deserved it and im pretty sure that most of them have a "good soul".



Totally agree with it, bitcoin  as we can see now, involve a wealth transfer.

Well I've been tweeting early adopters with my best Oliver face hoping for 'some food please sir', but they haven't been very forthcoming. Early adopters are very hard to come by, many people will claim to be early adopters - then you find out they've been camming for Bitcoin or selling drugs for years.

It's a murky world and there's just as much imbalance in the Bitcoin economy as there is in the world. How do we know we're not transferring our faults onto the Blockchain (greed, etc).

Programmers have an edge, but not all the advantages in this. I have come to see in many coins that the guys developing it know how to program, but not how to make it widely adopted. Others help them with that and earn coins as a reward, so wealth spreads.

So I am not that much afraid. Coins will go to those who do things (either programming, promoting, creating services etc), and to people who trust it. Perhaps geeks will hold some more, yes but still it should be somewhat fair.

We are participating in a form of faith in the thinkers and programmers who know a lot more about the technical operation of Bitcoin and programming than we do.

When you include the whole Internet operation in this, along with cryptography, these guys (and gals) probably know more about real trade than the bankers do.

If there is no flaw in the entire Bibcoin thinking and theme, Bitcoin is way better for the little guy in simple trade than banker controlled fiat.

Potential flaws exist in both, Bitcoin and the fiat system. One thing is certain. If Bitcoin fails, it will be because of the bankers trying to make it fail. If fiat fails for reasons other than a crash of the Internet or the power grid, etc., Bitcoin might be the thing that saves our trade... the whole economy.

Early adopters who are hodling lots of bitcoins, have their reward for the risks they took. Let's hope they are good geeks.

Is Bitcoin democractic? No.

Does it involve a wealth transfer? Yes.

Seems like a lot of early adopters like Roger Ver, etc. were able to get in on the pre-Bubble market. For those of us holding satoshis, are we really participating in a democratic currency or are we assuming our position in a new economic reality, where the geeks run the world and the bankers cash out in Bitcoin?

I'm a little wary of it, if I'm honest. I can't see how a Bitcoin reliant society is really a viable alternative to our current!