Topic: Is Bitcoin for “Fake Rich”? (Read 929 times)

Nothing new under the sky, it is very usual that people want to show their best image and looks and that they spend money, sometimes borrowed money in doing so, call it a Tesla, a Rolex, jewels, ... most of the luxury industry is built on that. i do no see that as unusual.

Is bitcoin part of that? Nah... it may be for some people but bitcoin is something you cannot go a show around (or at least you should not if you know what you are doing) and yes, it is digital, just the money you hold in your bank: an electronic record and nothing else.

I just do not find anything worth in this argument. BTW you do not own a piece of code.

Lol, we can't really compare commodities to investments. Some of these commodities are necessary like furniture, good beds, a good room and decoration which sometimes goes into our "need" list instead of "wants" and sometimes it even includes as our status increases like cars, phones, gadgets etc. We gotta need these commodities even if their prices go down in long run

As long as bitcoin is valuable, it makes no difference what its value is based on. It is recognized as the same as the value of any other currency in the world and also has a measure of the value of any currency.
When a global catastrophe occurs, not only cryptocurrencies will disappear, but almost all current state currencies will disappear. After all, then no one can guarantee their value. However, it may happen that a catastrophe can only have a man-made character, when for some reason only the Internet and certain types of high-tech communications can disappear. A weapon may also appear that will disable everything that uses electronics. Then paper money will remain, and all non-cash money, including cryptocurrency, will disappear.

I don't think so, bitcoiners don't have time for frivolity. We are more aware of how the market works than to be wearing anything that could indicate some type of wealth. Sometimes we are anonymous because we fear the underworld. Although it could be the case but our culture is not to be showy rather sometimes we act in a low profile.
We do not want to make public that we own X bitcoin because we do not have the proper security when we are not really rich to pay for security.

In post-apocalyptic world those hundreds of people who will survive will definitely think not about BTC, treasures or dollars, they will think about food, roof over the head and some clothes to wear. But we are not in post-apocalyptic world now. We live in interesting time when people taught how to make money from "nothing". They trade in exchanges, hodl BTC and some stocks and are quite happy that they have profit and don't have to work somewhere on plants or do other dirty work. Are they "fake rich"? Not really. If they can exchange their assets on fiat and buy everything they need for their lives than they're clever people who learnt how to live in this world and in this time.

I think that every cryptocurrency user who previously invested profitably in the most rated cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, today they have every opportunity to just sleep at night and dream about how high these cryptocurrencies will rise. But this is quite realistic, given the current bullish race, if you do not take into account the last correction.

Which code you're discussing?. Is it wallet id for sure ? or possibly you're thinking about the satoshi as the code.
When you purchase bitcoin, you gather some number called a satoshi, so it's not the code. It is genuine cash.
At any rate, you're rich as long as you hold your speculation.
Counterfeit rich can be considered for the individuals who put their all cash in bitcoin to begin dreaming of getting wealthy in nights.
Yet, things never happen that way. It relies upon us how we deal with our speculation to get rich.

actually it is not fake once you withdraw that's fine

I agree that BTC price is volatile, however, it's not a clear thing that "in the long run its value is sure to go up". It really depends on the investment time-frame. If 10-20 years is the long-term - then yes, definitely, if it's the real long-term 100-500 years - then I wouldn't be so sure.




Yes, you are correct, however, there have been precedents among certain states of shutting down internet and electricity (if we exclude the post-apocalyptical scenario). But generally I tend to agree with you.




That's the common understanding of Bitcoin btw in the market. Just very illustrative of how majority sees it I would say 60% admit they see it like that, 30% say they really believe in Bitcoin, but actually don't want to admit that they are part of those 60%, and probably on the rest of 10% are the actual believers.




Do you mean gold and diamonds? So you do admit that under the extreme stress-testing only the few things/assets will be left valuable which were tested for thousands of years, unlike the currently dominant or overhyped ones?

I agree with your idea mate. Worst possible scenarious are meteor  impact and electromagnetic pulse attack where we don't know what will really happen but one thing is for sure economies and of course lives will be gone except for the gods money which is the precious stones and metals.

So you think bitcoin is a ponzi lol, how near sighted are you.  If people use bitcoin to "buy" things then how can it be a money grab?  You aren't the first and you won't be the last to say it :/

People who use bitcoin already experienced the power and value of it. Those who become rich through bitcoin is a real rich and not fake. Bitcoin is volatile, this means that its value can go up and down where everyone has an opportunity to buy and own a large part of bitcoin and become rich. Many are now adopting and investing in bitcoin because they know why bitcoin was created and what is the use of it. We are in a new generation which almost everything are computer generated which is need an internet and electricity. So, I think there is no possibility that the power supply and internet will disappear even in the future.

but the price of an item as you say is decreasing every day so someone can buy it after it has been out for maybe more than 1 year and the price has gone down in the 30-50% range, so in the long run it won't really affect someone's finances if they buy it based on need and have enough money.
while bitcoin value can go up and down depending on demand but in the long run its value is sure to go up.
so between goods and commodities is very clear.

The intention was only to see people's opinion, nothing more than that. And I was happy to see and hear from all of you what you think about the analogy which I presented. But speaking of the "missed train" thing, I am sure after 5-10 years we will come here again, and many people will say that they also missed the train on BTC when it costed $30k, because by that time it might cost $100k or more.




Well we have no way to know the true motivation of the creator(s) of BTC. People frequently say/write one thing, but have an opposite or hidden intention which we all will never know. Apart from that, BTC could be or could not be designed for that, now is being misused based on what we commonly believe is true from what we read about Bitcoin - that's something many others agreed about here too.

There are always chances and multiple falls and also ups of the exchange rate price of bitcoin for someone a reason to cry, and for someone a chance for wealth. The current rise in the price of bitcoin may lead to a strong correction again, because previous history has already shown us similar examples. About the fake rich. Such characters will always find a way to show their status, but to say that bitcoin is designed for this is stupid. Bitcoin is above that. At the bitcoin is a much more popular target for the application and purpose.

@OP, what exactly is your intention behind asking this? Is it that you expect us to tell you whether BTC is for the fake rich or not? Or are you trying hard to prove whether it's already in the possession of such people who are solely wanting nothing but a number which multiplies every single minute, hour, day, week, etc. I know that it's not good to see BTC so high because it feels like we missed the train, or lost an opportunity, and now crying. But it's also true that we had a chance earlier, so crying now makes no sense at all. Same will be the case in future.

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members
I hope they enjoyed reading the long texts and the serious discussions. Since the rest of internet is full of spam posts, memes and funny cats and… if they like.
I hope more people participate in this thread in order to finally do something serious and accomplish real work, not just complaining the world and endless talks.
As I supposed you are misunderstood the point. I admit it is hard to form the big picture, and needs some days to shape it. So I start from another point of view.

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc...
As a normal person can you please answer these questions honestly?
A: say you are in a situation that you have to decide to do act X or not do. You -because of your morality or believes- believe the true reaction is doing act X.
A1. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X has no cost for you?
A2. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost you a little (may be you lost some dollars).
A3. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost highly (say loosing your house).

B: say you are in a situation that you have to decide about the act that person Y already did. You must declare your opinion about that act. was it a good act or bad act. And you already convinced that Y did the bad job.
B1. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has no cost for you?
B2. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has small cost for you?
B3. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has too cost for you?

Your answer most probably in cases A1 and B1 will be yes. Like other 99 percent of human.
Your answer in cases A2 and B2 depends on your “core values”. The another important factor for your decision is the society in which you are make this decision. In other word, you alone have less than 6 percent chance to scarify your benefit in favor of truth. But you looking to the society you are living and considering other people and the morality norms, in most societies the likelihood of the yes answer will be higher than 50 percent.
And always there will be less than .005 percent of society which in cases A3 and b3 will say yes.
I over simplified the situation for the sake of time, but the points are
1. reduce the cost of being good actor.
2. increase the chance of resonate, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of society members.
By these 2 strategies we are using literally our human nature (and do not forget human nature isn’t only bad habits ) to improve our life condition.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions…
I made a mistake about talking about Joe too soon, may I ask you to talk about it later, but just a hint for thinking, do you agree “right now, most of important decisions are not taken by experts or specialists, vice versa they are taken by greedy and corrupted politicians”? And most of time the decisions are contrary to experts. A simple example! Do you believe we have insufficient agriculture resources (globally) and because of that we cannot eliminate under-nutrition? In reality, we have more than enough, but “they” had decided to rule the world in this way. Now, where is the “intelligence” about this bad management done by “elite”, comparing the average Joe decision to “not wasting foods”?  

USA vs. China….
The first economy in the world, the GDP, Economic growth indicators, … all are wrong addressing.
I am not a money hater, I like it, but there is a big fail in our mentality and rationality, particularly in economic. We take the resources (land, oil, cereals, livestock, water,…) and transform it to something else, in order to use it or consume it for another kind of product. In these transformations we increase the value of materials. The grape transforms to wine. Its values from x dollar increases to 4X. We created 3X value that we compensate it by something we call it money. So if you need more money you have to transform more and more grape to wine. So you have to sell your wins in order to get 3X money. You encourage people to drink more and more and over consumption, even they were saturated. Meanwhile you will not sell wine to poor countries for 1X benefit, even if they are dieng because of thirst.  Because you want 3X benefit, because of economic reason! What is the consequence? You are the biggest wine company in the world. You created 2000000000000000X value of growth in one year and you are rich. This 2000000000000000X dollar represents nothing than you ruined  2000000000000000X unit of grape. The resource that we have no replacement for that and we could use it wisely in next 1000 years! Is it rational? At the end what can you do with your 2000000000000000X dollar? You will invest it in another business to do the same catastrophe? Or FED prints another trillion dollars and devaluate your 2000000000000000X dollar to 1000000000000000X dollar! In best case (in sense of humanity and our civilization) you can be Warren Buffett and donate 99 percent of your wealth for common goods and charities. But can you tell me how much cost -directly/indirectly- you (Buffet) imposed on human condition?
There must be some reasonable reason for economic growth. The growth because of the growth itself has no sense. Do you agree? The growth because of competition (caused by fear) is even worse. Isn’t it?


About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

This is the part that I like to talk about the most. You probably didn’t read the other article in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/redefining-exchange-rates-to-excellence-indice-in-democracy-term-5303276
you can find the answer of some of your point there. Here I’ll explain some major difference between my proposed software and the other social networks.
The main difference is “data sovereignty”. The “data” refers ALL your personal information and ALL content you create.  The “data sovereignty” refers to your data and the “treatment rules”. In my proposed social network, user own her/his data, s/he decides to how treat with her/his data. To whom show what, or what to be shown to user. Both are important and nowadays both are controlled by corporate s. They do not care users privacy and ownership of the data. They can ban or disable users account. They decide what feed to your personal page and your eyes and finally your mind. It is the way they control you, gaslight you and govern you. The majority do not feel that and indeed they do not care at all. Here the currency comes to the picture. Now people will care about their community. They hope the value of the money (tokens, shares or credit) of their community, which they have earned grow up over time and make benefit. So they start to constructive interact with community, cultivate their “common world”, learn and educate the principles, help to rise up community reputation and strengthen their money. These societies are not like a Facebook group or an online forum, because they make “their own rules” and not company rules. They set “their premier goals”, and finally they have an index to measure their excellence.
It will not like “IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube”. It is inviting people to freedom and “data sovereignty”.
One of those hundreds or thousands communities will be the “imagine” community. One that starts in a super centralized governing and moves toward super decentralized system day by day. I already sat its rules and monetary system. There are complicated mechanisms and I have to explain them in other thread -which I’ll do it soon-. So I can guarantee at least one community will exist that its goals are:
1. developing and maintaining the software itself in a most democratic and flexible possible way. Either development style or software features. (Obviously an open source and free software license).
2. developing and re-developing the community in order to implement maximum level of decentralization (either in rules or principles).
3. establishing an alternate “value system” in which who helps more the globe, gains more and maintain this rule as the “core value” of society.
These plans never happened in history and it is the first time in history that people can benefit because of their altruism action. I am pretty sure the model will work.
Even if we fail, we have built a system (including software and culture) that gifts too many good things, and on which the next people can do the next experiences. Isn't it clear that we have to do it regardless of the outcome?

And about the gov shutting everything down…
At the moment, this does not threaten us. It is an extreme exaggerated scenario that never won’t happened. Are you talking about North Korea or United State that 99 percent of vital activities are highly dependent to Internet?
Although In my design there are complementary solutions for dictatorship countries with high level of censorship and oppression, IP banning, low speed internet, and all other barriers for commercial, high speed services we are using freely in Europe and US.
This is not our today problem, once our community gathered hundreds of hacktivists and “specialists” who really care about human prosperity we will implement new solutions - instead of dummy, ineffective, neutral, useless, hard to use and incomplete, elite like solutions that now we are doing just to “hide the fact that we are actually do nothing”-


As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers,…
It is quite possible some community emerge based on hash power or another system resources – e.g. ram, memory space, or even printer resolution - so who has more money earn more. But it is not the case. There is possibility to emerge another societies with different “value system” as well.
As an example I can tell you about “imagine” society which I am aware of. In imagine there are three option to earn society “shares” and “coins”.
    A: A Skilled people can directly involve in software development, testing, documenting, design, translation, tutorial staffs, etc.  her/his contribution will be compensate by shares in proportion to the hours (and quality of work) she/he did for system.
    B: An entrepreneur can hire developers/translators,… and pay them fiat money as their salary and propose that accomplished task to community in exchange of the shares of community network.
    C: An investor or a normal person with small capital can buy the coins or shares from other early adapters who did A or B.
BTW in early days (first 3 or 4 years) the coins and shares worth nothing, so no one will pay fiat money for those. It is a big chance for encourage people to do “real job” to make a “real product” that impacts on “real world”. No meaningless trading, No greedy speculation, No abusing the words like Blockchain, decentralization, cryptocurrency, smart contract. Instead educating and experiencing real meaning of decentralization.
Surely people will try to use(misuse) our software to fool others, cheat, fraud, make money, etc, etc. But we have an strong feature. “power of fragility”. Most of them before accomplish first cents will be disgraced.
Again as an example, in “imagine” community who will take the majority of network which helped the software more. And the software is free. So the outcome will be a great software by which people can establish other communities (either for making a new community and running their rules and money or simply because of being frustrated because of abused by social network companies and selling them and their freedom to market).
I described “imagine” community partially, hopefully you establish another greater community with greater rules that works better than “imagine”. That day definitely I’ll join to your community and leave that primitive “imagine” community and I’ll help your community members to achieve more excellence.
It is how the things will happened in our software. Just to speak precisely, the software name is “Comen” stands for Community Maker Engine.

Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in.

"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.

someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code  is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/redefining-exchange-rates-to-excellence-indice-in-democracy-term-5303276

overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.

Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.

wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.

The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.

If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to.  While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.

Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.

I would say you are correct, but I think with current hype over BTC not really. Just check the Twitter among others how much people now are bragging showing off how smart they were to buy BTC @$20k or higher.




Well true and not I think. What you said makes totally perfect sense, but with stocks - if everyone sold them and price crash to 0, you still own a company. The company can go bankrupt or go private via de-listing. With gold - you still own a metal that you can use for other means. With house - you can live in it or in the worst case make something from it (bar, club, restaurant, hotel, something). But what happens when BTC price goes to zero? Yes some people will want to buy all, but for what purpose if it stays permanently at $0 afterwards?

And yes, the health of economy does define the market on funamentals, but at the same time, the fundamentals are also defined by the market. That's why market is (said to be) including all available information in the world in its pricing. Yes can be manipulated and inflated, but overall that manipulation from philosophical perspective won't take place if manipulator won't believe that s/he cannot benefit from it in the future which does in turn some future growth potential due to illicit reasons.


Also great point which I missed. From such perspective would you agree that first iPhones same with Bitcoin were created for the good reasons, however ended up being misused by the society for other reasons? Just like nuclear power wasn't invented for the purposes of mass destruction. (as for Tesla, sorry but I will not agree that it was a good product in the beginning )