Topic: What makes a currency meaningful? - page 3. (Read 3079 times)

I liked your post. But I don't think cryptocoins are going to address human greed. The only way to discourage hoarding of anything is to devalue it. Doing that destroys it's utility and will keep anyone from using it.

The big difference with something like bitcoin is not that it will keep the greedy away, but they must compete equally with you. Take for example the "qualified investor" in the U.S. To be qualified you must have a million dollars and expect to make 500k this year. How insulting is that!?! It implies that the poor are to stupid to invest their own money and that just having money shows how smart you are. The system is rigged to keep normal people from investing and living off of capitol gains, exactly how the rich make their money. The poor are expected to work and create the real value that the rich are cashing in on.

It sounds like you're asking for things that aren't possible: for a currency that has widely acknowledged value but also one in which the accumulation of it isn't possible by the wealthy. If your premise is that currencies typically allow for oppression of the poor, and you want bitcoin to become a currency, it too will allow for oppression of the poor. Bitcoin doesn't solve the fundamental problem of the human race: scarcity of resources. Scarcity of resources is what drives greed, not currency. Currencies are just a representation of it and a way to facilitate trade, and it doesn't matter if it's denominated in USD, Euros, Pounds, or Bitcoins. Bitcoin will not end scarcity, so there will always be rich and poor, even with bitcoin. But solving that problem wasn't the intent of bitcoin either. I don't know where the concept came from, but the problem bitcoin was supposed to solve was not inequitable distributions of wealth; it was the necessity of a central authority (which may abuse its power) in the currency creation process. Any ideals you're assigning to bitcoin outside of that single one aren't innate to bitcoin, and they aren't necessarily warranted.

The cryptocoin world has a serious philosophical question it needs to address and that is the subject above. We have seen throughout history that inequitable distributions of wealth or power always results in oppression of some form or another. This is a natural consequence of the territorial nature in the human species so if we plan to fix anything with cryptocoin, we should not leave out the opportunity to discourage the aspect of human nature which is at the root of all the harm in the first place. If we don't, we just exchange one evil for another. How so? Let's assume bitcoin begins to be accepted as a store of value but its distribution and access is poor. Without it being in the hands of the vast majority, that value will either become irrelevant over time or another source of domination. It will fail to achieve its main purpose of a fluid currency with either scenario. Sadly, this argument applies to just about all the cryptocurrencies so what is a better solution? I don't have an answer but because I've pondered this issue longer than most, I know the direction we need to take and that is why I am introducing this thread with the hope that the more thoughtful and altruistic among you will participate. We need a coin that has disincentives for dominant mass accumulation and we need a coin that is accessible to all. These both can be achieved in many ways and this thread is designed to put these suggestions forward for discussion.