3 ms·

But this time it's voluntarily. Anybody can get it at any time. I've been telling my friends and family since 2012, and only one of them invested. Those who tak

But this time it's voluntarily. Anybody can get it at any time. I've been telling my friends and family since 2012, and only one of them invested. Those who take risks, get rewarded. You can't win if you refuse to try. Of course, there are truly poor people out there who can't have a dollar to spare, but it's mostly due to geography, corruption or war, not evil capitalists.

jrochkind1 9y ago
You know what "risk" means, right?
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Do you own a dictionary?
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    You seem to be talking about it like it's a sure thing. "Those who take risks, get rewarded." Or lose all their risked money. shrug. If it was a sure thing, it wouldn't be a risk. Generally if a market if functioning theoretically optimally, you can't make a lot of money on this sort of "investment" unless you've also risked losing a lot of money. Whether the BTC market is functioning rationally/optimally is another question, but the answer probably doesn't reduce your risk. Generally anyone that tells you that you can make an unusual amount of money on an investment (or, um, MLM business) without risking losing a lot is trying to scam you (even if they believe their own scam).
adjkant 9y ago
Most of these people are likely affected by capitalism to an extreme: imperialism. Much larger of an injustice than anything you listed. The people who are most able to take risks (in the investment sense) are those with the most. An exponential growth system such as this only widens the gap, voluntary or not. Everyone can get in, but the benefit is unequal. You need money to make money. This does not solve any equality issues on the grand scale, and only elevates a few lucky ones. To expect people to educate themselves on cryptocurrencies and understand the market when half the people in tech don't know what's going on is not reasonable.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts. You're right, imperialism did cause problems, but the extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it. I grew up very poor, as in barely enough money for basic food and new clothes once-twice a year. Now I'm in the top 3% of US earners (not counting Bitcoin).
  - adjkant 9y ago
    > Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts. I would argue they are very tied, but that is a much larger argument not needed here. To give the short and incomplete version, they are both derived from the idea of exploiting others for profit. The level of exploitation is just much less in capitalism and masked behind the guise of fairness, ignoring power dynamics, original capital, and exponential growth considerations, etc. Again, this argument is very incomplete as stated here, but they are not orthogonal concepts. How much of a connection they have is a very valid debate, one not needed here fully though. > extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it. Getting better does not mean that everyone can get out of poverty. We also haven't gotten that better. Most of Africa is still being exploited and most living there do not have any realistic means to get out of it. The countries as a whole still struggle on a macroeconomic level to get out of poverty due to the exact exponential growth issue seen in Bitcoin but with general investment. The US is not representative of the rest of the world, and also is still far from equal opportunity. While we're on that subject, good luck easily buying cryptocurrencies (accessible to a non-tech audience) while living outside the US. Even my Canadian friends struggle getting Coinbase to let them. Bitcoin is only really accessible to the tech community, an already privileged community.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      I think you're a hypocrite. If you think people in Africa aren't getting paid enough, why are you not selling your PC / smartphone to help them out? It's easy to tell other people how to spend their money helping the poor, but when it comes to your own wealth, you're still typing into this tech forum.
lucozade 9y ago
> But this time it's voluntarily Gambling's rarely been mandatory. If you were going to recommend your folks to have a punt, wouldn't a casino be better? You know the odds then.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  No, casinos have the edge, it's almost never mathematically sane to engage with a casino. I considered what would happen if something like bitcoin would become a global internet currency, and any way I sliced it, the upside was too huge not to try.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    I don't think you're being creative enough with your slicing. Consider what happens when 90% of the primary world currency ends up concentrated with a few thousand - 100K people in the tech world and if that's really any sort of upside for the world.
    - sooheon 9y ago
      BTC's deflationary nature appeals to type of people who enjoy getting in at the top of pyramid schemes (and then shouting down that anyone can bootstrap it too)--I suspect GP simply wishes he were one of the 100K.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      First of all, I don't think 90% will get concentrated between just 100K people by the time cryptocurrencies actually do take over (and they will, in some form). And then I don't mind money being more concentrated among tech people, they are generally more rational and tend to spend on important things.
      - adjkant 9y ago
        We're on track for that concentration right now. > I don't mind money being more concentrated among tech people, they are generally more rational and tend to spend on important things. Yeah, I don't but that at all either. Even so, you are basically advocating for an oligarchy led by tech and removing autonomy from everyone else in the world. That's a terrible dystopia.

jrochkind1 9y ago

You know what "risk" means, right?

bufferoverflow 9y ago
Do you own a dictionary?
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  You seem to be talking about it like it's a sure thing. "Those who take risks, get rewarded." Or lose all their risked money. shrug. If it was a sure thing, it wouldn't be a risk. Generally if a market if functioning theoretically optimally, you can't make a lot of money on this sort of "investment" unless you've also risked losing a lot of money. Whether the BTC market is functioning rationally/optimally is another question, but the answer probably doesn't reduce your risk. Generally anyone that tells you that you can make an unusual amount of money on an investment (or, um, MLM business) without risking losing a lot is trying to scam you (even if they believe their own scam).

adjkant 9y ago

Most of these people are likely affected by capitalism to an extreme: imperialism. Much larger of an injustice than anything you listed. The people who are most able to take risks (in the investment sense) are those with the most. An exponential growth system such as this only widens the gap, voluntary or not. Everyone can get in, but the benefit is unequal. You need money to make money. This does not solve any equality issues on the grand scale, and only elevates a few lucky ones. To expect people to educate themselves on cryptocurrencies and understand the market when half the people in tech don't know what's going on is not reasonable.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts. You're right, imperialism did cause problems, but the extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it. I grew up very poor, as in barely enough money for basic food and new clothes once-twice a year. Now I'm in the top 3% of US earners (not counting Bitcoin).
- adjkant 9y ago
  > Imperialism is not capitalism, they are orthogonal concepts. I would argue they are very tied, but that is a much larger argument not needed here. To give the short and incomplete version, they are both derived from the idea of exploiting others for profit. The level of exploitation is just much less in capitalism and masked behind the guise of fairness, ignoring power dynamics, original capital, and exponential growth considerations, etc. Again, this argument is very incomplete as stated here, but they are not orthogonal concepts. How much of a connection they have is a very valid debate, one not needed here fully though. > extreme poverty has been shrinking. And now we have the mechanisms for almost anybody to get out of it. Getting better does not mean that everyone can get out of poverty. We also haven't gotten that better. Most of Africa is still being exploited and most living there do not have any realistic means to get out of it. The countries as a whole still struggle on a macroeconomic level to get out of poverty due to the exact exponential growth issue seen in Bitcoin but with general investment. The US is not representative of the rest of the world, and also is still far from equal opportunity. While we're on that subject, good luck easily buying cryptocurrencies (accessible to a non-tech audience) while living outside the US. Even my Canadian friends struggle getting Coinbase to let them. Bitcoin is only really accessible to the tech community, an already privileged community.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    I think you're a hypocrite. If you think people in Africa aren't getting paid enough, why are you not selling your PC / smartphone to help them out? It's easy to tell other people how to spend their money helping the poor, but when it comes to your own wealth, you're still typing into this tech forum.

lucozade 9y ago

> But this time it's voluntarily Gambling's rarely been mandatory. If you were going to recommend your folks to have a punt, wouldn't a casino be better? You know the odds then.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
No, casinos have the edge, it's almost never mathematically sane to engage with a casino. I considered what would happen if something like bitcoin would become a global internet currency, and any way I sliced it, the upside was too huge not to try.
- adjkant 9y ago
  I don't think you're being creative enough with your slicing. Consider what happens when 90% of the primary world currency ends up concentrated with a few thousand - 100K people in the tech world and if that's really any sort of upside for the world.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    BTC's deflationary nature appeals to type of people who enjoy getting in at the top of pyramid schemes (and then shouting down that anyone can bootstrap it too)--I suspect GP simply wishes he were one of the 100K.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    First of all, I don't think 90% will get concentrated between just 100K people by the time cryptocurrencies actually do take over (and they will, in some form). And then I don't mind money being more concentrated among tech people, they are generally more rational and tend to spend on important things.
    - adjkant 9y ago
      We're on track for that concentration right now. > I don't mind money being more concentrated among tech people, they are generally more rational and tend to spend on important things. Yeah, I don't but that at all either. Even so, you are basically advocating for an oligarchy led by tech and removing autonomy from everyone else in the world. That's a terrible dystopia.