41 ms·

For me Bitcoin further exacerbates the already terrible distribution of wealth in our world. BTC is purely a play for the "rich" folks. I say "rich" because it

For me Bitcoin further exacerbates the already terrible distribution of wealth in our world. BTC is purely a play for the "rich" folks. I say "rich" because it needs not just tech access and disposable money barriers but also has the additional tech knowledge barrier to it.

ColanR 6y ago
That is a problem which crypto proponents are actively trying to overcome.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  As long as it requires work by CPUs or GPUs it is for rich people.
  - colecut 6y ago
    Gold requires actual physical mining equipment and labor. You could make the argument that gold is also for rich people, but no one seems to have a problem with it.
    - wmf 6y ago
      Many people object to gold being used as money. Now that gold is mostly for jewelry and investment people can afford to not care about it.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Yes, and that is exactly what the essay is about. Crypto proponents will only be able to overcome that issue, under capitalism, if they solve the issue of a fixed money supply. It is not sufficient to solve the computing issue if it leads to massive inequality and concentration of wealth, as well as other problems.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  But the problem is not technical in nature - it is social. The question of who decides, and how is the decision made, to issue more currency and distribute it, or to obviate existing currency - this is a political(-economic) question.
nerfhammer 6y ago
it's not just knowledge and tech, a deflationary currency multiplies existing wealth at no risk while also multiplying the value of debts.
- panarky 6y ago
  Varoufakis only examines two scenarios: (1) Economy remains capitalist and Bitcoin replaces national currencies, or (2) capitalism is replaced with socialism. Each scenario has such a vanishingly small likelihood that it seems pedantic to debate them. A more likely scenario is that we retain market economies and national currencies, with more or less corruption, more or less rule of law and more or less authoritarianism. Bitcoin would still exist but it wouldn't replace national currencies. It seems that during periods of more corruption, less rule of law and more authoritarianism, we'll see more use of state power to debase national currencies for the benefit of the clique currently in power, with financial repression and confiscation for political adversaries and those not in the clique. During times like this, an asset that is independent of the clique, digital, borderless, and difficult to detect, debase or confiscate might be a more secure way to protect the savings of the little guy and the big guy alike.
thrown1917 6y ago
Socialists, at least of the libertarian sort, tend to oppose both unaccountable/centralized political and economic power. Any unregulated and unconstrained reputation system tends to lead to Zipf-type distributions. What that means for an economy is extreme power at the high end and lots of poverty at the low end. Thus either there would be no control at all of the economy, or that control would go to the whales by virtue of their very gravity. The former would be bad, because the system would effectively be blind to many things that political power handles (e.g. externality). And the latter would be worse, because there's no reason to believe that these powerful entities would care about the powerless.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ColanR 6y ago

That is a problem which crypto proponents are actively trying to overcome.

Dahoon 6y ago
As long as it requires work by CPUs or GPUs it is for rich people.
- colecut 6y ago
  Gold requires actual physical mining equipment and labor. You could make the argument that gold is also for rich people, but no one seems to have a problem with it.
  - wmf 6y ago
    Many people object to gold being used as money. Now that gold is mostly for jewelry and investment people can afford to not care about it.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Yes, and that is exactly what the essay is about. Crypto proponents will only be able to overcome that issue, under capitalism, if they solve the issue of a fixed money supply. It is not sufficient to solve the computing issue if it leads to massive inequality and concentration of wealth, as well as other problems.
einpoklum 6y ago
But the problem is not technical in nature - it is social. The question of who decides, and how is the decision made, to issue more currency and distribute it, or to obviate existing currency - this is a political(-economic) question.

nerfhammer 6y ago

it's not just knowledge and tech, a deflationary currency multiplies existing wealth at no risk while also multiplying the value of debts.

panarky 6y ago
Varoufakis only examines two scenarios: (1) Economy remains capitalist and Bitcoin replaces national currencies, or (2) capitalism is replaced with socialism. Each scenario has such a vanishingly small likelihood that it seems pedantic to debate them. A more likely scenario is that we retain market economies and national currencies, with more or less corruption, more or less rule of law and more or less authoritarianism. Bitcoin would still exist but it wouldn't replace national currencies. It seems that during periods of more corruption, less rule of law and more authoritarianism, we'll see more use of state power to debase national currencies for the benefit of the clique currently in power, with financial repression and confiscation for political adversaries and those not in the clique. During times like this, an asset that is independent of the clique, digital, borderless, and difficult to detect, debase or confiscate might be a more secure way to protect the savings of the little guy and the big guy alike.

thrown1917 6y ago

Socialists, at least of the libertarian sort, tend to oppose both unaccountable/centralized political and economic power. Any unregulated and unconstrained reputation system tends to lead to Zipf-type distributions. What that means for an economy is extreme power at the high end and lots of poverty at the low end. Thus either there would be no control at all of the economy, or that control would go to the whales by virtue of their very gravity. The former would be bad, because the system would effectively be blind to many things that political power handles (e.g. externality). And the latter would be worse, because there's no reason to believe that these powerful entities would care about the powerless.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]