4 ms·

1. those experts have been agreeing it'll crash ever since bitcoin hit $1, sorry if i dont have a lot of faith in their expertise. 2. .. in which you agree tha

1. those experts have been agreeing it'll crash ever since bitcoin hit $1, sorry if i dont have a lot of faith in their expertise. 2. .. in which you agree that producers, not consumers are responsible for carbon output. i dont get your "zero sum game" idea, we already have plenty of fusion energy available - it's called the sun. as for allocation efficiency - that's just like your opinion man. 3. i guess we'll have to wait til' you get whats the tangible benefit then...

Bakary 6y ago
These arguments often take the form of [complaint about Bitcoin not working] → [sardonic counter about Bitcoin working despite the nay-sayers] A better way to frame the problem IMO is that if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one So you have a lose-lose proposition for late adopters, with collectivized costs and pollution, and basically the promise of boundless wealth for the rest. I can't blame early adopters from working towards this, but in turn they can't blame the rest from reacting.
- keymone 6y ago
  first, those were not the arguments in form "complaint about Bitcoin not working", those were attempts to rebutt my earlier statements why it's erroneous to view bitcoin in context of environmental issues. > if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one sure, early adopters will reap some benefits, but it's laughable to suggest they will be any competition to current elites. a valid criticism of bitcoin would be that current elites will adopt bitcoin to cement the existing inequalities, but a) that would already be some redistribution of wealth, b) there's already plenty of wealth cementing options in form of london real estate, etc, singling out bitcoin here seems disingenuous.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    I'm not singling out bitcoin. In fact the London real estate is a good analogy to crypto. You have people with London properties getting super excited and people with no such properties not getting excited at all. Both are right. A handful of previously poor people manage to get a property thanks to being in the right place at the right time or some other improbable condition, but most don't. Many participants in the market are already massively wealthy. Overall, nothing makes it plausible for the property market to be meaningfully called an engine for the redistribution of wealth

Bakary 6y ago

These arguments often take the form of [complaint about Bitcoin not working] → [sardonic counter about Bitcoin working despite the nay-sayers] A better way to frame the problem IMO is that if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one So you have a lose-lose proposition for late adopters, with collectivized costs and pollution, and basically the promise of boundless wealth for the rest. I can't blame early adopters from working towards this, but in turn they can't blame the rest from reacting.

keymone 6y ago
first, those were not the arguments in form "complaint about Bitcoin not working", those were attempts to rebutt my earlier statements why it's erroneous to view bitcoin in context of environmental issues. > if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one sure, early adopters will reap some benefits, but it's laughable to suggest they will be any competition to current elites. a valid criticism of bitcoin would be that current elites will adopt bitcoin to cement the existing inequalities, but a) that would already be some redistribution of wealth, b) there's already plenty of wealth cementing options in form of london real estate, etc, singling out bitcoin here seems disingenuous.
- Bakary 6y ago
  I'm not singling out bitcoin. In fact the London real estate is a good analogy to crypto. You have people with London properties getting super excited and people with no such properties not getting excited at all. Both are right. A handful of previously poor people manage to get a property thanks to being in the right place at the right time or some other improbable condition, but most don't. Many participants in the market are already massively wealthy. Overall, nothing makes it plausible for the property market to be meaningfully called an engine for the redistribution of wealth