3 ms·
Outside of whether it would be feasible to move wealth to bitcoin before fleeing, discounting the existence of people who weren't miserable before they had to f
by fay59 5y ago
Outside of whether it would be feasible to move wealth to bitcoin before fleeing, discounting the existence of people who weren't miserable before they had to flee their decent existence due to war is insulting. You insinuated that all people who flee their country were resourceless before their displacement. Confronted with the fact that they aren't, you thought to save your point by declaring them "anecdotal". Not classy.
- cemerick 5y agoI didn't discount anyone's existence, or make any insinuation about "all people" of any description. The claim upthread was that BTC is useful when exfiltrating wealth when emigrating; for that to be a compelling and common use case for BTC, said wealth would need to be common. My pointing out trivially verifiable facts re: the typical (a.k.a. statistically predominant) financial disposition of refugees might not put that claim in a good light, but it's not pejorative or dismissive whatsoever of anyone or their experiences. IMO, the not-classy thing is cryptocurrency advocates constantly trying to leverage the plight of refugees, the unbanked, and those living in locales with constrained economic freedom to underwrite the reputation of a set of technologies that are overwhelmingly used as pernicious speculative vehicles.