5 ms·

2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet’s population [1]. Calling 10,000 unaffiliated people "a sm

• jayd16 5y ago
  This is just desperate whataboutism. The inequality of life is certainly brutal but it doesn't make Bitcoin a populous utopia either. Besides that the numbers aren't equivalent. Holding stake and controlling its exchange are not the same thing, at least not for Bitcoin or democratic state controlled currencies.
  • mike_d 5y ago
    Calling out poor editorialization of the original papers findings isn't whataboutism, but thanks for playing.
    • jayd16 5y ago
      Just denying something and tacking on but thanks for playing isn't a rebuttal.
  • rglover 5y ago
    A decentralized money that government can't touch is the definition of a populous utopia in money terms. Bitcoin, by nature, is the most democratic form of money to ever exist on the planet. That more people don't get behind it and buy at least a little bit is mind boggling. Government fiat is and always will be a source of controlling the population and limiting their ability to build wealth.
    • jayd16 5y ago
      I have at least some control (though small) over the politics that control my nation's fiat currency. I feel I have much less control over 51% of the mining community. Considering that, why should I feel its more democratic?
      • throwaway248329 5y ago
        Miners don't control Bitcoin. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners
      • rglover 5y ago
        You have absolutely zero control. Countries are owned, not elected. Elections are an illusion to keep you docile and not asking too many questions.
        • jayd16 5y ago
          So if its all the same, why waste the overhead on proof of work?
          • rglover 5y ago
            What?
    • EdwardDiego 5y ago
      Bitcoin is money now? I feel that the one thing we've definitely established so far is that it is absolutely not a viable currency.
      • glenvdb 5y ago
        The people of El Salvador would appear to disagree.
        • jayd16 5y ago
          I'm not so sure about that but it would be interesting to see a poll. Pretty ironic to bring up a major example of state control of currency as good example of Bitcoin adoption.
          • glenvdb 5y ago
            The post I replied to was about the viability of Bitcoin being a currency I made the point that it being used as a currency, right now Discussion about the morality of legal tender laws is another matter
    • throw0101a 5y ago
      > Government fiat is and always will be a source of controlling the population and limiting their ability to build wealth. Quite the opposite: fiat is what allows wealth to be built. Under (e.g.) the Gold Standard, those who owned the gold controlled the wealth as the amount of gold was fixed and finite. If you wanted to expand the economy and needed "money" to do so, you had to literally dig up more gold. The finite amount was a limit on how economic activity could happen. And those in control of the gold could dictate terms (e.g., interest rates on loans) on its use. And while Bitcoin can perhaps be sliced more finely (satoshis) than gold (ounces/grams), the principal is the same: there's a finite amount. Meanwhile, in a credit-based fiat currency system, any bank can create money on demand by issuing loans. Need more liquidity to help an economy (keep) grow(ing)? Just encourage more loans.
  • mechanical_bear 5y ago
    > This is just desperate whataboutism Wat
    • jayd16 5y ago
      If you read further, the point is expanded on. Said another way, consider that we move to Bitcoin tomorrow, those billionaires would control 60% of Bitcoins instead. And as I said, its still not equivalent to the count of those controlling the exchange of money. Its simply a red herring to show a smaller number.
      • tonfa 5y ago
        Billionaires are wealthy but usually don't hold cash assets (or much gold for that matter), currencies are irrelevant. (In a BTC world they wouldn't hold much BTC either, if they do that'd be a pretty bad outcome since wealth would be moved to a none productive asset)
  • krageon 5y ago
    Being rich means you get to influence the direction society takes. Laws are a part of that, which should tell you holding stake and controlling it's exchange are functionally the same thing.