Bitcoin Forum

Here is a worry I have should Bitcoin ever become widely adopted:

Wealthier people have access to computers and have the education needed to navigate them successfully and easily.  The same cannot be said for many poor people either because they lack easy access to computers/cell phones or do not have the technical skill required to operate them to the point where they can navigate a search engine easily, let alone becoming involved with Bitcoin.

Isn't it likely that Bitcoin, a currency that literally depends upon this technology, will only marginalize the poor further?

Must say though, I do have a computer and a cell phone, and this currency is pretty friggin' awesome.

Actually, cell phones are the great equalizer:
 - http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/innovation-m-pesa/1/20189.html

They don't use m-pesa as a store of value.  But they could use bitcoins as a store of value (though there is a lot of volatility with bitcoin yet).  Either way, fees to the carrier suck out a chunk of each m-pesa transaction.  Bitcoin fees are trivially small in comparison, once you already have converted from fiat.
 
Bitcoins can be used by mobile users, both businesses and customers.

Gee, that's interesting...

And the technical skill requirements?  I have an older relative who has been using computers for 20 years and can't manage text messaging.

They likely will be dead before Bitcoin goes mainstream.  I am only half kidding.  Bitcoin is so small that even with rapid growth it could take a decade or two before it becomes as common place as say twitter.

I'm poor as hell.

Lol

This. If there is a correlation between wealth and basic computer skills, its probably the inverse of what the OP thinks.

What color skin?

If BTC cannot be used by everyone (and I mean everyone that is able to open a door and, subsequently, drive a car), BTC won't be the major success. The Rich are neither the enemy nor the problem.

I'm more optimistic. I believe the great financial motivation that Bitcoin provides to early adopters will motivate them to kickstart its infrastructure and applications in a much more rapid way than twitter.

Suppose you're the 100th Twitter user ever. You may or may not have an idea of its vision, but even if you do, it doesn't offer you a great benefit right now because ... well ... none of your friends are using it yet.

If you're the 100th Bitcoin user, and you understand it, then you understand why it's so much better than what was before Bitcoin, and (IMO) believe it will be very popular in say 20-30 years. So you become an early adopter, hoard some coins, talk about it, encourage your friends & family to join...

Bitcoin users have some (maybe huge) benefit from it even before it reaches mass adoption, unlike Twitter.

I think that this Early Adopter Motivation factor can bring about a massive Bitcoin adoption within five years (give or take).

True, there is a lot of existing infrastructure and competition to replace that won't just die without a fight, and legislation will be a bitch. But I'm an optimistic kind of guy.
We'll just have to wait and see.

Right now, fiat money favors the rich... just having bitcoin as backing would make a huge positive difference.

If you're not rich, you probably earn a wage or a salary.  Your wage or salary is denominated in dollars.  Each time the Fed prints more money, you just got a pay cut, and you can't even see it directly.  Regardless, the price of goods and services goes up, but your wage or salary stays the same.  You, as a working person, have just invisibly borne the cost of whatever that printed money went to pay for (bombs, missiles, golden toilet seat, whatever).  I wonder what Obama needs another $1.2 trillion for, but of course, all of us should have seen this coming.

Meanwhile, rich people own assets, and those assets have their own value that floats independently of the dollar.

Actually, I'm betting on some of your older relatives outliving Bitcoin, although the fact one can still trade in Second Life properties does give Bitcoin some hope of continuing as a sideshow among enthusiasts.

Rich people are not wealthy. They are parasites.

Wealth = Talent * Resources
Power = Talent * Opportunity
Parasite = Resources * Opportunity

Resources do not implement themselves.
Opportunity comes and goes.
Only talent can be a source, a fountain of value.

Aside from all that, those who educate themselves have more knowledge than those who bought their education.
Count on it.

So no BTCs make class war less easy to get away with.

The problem is not how much someone makes but how much they take and break.

And the only way to beat them is to stop sabotaging ourselves by hating those who have more. The only thing that you get from that is people who can compete with abusers foolishly refusing to acquire the means to do so.

Stop romanticizing lack of assets. It only makes you unprepared and easy prey for abuse.

Those who do not abuse should be getting as much wealth and momentum as possible to block those who do abuse.

I'm sorry but if you think you can eat turkey at Thanksgiving with a spoon and no knife you're going to be disappointed.

I guess in a way it does. But not too many people do not have a TV or computer. And for those who cannot afford one they can always just use their local libraries. I also feel it apropriate to mention that internet is a basic right required for all citizens so the government will give them free, but not too good, internet connection.

bitcoin in reality caters for the ugly side of society not rich or poor. it caters for the scammers, the loner with no girlfriend or friends, the computer hacker who lives in his mums basement at age 40, and everyother seedy part of society like people who like CP, drugs etc. It's not a pretty sight.

Link?
Was he forced to open the encrypted file?
How do people know what was in it?

One you are full of shit.  Second as someone else said if the stick was encrypted how do you know what was on it.
Still in related news terrorists, drug dealers, war criminals, and dictators have been found with billions of USD.

Don't bother replying.  Obvious troll is obvious but not immune to ignore.

To Richer or Poorer  :)

i dont think so

No. Because the same can be argued in the case of "money".

...what?

Retard.  :)

I asked "what?" because your argument makes absolutely no sense.

We're not talking about fiat.  Just because you can argue that fiat caters to the rich does not mean that you can make any conclusions about Bitcoin.  Both can cater to the rich, but if you believe Bitcoin does not, then I would like to hear an argument that makes sense.

At the current rate of around $4 and maximum of 21m coins = theoretical but not practical maximum atm is $84m.

You can not buy a half way decent decent super yacht for that......... so atm bitcoin is not for the rich

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "cater to the rich" in the way that you say "for the rich."

By cater to the rich, I mean that it will either 1) help the rich get richer at the expense (direct or indirect) of those less wealthy or 2) will naturally be easier for a rich person to acquire and use than a poor person.  I mean 'cater' in an accoutremental or ergonomic kind of way. 

As an example of #1:  If you can afford to buy a house outright (i.e. you are rich) then you end up paying less than if a poor person bought the same house because of the interest he would have to pay.  Thus, rich people are more likely to be homeowners (duh :) ).  This is where gentrification starts.  Rich people move near other rich people, property values go up; poor people move near other poor people, property values go down.  But, either way, anyone who isn't rich takes out a loan/mortgage.  Bitcoin is great, but I don't see Bitcoin being so equally distributed among the population such that everyone can afford to buy a home without a loan.  I haven't really spent time thinking about how we could manage to have bank lending on the scale we do if it weren't for fractional reserve banking.  How will Bitcoin change this?

As an example of #2:  If you are rich, chances are you were born into at least a fairly wealthy family.  You would have access to people with knowledge of how to handle money and invest it, have access to the latest and fastest technology...heck you can even have money to pay people to handle and invest your money for you using the latest and fastest technology.  This type of example was more along the lines of what I had in mind when I originally asked if Bitcoin catered to the rich.  Rich people have the time to learn about Bitcoin, would be more likely to be exposed to the type of media that would even consider mentioning Bitcoin, have access to the technology and knowledge (or people) to engage in all aspects of Bitcoin -- mining it, trading it, investing it, buying and selling with it, starting businesses.  Actually, they wouldn't even need to know anything about it.  They could just pay people to build an empire for them.

$84m. might not get you the super yacht of your dreams, but it would allow some rich people the monetary possibility of literally owning the entire Bitcoin market.  I believe that most rich people want to just keep getting richer (otherwise, why not retire or simply volunteer?), and having a lot of money allows you to make a lot of money.  There are thousands of people living today that could swallow the entire Bitcoin market at any given time.  And, while you can shift decimal places all you want, the more you do, the more power the rich are allowed.

Considering the examples you gave, practically every new technology caters to the rich. Not much one can do about that; the only real options are to either whine and try to uninvent or suppress the technology (pretty futile,) or make use of it oneself as well as one is able.

Sounds like drugs.  Some stuffs good, some stuffs bad.  You try to suppress the bad stuff.  Sometimes an improvement on bad is still bad.  I'm not saying that's the case with Bitcoin, I'm saying I don't know.

You're creating a false dichotomy, and that's beside the fact that Bitcoin is trying to un-invent or suppress fiat. 

???

Ok, a new, useful technology appears. Wealthier folks start making use of it, and benefitting accordingly.

What options do you see for the non-wealthy?

Another "Bitcoin" revolution?

Dear Sirs,

Maybe I am mistaken, but sense some confusion here:
Technologies are creations of culture (cultural artifacts, if You so will), and are thus embedded in a socio-cultural environment.
The access to them and their usage is dictated by the rules of the given culture/society PLUS their inherent possibilities. (Hard to use certain things in certain ways etc.)
The effect, that a given technology "caters the rich" comes form 1. the general tendency, that the activity of societies caters the rich (since richness means You have allocated the measurement units of value and/or control in a society, it comes with a power structure, thus ensures the processes of society reassure these structures) and 2. that it can inherently be used for a purpose (it has for example central point of control/failure...)

In the case of Bitcoin the second is not given by concept, so half of the equation is solved.
The first part is also arguable (hence it's inherent tendency to be used in "black market operations", that is transactions of value and power outside the mechanisms of societal control - see under "counter economics").

So my feeling is, that poor bitcoin gets some punches for general tendencies, in which it is by no means guilty!

IMHO!!!

I would argue that Bitcoin actually caters to the poor. Try buying something online without a credit card. Poor people who cannot qualify for a credit card can use cash for in person transactions; however until Bitcoin came along there is no real, cost effective, international alternative for online transactions for those that are too poor to obtain a credit card.

That's a really good sociological observation...I would agree that bitcoins would further encourage income inequality through knowledge barriers

On a related note:

This miner In Brazil is reporting electric utility rates of more than $0.50 per kWh.
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64232.msg761059#msg761059

More about Brazil's electric industry sector:
 "In Brazil, large government-controlled companies dominate the electricity sector."
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Brazil

So if bitcoin is to gain traction in Brazil, it won't be because there are tons of miners there flush with coins.

But the point is, state policies (such as an energy policy like Brazil's) could make it so mining of bitcoins becomes unprofitable for its constituents.

10 years ago, this could have been an issue.

Now, with internet access more available, it is becoming less and less of one.