Bitcoin Elitists Ignoring the 3rd world

[RealBitcoin]

People here keep ignoring the fact that most users come from the 2nd or 3rd word, where the income is not that good as some arrogant 1st worlders like to believe.

I kind of thought at first that all these evangelists really want the best for Bitcoin users, how they talk about the "saving of the 3rd world", but nowadays it looks like just another one of those empty slogans, some marketing gimmick just to pool wool over your eyes while the bullshit continues, that kind of thing.

According to the ILO, the global average monthly wage is 1700$.

The income inequality factor is about 80%, so 80% of the world earns less than this.


Yet you idiots complain about the block size, and that means 30-40$ fees now. You guys are totally insane if you think there will be any mass adoption with these kinds of levels.

Wake up dreamers! Reality will punch ya in the face. I would earn 40$ net income / week at a shitty daily job. Too bad I am unemployed so I can't even earn that.

How the fuck do you think Bitcoin will reach any mass adoption with this lunatic levels of fees? I get that you guys are arrogant 1st worlders sitting in your cozy 500 square meter homes with your jacuzzi and mercedes cars in your garage complaining about this or that.

But the truth is simple, most people are poor, including myself, so we are not going to use a currency that is so elitist that it demand people to hand over 1 week worth of pay to some arrogant miner sitting at the other half of the world drinking sweet coffee.
 
Either fix the fee problem, or say bye bye to Bitcoin.

[hv_]

Sure. I m completely with you. And I also do not want to move the poor into unsafe stuff.

Only Real Bitcoin solution is scale on-chain as much as we can.

[HabBear]

Yet you idiots complain about the block size, and that means 30-40$ fees now. You guys are totally insane if you think there will be any mass adoption with these kinds of levels.

Wake up dreamers! Reality will punch ya in the face. I would earn 40$ net income / week at a shitty daily job. Too bad I am unemployed so I can't even earn that.

How the fuck do you think Bitcoin will reach any mass adoption with this lunatic levels of fees? I get that you guys are arrogant 1st worlders sitting in your cozy 500 square meter homes with your jacuzzi and mercedes cars in your garage complaining about this or that.

But the truth is simple, most people are poor, including myself, so we are not going to use a currency that is so elitist that it demand people to hand over 1 week worth of pay to some arrogant miner sitting at the other half of the world drinking sweet coffee.
 
Either fix the fee problem, or say bye bye to Bitcoin.

The only problem is the fact that people exist that don't want Bitcoin to evolve to stay competitive and relevant. And now with some many alternative cryptocurrencies it's even more shocking that the dissenters aren't newly onboard with increasing the block size capability.

This thing ceases to be a currency when it's (1) SLOW AF and (2) As expensive as using fiat...hell, maybe we should just use wire transfers instead. Anyone know Western Union's number?

[RealBitcoin]

Sure. I m completely with you. And I also do not want to move the poor into unsafe stuff.

Only Real Bitcoin solution is scale on-chain as much as we can.

Look I am not arrogant, and I am no tech expert, so I don't know at this point which solution is the best?

Is it segwit? Is it segwit 2x? Is it UASF? is it a 8mb block raise? I don't know. And I also think the so called experts dont know this, they are just babbling in the air to get fame and boast their ego.

But I do know that the increasing fees are a real problem, not just some imaginary intellectual debate. It's a real problem that needs to be fixed right now.

[gentlemand]

Bitcoin miners don't want third world profits ergo there won't be any provision for them.

I believe something will spring up eventually that does allow anyone anywhere to get a foothold in the online economy. I also believe Bitcoin can never be it in its present form. Lightning Networks won't solve anything of that nature as they require on chain transactions.

[HeRetiK]

Bitcoin miners don't want third world profits ergo there won't be any provision for them.

I believe something will spring up eventually that does allow anyone anywhere to get a foothold in the online economy. I also believe Bitcoin can never be it in its present form. Lightning Networks won't solve anything of that nature as they require on chain transactions.

On chain transactions are required to pin Lightning Network to Bitcoin. It would still save a lot in transaction fees because you wouldn't need to do every single transaction on chain, just the initial one.

[OROBTC]

Bitcoin miners don't want third world profits ergo there won't be any provision for them.

I believe something will spring up eventually that does allow anyone anywhere to get a foothold in the online economy. I also believe Bitcoin can never be it in its present form. Lightning Networks won't solve anything of that nature as they require on chain transactions.

Smile.  Other than all of those third world miners in China!

But, you and OP are addressing an issue that WILL likely become more important in the future, perhaps near future.  Participation by those in the Third World will be yet another way we can get more people USING Bitcoin and (perhaps) more merchants who accept it.  More people using and more merchants accepting BTC are the two main keys to BTC growth IMO.

But, also IMO, the scaling problem(s) -- which affect the high fees that OP mentions -- need to be solved.  The miners and developers need to JUST DO IT.

[gentlemand]

Smile.  Other than all of those third world miners in China!

China may be many things, but third world it isn't. No doubt there are hundreds of millions of utterly skint people there but they're kept neatly hidden from view.

Third world usage really should be the prime driver of it all. They're the ones who have a genuine use case for it. For the fat westerners it's a nice bonus but far from vital. In many a shit hole BTC would totally transform lives. Won't happen for a long time though.

[Last of the V8s]

http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/

[pearlmen]

I cannot but agree to this submission because I can really relate with it because I am equally from a developing country and I know the level of income around here which is no small thing. The issue of fees is something I even had to stop some days ago because of the issue high fees when I converted 40$ to my fiat I got to realize that its not small money and cannot be afforded to be paid as fees. Whether we like it or not, this is something that will really affect the penetration of bitcoin in this part of the world.

[AgentofCoin]

People here keep ignoring the fact that most users come from the 2nd or 3rd word, where the income is not that good as some arrogant 1st worlders like to believe.

I kind of thought at first that all these evangelists really want the best for Bitcoin users, how they talk about the "saving of the 3rd world", but nowadays it looks like just another one of those empty slogans, some marketing gimmick just to pool wool over your eyes while the bullshit continues, that kind of thing.
...

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin to help the poor in 2nd and 3rd world nations.
He created Bitcoin as a reaction to how the current world financial system
takes wealth from the average 1st world people, without representation.
This "stolen wealth" is then distributed to systems that have been corrupted
and caused the original problems that needed the "bailing out". This enforces
and creates a precedent that systems can become "too big to fail".

Satoshi was outraged by that economic belief and understood where it will
lead. It leads to a fully finalized ponzi credit system, where personal savings
is impossible to maintain, and the average person is forced to take on more
and more personal debt, just to buy food and pay for housing. This creates
a world of debt slaves. To counter balance this, the experiment was enacted.
Bitcoin is not a simple currency, it is a deflationary/disinflationary asset.
The purpose of this design type was to not destroy the current world system
or supplant it, but to bring it back into reform to complement the credit.

Only by helping ourselves and forming better financial systems are we than
able to reach out and help the poor. It is like being on a airplane and learning
the basic steps from the flight attendant, in the event of a depressurization.
First, you place the oxygen mask on yourself and then help the person/child
next to you. This ensures that both humans have the procedure to follow, that
best ensures the potential for both to survive.

We can not help the 2nd and 3rd world until we have made a more balanced
Bitcoin network that will not need to rely upon centralized legally regulated
systems such as corporate data centers or government licensed miners. The
Poor will not prosper within a totalitarian centralized Bitcoin, in fact, they will
be controlled and subjugated worse than what they currently exist under.

Thus, on loading the poor from 2nd and 3rd world countries at this point in
Bitcoin's lifespan is immoral and malicious. Lets not try to hurt the poor more,
so that your profits become slightly bigger with dreams that you are freeing
them. In actuality, you are using them and their economic positions as an
emotional argument to centralize the blockchain ledger to a point of failure.

Leave the poor of those nations out of the blocksize/centralization debate.
The truth is, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin for the 2nd and 3rd world.
It can become that, it could help them one day, but not in this way.
Lots of work still needs to be done before that point. If bitcoin fails soon,
the only people harmed are those of the 1st world, who have the ability
and society to recover from it. On the other hand, if that occurred with the
poor in 2nd and especially 3rd worlds, it could be a death sentence for
them and their families.

We should help free the poor only when we have truly freed ourselves first.
The longer Bitcoin survives in a balanced way, the more we will actually help
them. So, high fees are a current problem for mass adoption, but the true
question should be: "How much are you willing to pay for unregulated
decentralized financial freedom?". If you will only pay a very cheap price,
then your freedom will be equally as cheap.

[EXtremeAEX]

But the truth is simple, most people are poor, including myself, so we are not going to use a currency that is so elitist that it demand people to hand over 1 week worth of pay to some arrogant miner sitting at the other half of the world drinking sweet coffee.
 
Either fix the fee problem, or say bye bye to Bitcoin.

This is true, so mass adoption in 3rd world countries won't happen anytime soon, but perhaps in developing countries. For 3rd world countries, it would not be common and feasible for them to use Bitcoin as a digital currency with such high fees, but they still can use it as an investment (although I doubt so though). Most likely they would not care about such digital currency on the Internet.

I don't see any quick solution to this either, so you are right. Hopefully these countries will develop in the future with the possible help of technology, so as to introduce Bitcoin to them.

[hatshepsut93]

I think it's wrong to assume that people who deny Bitcoin's problems all come from first world, mostly it's just blind optimism about their investment. And as for adoption, it doesn't even matter if someone is from third world country or from first world, Bitcoin will not see any mass adoptions anywhere if the fees will keep growing, there are many other payment systems that work just fine. This will mean that Bitcoin as a currency will be mostly used by criminals like hackers, drug sellers, terrorists, etc., which will be very bad for Bitcoins reputation.

[btccashacc]

Finally someone making this thread , i can relate with this, using bitcoin in 3rd country is not cheap anymore i bet that people on those countries will not pay higher fee for transaction including myself, 30-40 dollars for a fee it such a ridiculous for us, it's ok if we send lot of money, but small transaction, it's a big no. Well, we will see bitcoin is not a currency anymore but something more precious, something that we must thinking twice before spend them. But wait, we still have alternative right? litecoin, dogecoin, etherum etc? i'm not a technical person who really undestand about bitcoin issue, so if that good for the bitcoin all i can do is just support it.

[mrcash02]

People here keep ignoring the fact that most users come from the 2nd or 3rd word, where the income is not that good as some arrogant 1st worlders like to believe.

I kind of thought at first that all these evangelists really want the best for Bitcoin users, how they talk about the "saving of the 3rd world", but nowadays it looks like just another one of those empty slogans, some marketing gimmick just to pool wool over your eyes while the bullshit continues, that kind of thing.
...

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin to help the poor in 2nd and 3rd world nations.
He created Bitcoin as a reaction to how the current world financial system
takes wealth from the average 1st world people, without representation.
This "stolen wealth" is then distributed to systems that have been corrupted
and caused the original problems that needed the "bailing out". This enforces
and creates a precedent that systems can become "too big to fail".

Satoshi was outraged by that economic belief and understood where it will
lead. It leads to a fully finalized ponzi credit system, where personal savings
is impossible to maintain, and the average person is forced to take on more
and more personal debt, just to buy food and pay for housing. This creates
a world of debt slaves. To counter balance this, the experiment was enacted.
Bitcoin is not a simple currency, it is a deflationary/disinflationary asset.
The purpose of this design type was to not destroy the current world system
or supplant it, but to bring it back into reform to complement the credit.

Only by helping ourselves and forming better financial systems are we than
able to reach out and help the poor. It is like being on a airplane and learning
the basic steps from the flight attendant, in the event of a depressurization.
First, you place the oxygen mask on yourself and then help the person/child
next to you. This ensures that both humans have the procedure to follow, that
best ensures the potential for both to survive.

We can not help the 2nd and 3rd world until we have made a more balanced
Bitcoin network that will not need to rely upon centralized legally regulated
systems such as corporate data centers or government licensed miners. The
Poor will not prosper within a totalitarian centralized Bitcoin, in fact, they will
be controlled and subjugated worse than what they currently exist under.

Thus, on loading the poor from 2nd and 3rd world countries at this point in
Bitcoin's lifespan is immoral and malicious. Lets not try to hurt the poor more,
so that your profits become slightly bigger with dreams that you are freeing
them. In actuality, you are using them and their economic positions as an
emotional argument to centralize the blockchain ledger to a point of failure.

Leave the poor of those nations out of the blocksize/centralization debate.
The truth is, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin for the 2nd and 3rd world.
It can become that, it could help them one day, but not in this way.
Lots of work still needs to be done before that point. If bitcoin fails soon,
the only people harmed are those of the 1st world, who have the ability
and society to recover from it. On the other hand, if that occurred with the
poor in 2nd and especially 3rd worlds, it could be a death sentence for
them and their families.

We should help free the poor only when we have truly freed ourselves first.
The longer Bitcoin survives in a balanced way, the more we will actually help
them. So, high fees are a current problem for mass adoption, but the true
question should be: "How much are you willing to pay for unregulated
decentralized financial freedom?". If you will only pay a very cheap price,
then your freedom will be equally as cheap.

Does world financial system takes wealth from the average 1st world people without representation for what?

Do you think the societies from 1st world and 2nd/3rd are so different that Bitcoin affects their countries in a different way? In all countries there is a little/medium parcel of society which "feeds" all the rest, in most of the cases the "average" citizen.

But here we are just asking for cheaper fees on transactions, that could be achieved just by improving the technology, making the transactions complete faster. This way Bitcoin can help third world countries instantly.

[Caladonian]

Finally someone making this thread , i can relate with this, using bitcoin in 3rd country is not cheap anymore i bet that people on those countries will not pay higher fee for transaction including myself, 30-40 dollars for a fee it such a ridiculous for us, it's ok if we send lot of money, but small transaction, it's a big no. Well, we will see bitcoin is not a currency anymore but something more precious, something that we must thinking twice before spend them. But wait, we still have alternative right? litecoin, dogecoin, etherum etc? i'm not a technical person who really undestand about bitcoin issue, so if that good for the bitcoin all i can do is just support it.

whatever reason this concerned should be take place since there's also a lots of third world people around this industry and paying that huge fee is really not a good option instead of doing some deal its much better to keep their bitcoin as an investment and for sure the reason why this chain was been build will not be follow bitcoin was created to be usable in every transaction that we have online i think it should be consider now.

[AgentofCoin]

...

...

Does world financial system takes wealth from the average 1st world people without representation for what?

Do you think the societies from 1st world and 2nd/3rd are so different that Bitcoin affects their countries in a different way? In all countries there is a little/medium parcel of society which "feeds" all the rest, in most of the cases the "average" citizen.

1) Yes, the current 1st world financial systems take the wealth and future of their citizens
by inflation of their currencies. Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent that action
without majority consent. That consent by mining & verifying nodes in conjunction with
users buying and using/holding the token is Bitcoin's answer to Representation.

2) Yes, bitcoin as a financial instrument is extremely different between a 1st world and
2nd/3rd worlds. Any losses that could manifest in the 1st world could be an acceptable loss,
even tax deductible in some cases. Those same financial losses, no matter how small, in the
2nd or 3rd world could mean devastation. A poor 3rd worlder placing their life savings (or just
a percentage) in BTC, and then the market tanks or Bitcoin fails outright, does not have the
luxury to "wait for it to rise again" or "just declare it as a loss". In majority of those cases,
their family will suffer more than a 1st world family with equal losses. Maybe even death.

In majority of 3rd worlds (and some 2nd), a certain percentage of the country, does not
feed the poor itself. The funds and food in majority of those cases come from either aid or
donations by the 1st world and their proxies.

But here we are just asking for cheaper fees on transactions, that could be achieved just by improving the technology, making the transactions complete faster. This way Bitcoin can help third world countries instantly.

When you "improve technology" to make transactions cheaper and faster (which in theory
will help the 3rd world), where do you think the expenses for the cheaper and faster aspects
get transferred to? If you do not want the users to pay the costs, who do you think should pay
for the cheaper and faster transactions?

The Bitcoin network is more expense than average payment platforms because the expenses
are not subsidized by governments or banks, but is fully maintained by the users and the
network itself. It was designed like this so that there would be no middlemen or controls.  
In theory, every time a user performs a transaction, the expenses/cost of the network increases.

If you don't want users to pay the higher fees, who should be forced to pay them?

[mrcash02]

But here we are just asking for cheaper fees on transactions, that could be achieved just by improving the technology, making the transactions complete faster. This way Bitcoin can help third world countries instantly.

When you "improve technology" to make transactions cheaper and faster (which in theory
will help the 3rd world), where do you think the expenses for the cheaper and faster aspects
get transferred to? If you do not want the users to pay the costs, who do you think should pay
for the cheaper and faster transactions?

The Bitcoin network is more expense than average payment platforms because the expenses
are not subsidized by governments or banks, but is fully maintained by the users and the
network itself. It was designed like this so that there would be no middlemen or controls.  
In theory, every time a user performs a transaction, the expenses/cost of the network increases.

If you don't want users to pay the higher fees, who should be forced to pay them?

If the technology is improved no one must pay higher fees, as the system will work faster. The cost increases because the number of pending transactions increases faster than it finishes. If the network is "empty" of transactions you pay cheaper fees as yours will be processed instantly and you don't need to pay an expensive fee to be put on the top.

We, the users are paying all the costs. But may you are saying if the fees are too cheap the miners will lose interest on it, right?

[Sithara007]

In my understanding, the largest number of Bitcoin users are from the United States, followed by the European Union. Japan may be at the third place, followed by Russia and China. So it will be wrong to say that a majority of the users are from the developing world.

[Holliday]

Bitcoin realists refusing to "fix" perfectly functioning system in the hopes of achieving unrealistic goals which could potentially destroy the very unique properties which make Bitcoin useful in the first place.

There, fixed that title for you OP. You're welcome in advance.