Global Wealth Disparity is going to cause a lot of issues soon

[XZer0]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

Taking a look at some of the most likely coins to become a global currency at the moment:



USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

BTC- Completely owned by the 5 top mining pools who control if btc has inflation or other network parameters because if they stop mining the old btc then the new btc is automatically the real one since it has all the mining power to back its value and not be attacked (see ltc, bch, etc. for examples)

Dogecoin- A fun coin and with stable development but with pow it has the same issues as btc and if they moved to pos they'd still have the same issue due to these rich lists:

(European/Russian currencies): All still held by the same people whose ancestors were friends with the king/czar since trickle down doesn't work and there is not as many "new rich" as the america's

I can only see how a currency that is globally owned could become globally accepted.

People normally purport btc's wealth centralization as a reason to buy but at 7 billion users following this trend 1 billion people would have less than 0.0000001 BTC each....that's a greater wealth divide than we currently have with even USD. I can't imagine a world where the 100 people with large btc balances aren't hunted down by the billions of poor if that was the case.

TheGreatReset.Finance

[1714813779]

1714813779

[1714813779]

1714813779

[1714813779]

1714813779

[1714813779]

1714813779

[20kevin20]

First of all, Bitcoin is not fully owned by the top 5 mining pools as you say. BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most.

Then, there wouldn't be just 0.0000001BTC per person. 21M coins divided by 7,800,000,000 people is about 0.00269 per existent person. Bitcoin is way easier to be moved around in much smaller quantities - you can't pay with 0.0000001$, can you?

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

[fiulpro]

This seems more like an article about Global Acceptance of currencies rather than Wealth Disparity but I get your point.

This is the exact same reason why we need : Bitcoins
They are not controlled by any country, they do not have any dark side to their existence like most of these currencies do. They do not have restrictions on who can use them or who cannot. They cannot be controlled by anyone. Chinese have tried it, America have tried it but at the end of the day it's not something that can be tainted. Having a global currency without any borders will now only Help the people in financial matters but at the same time bring them closer (poetically).

But then again we would have to solve the issue of :
Fee
How it will be available for everyone since not everyone has same financial status and education.

Let's see how it goes in the future. We always can use smaller and smaller denominations in case of bitcoins..

[XZer0]

First of all, Bitcoin is not fully owned by the top 5 mining pools as you say. BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most.

Then, there wouldn't be just 0.0000001BTC per person. 21M coins divided by 7,800,000,000 people is about 0.00269 per existent person. Bitcoin is way easier to be moved around in much smaller quantities - you can't pay with 0.0000001$, can you?

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

Okay lets look at your theory: BTC forks off with every miner but the mining pools:

1. You can change btc from sha but then every btc miner now has to get new equipment since they all use asics. Your coin probably dies now

2. You can keep the same algorithm and then a few of the top miners from those pools will regularly attack your coin with their hashing power like with bch. Lets say they are nice and don't attack you. Your coin now cost way less to mine than theirs and so the price will fall, many will see this already as not bitcoin as they usually count the one that is the highest price when forks like abc/sv happened. So still you haven't created a new bitcoin.

How do you avoid these scenarios and take back control from the mining pools?


Also I like your maths but that is actually exactly what I am asking if you divided all coins evenly then btc could be a global currency, but btc isn't, its held in a pyramid. So i calculated the average amount of btc(i actually did this for other coins too and realized they all share a similar distribution structure however some just havent reached as many levels of the pyramid yet due to a small mcap/users) held at each level and extended the pyramid downwards to ~5 billion users. At the last level will be 1 billion people who have that little amount of btc.


The global wealth disparity doesn't have to be a thing. It's only defeatist propaganda you've been fed that makes you believe so. Similar to how creating a currency not owned by a central bank is not a thing that caught on until bitcoin. People who earn their money are not the issue, one could argue maybe they pay more taxes etc. but thats to be decided. The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting.

This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest.

[XZer0]

This seems more like an article about Global Acceptance of currencies rather than Wealth Disparity but I get your point.

This is the exact same reason why we need : Bitcoins
They are not controlled by any country, they do not have any dark side to their existence like most of these currencies do. They do not have restrictions on who can use them or who cannot. They cannot be controlled by anyone. Chinese have tried it, America have tried it but at the end of the day it's not something that can be tainted. Having a global currency without any borders will now only Help the people in financial matters but at the same time bring them closer (poetically).

But then again we would have to solve the issue of :
Fee
How it will be available for everyone since not everyone has same financial status and education.

Let's see how it goes in the future. We always can use smaller and smaller denominations in case of bitcoins..

I haven't seen the u.s. or china try to control bitcoin yet. I imagine when they do we will know because so much mining power is in china and the u.s. A simple knock on their door and chinese btc fork would be made.


I dont think there is an issue with fees, as long as everyone can meaningfully participate in the network they can earn money to use it. The issue bitcoin has is almost no one can participate in the network (meaningfully)

And yeah I love the beauty of infinite decimal places for once we reach a multiplanetary civilization.

[odolvlobo]

People normally purport btc's wealth centralization as a reason to buy but at 7 billion users following this trend 1 billion people would have less than 0.0000001 BTC each....that's a greater wealth divide than we currently have with even USD. I can't imagine a world where the 100 people with large btc balances aren't hunted down by the billions of poor if that was the case.

Money doesn't represent all of the wealth in the world. Except for a notable few, the richest people in the world together own 0 BTC. And while Musk may be the wealthiest person in the world, I bet 99% of his wealth is not from money stored in bank accounts.

[wxa7115]

The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting.

This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest.

But how do you plan to change this? Even if we could make a reset and everyone begins with the same resources the differences in skill will begin to produce individuals that have more than the others, how do you propose that they do not use their rights to give what they have to whoever they want?

Whether you like it or not generational wealth is a thing and most of those that have the skills to produce huge levels of wealth know very well how they did it and can teach their family members how to do this as well and very soon we will find ourselves in the same scenario that we face today, and there is no way to avoid it because even if you had a rule that stated that the wealth of that successful individual cannot go to his family they could always change the rules of the game once they have enough power to do so, so for the most part you are trying to solve something that for the most part cannot be solved.

[Darker45]

Before anything else, are the world's richest individuals today being hunted down by the billions of poor people?

Second, I'm afraid there'll be no fix global currency because there is no global government. Currencies are government-issued. The global currencies that we have today are those of the most powerful nations. It's just logical. But there will be changes as time moves on as there are inevitable shifts of power among nations in the global stage.

Third, the great wealth divide will always stay. Bitcoin is not here to plain the field. It is not Bitcoin's objective to address the unequitable wealth distribution in the human race.  

Finally, even a great financial reset, provided it is not just a utopian imagination, won't do much. In the first place, who will do it? The current elites and powerful? Do you think they would envision a world where they will end up in the same situation with that of their maids, nannies, gardeners, and so on?

[so98nn]

[...]

@20kevin20 is actually right. These are completely my thoughts about the bitcoin and I have always tried to spread the same thoughts earlier also. It’s very simple calculation based on Satoshi as lowest units. I believe this might have already thought by inventor while programming the bitcoins code. Today it is completely successful in terms of transactions. I can send below one buck too or millions too with no documentation, no authority which is added advantage over centralised currencies.

Hence, if USD or other Fiat are not gonna make it then Bitcoin would be the proper escape option for Global wealth disparity.

[Lorence.xD]

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

We can change the global wealth disparity not by communism, remember that it didn't work so it is not worth doing a do over. What we can do is make more people in the population less ignorant, make them see the wrong things that have been plaguing the society and then they will elect the smartest person in the bunch that doesn't get scared or get bribed.

Second, I'm afraid there'll be no fix global currency because there is no global government. Currencies are government-issued. The global currencies that we have today are those of the most powerful nations. It's just logical. But there will be changes as time moves on as there are inevitable shifts of power among nations in the global stage.

I think that USD serves as a faux global currency with a lot of countries holding USD as a reserve currency aside from gold, I think not all currency from powerful countries are a good global currency, look at Russia's ruble, China's yuan, France is using Euro and UK is not that good with foreign policy. I don't want a global government, that thing wouldn't be easy to pull off, the only time that it will work is if terror reigned around the globe and no one can stop the rise of strong government.

Third, the great wealth divide will always stay. Bitcoin is not here to plain the field. It is not Bitcoin's objective to address the unequitable wealth distribution in the human race. 

The divide will stay if the people are happy with just being given a crumb of bread every time they bow down and accept situation when they could get the whole bread, r/wallstreetbets did the impossible, which means that if people were to bond towards a common goal, I think that they will achieve something, those rich people are not untouchables, they just have bodyguards and when that is gone, the masses can easily tear this people apart.

Finally, even a great financial reset, provided it is not just a utopian imagination, won't do much. In the first place, who will do it? The current elites and powerful? Do you think they would envision a world where they will end up in the same situation with that of their maids, nannies, gardeners, and so on?

There is no utopia, the root word of utopia sort of means "non-existing place". The only way that we will topple the hidden pyramid of classes that divide the people is for the masses to have an individual mind and a high level of critical thinking.

[hatshepsut93]

Fiat currencies don't really have a need to be globally accepted. But there actually is a globally accepted currency - the US dollar. While most countries won't allow their whole economy to rely on a foreign currency, at least the informal part of the economy is gladly accept the US dollar wherever you go. And there are exchanges for US dollar and local currency in almost every country in the world.

A currency with even distribution is impossible and pointless - the goal of currency is to exchange it for things, so even if you airdrop equal amount of a new currency to all people and make them use it, you'll again see unequal distribution very soon.

[youdacapt]

There is no global disparity; atleast that i know of, the USD is a Global currency; whether the Chinese agree to work with it or not; it doesn't change the fact that across Europe, Australia and Africa; the USD is a dominant figure. I think every country has centralized their own currency; this is why there are central banks.

Saying doge can effectively as as a direct replacement for Bitcoin is fallacy; there is no developments behind doge rise except that it was pumped and dumped; how then can i compete with Bitcoin adoption around the world? Bitcoin remains the first, the best and the king in crypto currency

[20kevin20]

1. You can change btc from sha but then every btc miner now has to get new equipment since they all use asics. Your coin probably dies now

I don't think so. If, as some fear, China suddenly starts willing to take control over the network, the denial of their equipment would also redeem all other similar equipment useless for BTC mining, but at the same time it'd show the world how strong Bitcoin is: whenever control is taken by force, we just reject it no matter what it takes.

Also I like your maths but that is actually exactly what I am asking if you divided all coins evenly then btc could be a global currency, but btc isn't, its held in a pyramid. So i calculated the average amount of btc(i actually did this for other coins too and realized they all share a similar distribution structure however some just havent reached as many levels of the pyramid yet due to a small mcap/users) held at each level and extended the pyramid downwards to ~5 billion users. At the last level will be 1 billion people who have that little amount of btc.

Create a currency and give an equal amount to everyone. In the end, there'll be hoarders and sellers. The wealth inequality will never disappear due to this. If 5 people have 1 BTC and one of them wants to sell it to another, here goes wealth inequality already: one has 0 BTC now so is in a disadvantage while the buyer has 2 BTC, so has an advantage. A proper solution to this issue has not been found yet (or I have to hear about its existence yet).

The global wealth disparity doesn't have to be a thing. It's only defeatist propaganda you've been fed that makes you believe so. Similar to how creating a currency not owned by a central bank is not a thing that caught on until bitcoin. People who earn their money are not the issue, one could argue maybe they pay more taxes etc. but thats to be decided. The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting.

I get your point, but you're looking for a solution that, as I said above, has not been found yet. Considering the current economical rules and status, this either has to be a thing or we "solve" the inequality by making the rich pay more.. which is now unfair for them.

 

This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest.

Well, finding out who does nothing and who doesn't and stealing their wealth just because "they haven't earned it" sucks. Who determines what "doing good" really means? Who determines whether I deserve not to be rewarded anything anymore due to the fact that I haven't done anything good?

As I said, these are communist/extremist rules. You can't take the wealth from someone's hands or decide not to give them any "reward" anymore and call it freedom.

[kooboat]

The issue about centralisation  or decentralization, when it comes to a particular currency  or a digital  asset  being accepted  globally  is neither here nor there. For any particular  currency  to be accepted  globally, it should be  useful to many  people there.  To a large extent,  one can say that the US Dollar is a global currency  since it is widely used for trading around the world. This means that, bitcoin is widely known and accepted despite the fewer number of people  across the globe who are comfortable  trading  with  bitcoin.

[iamsheikhadil]

There are certain things which are out of control from our hands and that includes our ideal coins like Bitcoin and other crypto currencies as well. As you said, unequal distribution will lead to global chaos but then again we live in a system where the rich gets richer and richer and poor gets poorer indefinitely and there will always be criminals who hijack others money or shut down institutions, so no matter what we do, ideal and perfect circulation can't be established, that's why I guess life's not fair

[el kaka22]

I do agree that it will never become a global currency, nothing could ever be, not btc not nothing however if anything has a chance to be a global currency it is going to be dollar for sure, bitcoin is a close second. Why?

First of all Chinese do accept dollars because they work with american companies and get paid in dollars as well and they are fine with it because they know america will pay their debt one way or another there is nothing that will stop them, however america printing whatever amount they want causes a bit of a problem, china has 2 trillion dollars debt they need to collect from usa but usa could print that and be fine with it anyway, it is a problem yet they still accept it.

Bitcoin as well because bitcoin is not tied to any nation and miners can do whatever they want but anyone with more money could destroy miners power very easily if they want to, look at grayscale and their power and grayscale is nowhere near JP Morgan or morgan stanlay levels.

[DrBeer]

A state system where everyone is equal, there are no poor or rich, everyone is happy and completely satisfied - UTOPIA.
You can take an infinite number of arguments, but one simple argument is enough: all people are different, they have different needs, different tastes, different cravings for consumption! Therefore, society will always be divided into 3 parts:
poor, middle class, rich. And the question is not that there are LOTS of rich and they should be forced to share with the POOR. The question is to increase the middle class.
Communism - ideology, justice reigns, there is no money, full prosperity and an absolutely conscious society - nonsense intended to manipulate the lumpenized community in the USSR. This is from the area "while you marvel in shit, and soon we will build communism and you will live in gold. But it is important now to shut your mouths, come to terms with the fact that you are treated like cattle, and be silent! We have communism on the horizon" ... .If these unfortunate people taught geography, they would understand that the horizon is an IMAGINARY border

[coolcoinz]

You think that if there are 5 mining pools it means bitcoin is centralized, but it's not. You could as well say that nuclear superpowers are controlling the wold because if you were to add together the power of China, Russia, the US and India, the rest of the world wouldn't be able to stop them, but that's exactly the point. They will never work together to take over the world, just as mining pools will not try to take over bitcoin and launch a 51% attack. You're talking from the perspective of the little guy who cannot control the world around him and therefore feels powerless and abused. Believe me, you are in control.

[wxa7115]

A state system where everyone is equal, there are no poor or rich, everyone is happy and completely satisfied - UTOPIA.
You can take an infinite number of arguments, but one simple argument is enough: all people are different, they have different needs, different tastes, different cravings for consumption! Therefore, society will always be divided into 3 parts:
poor, middle class, rich. And the question is not that there are LOTS of rich and they should be forced to share with the POOR. The question is to increase the middle class.
Communism - ideology, justice reigns, there is no money, full prosperity and an absolutely conscious society - nonsense intended to manipulate the lumpenized community in the USSR. This is from the area "while you marvel in shit, and soon we will build communism and you will live in gold. But it is important now to shut your mouths, come to terms with the fact that you are treated like cattle, and be silent! We have communism on the horizon" ... .If these unfortunate people taught geography, they would understand that the horizon is an IMAGINARY border

That is the thing, for all the criticism that capitalism receives the truth is that we have made great progress during the last decades and there are less poor all around the world, but it seems people want to live in an Utopia and that is not possible, there is always going to be those that have more and those that have less.

And then in order to correct this problem people decide to enact communism, or similar economic systems, that makes most people equal but not by rising their living standards but by decreasing them to the point many of those same people lament the fact capitalism is no longer in place but by the time they realize this it is too late.

[Obito]

You think that if there are 5 mining pools it means bitcoin is centralized, but it's not. You could as well say that nuclear superpowers are controlling the wold because if you were to add together the power of China, Russia, the US and India, the rest of the world wouldn't be able to stop them, but that's exactly the point. They will never work together to take over the world, just as mining pools will not try to take over bitcoin and launch a 51% attack. You're talking from the perspective of the little guy who cannot control the world around him and therefore feels powerless and abused. Believe me, you are in control.

Good analogy but a little nudging on agreements on what they will get from it is a possibility of them working together, a merge is going to be a possibility, the only thing that needs to happen is that all the heads of this organizations are willing to work with each other. There are other ways this organizations can work without combining their forces, remember that this people are the ones behind the curtains, who says that they are not working together for a long time now.

[Nhazwrath]

Id like to point out to people here that the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is complete bull shit.  There is a wealth gap 100% and yes its large but so freaking what?  Whens the last time you starved? or died of smallpox? or had 3 out of 5 children die before the age of 5?

The normal condition of humanity for the entire length of history has been Very few rich and 99.999% everyone else hand to mouth existence or just dead.  It is only within the last 150 years that has changed.    So instead of looking at what appears to be all bad due to wealth gap you might want to study history a bit to see just how freaking bad it was and how far its come from there.

The only real success story for dragging most people out of complete abject poverty is going on right now.   like Right Now.. history wise the last 150 years is INSANE wealth generation for just about everyone.

[DrBeer]

A state system where everyone is equal, there are no poor or rich, everyone is happy and completely satisfied - UTOPIA.
You can take an infinite number of arguments, but one simple argument is enough: all people are different, they have different needs, different tastes, different cravings for consumption! Therefore, society will always be divided into 3 parts:
poor, middle class, rich. And the question is not that there are LOTS of rich and they should be forced to share with the POOR. The question is to increase the middle class.
Communism - ideology, justice reigns, there is no money, full prosperity and an absolutely conscious society - nonsense intended to manipulate the lumpenized community in the USSR. This is from the area "while you marvel in shit, and soon we will build communism and you will live in gold. But it is important now to shut your mouths, come to terms with the fact that you are treated like cattle, and be silent! We have communism on the horizon" ... .If these unfortunate people taught geography, they would understand that the horizon is an IMAGINARY border

That is the thing, for all the criticism that capitalism receives the truth is that we have made great progress during the last decades and there are less poor all around the world, but it seems people want to live in an Utopia and that is not possible, there is always going to be those that have more and those that have less.

And then in order to correct this problem people decide to enact communism, or similar economic systems, that makes most people equal but not by rising their living standards but by decreasing them to the point many of those same people lament the fact capitalism is no longer in place but by the time they realize this it is too late.

The problem is that there are a lot of lazy and greedy people who decide that if there are richer people, then for some reason they should share with people like them. This has always been and is being used by dirty politicians, such as Lenin, Stalin if we talk about (the USSR), whose goal is to create an army of slaves from lazy and greedy people. They were not promised "you will work and make yourself a fortune", they were promised - "we will destroy the rich, and then everything will be free, and everyone can take whatever he needs." By the way, this correlates well with history - such regimes were actively created in the 19th and 20th centuries, when there were many poor countries, and significantly decreased by the end of the 20th century, when the average living standard in many countries increased significantly.
I'll finish - I'm against feeding embittered lazy people. Want to live well - earn it!

[suzanne5223]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

Firstly, it not every currency that are centralized which Bitcoin is a perfect example but there will never be a global currency even if the centralized coins you said are decentralized because every countries have it monetary issues, traditions and government orientation.

USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

Chinese don't accept USD because it was printed by the USA, they reject it because they are a communist country and they will never welcome any currency or activities that will affect their communist ruling.

[jaysabi]

First of all, Bitcoin is not fully owned by the top 5 mining pools as you say. BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most.

Then, there wouldn't be just 0.0000001BTC per person. 21M coins divided by 7,800,000,000 people is about 0.00269 per existent person. Bitcoin is way easier to be moved around in much smaller quantities - you can't pay with 0.0000001$, can you?

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

The global wealth disparity doesn't have to be a thing. It's only defeatist propaganda you've been fed that makes you believe so. Similar to how creating a currency not owned by a central bank is not a thing that caught on until bitcoin. People who earn their money are not the issue, one could argue maybe they pay more taxes etc. but thats to be decided. The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting.

This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest.

This doesn't even make sense. Bitcoin solves nothing about wealth disparity. Bitcoin is just another asset like everything else, that you cannot acquire unless you already have wealth. There are exactly two ways to acquire wealth on an individual level: 1) you acquire it from someone who has it, or 2) you acquire it through economic participation. Bitcoin changes exactly zero of these possibilities.

[20kevin20]

This doesn't even make sense. Bitcoin solves nothing about wealth disparity. Bitcoin is just another asset like everything else, that you cannot acquire unless you already have wealth. There are exactly two ways to acquire wealth on an individual level: 1) you acquire it from someone who has it, or 2) you acquire it through economic participation. Bitcoin changes exactly zero of these possibilities.

It was able to change something back when the wealthy were too skeptical about it and the people were free to get into crypto investments. But now, one single institutional investor has enough monetary resources to invest more than probably the average total sum of 100 usual investors. The rich have too much purchasing power and they will only earn more and more whenever they feel like something is worth to be given a shot.

The markets move according to where the Elites want them to move. It's not a natural market movement no matter what domain we'd talk about. They only keep accumulating wealth and so the wealth gap between social classes is going to keep getting larger and larger without consequences. It is what it is, and we can't do much to solve it.

[posi]

First of all, Bitcoin is not fully owned by the top 5 mining pools as you say. BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most.

Then, there wouldn't be just 0.0000001BTC per person. 21M coins divided by 7,800,000,000 people is about 0.00269 per existent person. Bitcoin is way easier to be moved around in much smaller quantities - you can't pay with 0.0000001$, can you?

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

The global wealth disparity doesn't have to be a thing. It's only defeatist propaganda you've been fed that makes you believe so. Similar to how creating a currency not owned by a central bank is not a thing that caught on until bitcoin. People who earn their money are not the issue, one could argue maybe they pay more taxes etc. but thats to be decided. The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting.

This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest.

This doesn't even make sense. Bitcoin solves nothing about wealth disparity. Bitcoin is just another asset like everything else, that you cannot acquire unless you already have wealth. There are exactly two ways to acquire wealth on an individual level: 1) you acquire it from someone who has it, or 2) you acquire it through economic participation. Bitcoin changes exactly zero of these possibilities.

What the OP said does make sense, if we honestly if ignore the amount of BTC someone accumulated while we put into consideration the decentralization aspect of Bitcoin which make the voice every individual count we can say Bitcoin solve the issue of wealth disparity. An example of what 20kevin20 said "BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most." cause the community are in control of the Bitcoin platform.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Rather than complaining about being poor, these people should work hard for a living. I am someone who works for almost 70 hours per week and I find it strange when lazy people complain about their poverty. I pay my taxes to the government, while these free-loaders receive their handouts from that money. And don't make any assumptions. I am no way near rich.. I can't even afford a four-wheeler. Still I never complain about my financial condition. I have worked hard over the years to improve my standard of living.

On the other hand, some of my neighbors have 7-8 kids each and they don't do any work. But these people receive free housing, electricity, cooking has and cash handouts from the governments. My family doesn't receive any of that, because I am a tax payer. And after all this, there is a section among the free-loaders who are not satisfied with what they get.

[zanezane]

Rather than complaining about being poor, these people should work hard for a living. I am someone who works for almost 70 hours per week and I find it strange when lazy people complain about their poverty. I pay my taxes to the government, while these free-loaders receive their handouts from that money. And don't make any assumptions. I am no way near rich.. I can't even afford a four-wheeler. Still I never complain about my financial condition. I have worked hard over the years to improve my standard of living.

On the other hand, some of my neighbors have 7-8 kids each and they don't do any work. But these people receive free housing, electricity, cooking has and cash handouts from the governments. My family doesn't receive any of that, because I am a tax payer. And after all this, there is a section among the free-loaders who are not satisfied with what they get.

Easy for you to say but people have a lot of differences, if hardwork was the answer, how come there are still people out there? Why is still homelessness is a problem. Sure, lazy people are an exception but if you think about it, it is pretty offensive to the people who are trying their best to earn money to survive, don't invalidate their struggles cause they are not you. This is not just a problem that only the individuals need to solve, the government should intervene if they want to destroy poverty, the big solution is to improve education and not just any education but an education that does not make factory workers or passive workers, we also should introduce sex education, it is already 21st century and people change, we are now comfortable about it. And if you are so mad about free loaders, can you not pay your taxes then so they wouldn't get your money?

[davis196]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

Taking a look at some of the most likely coins to become a global currency at the moment:



USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

Stop writing BS.The US dollar is a truly global currency.
The Chinese have always accepted US dollars.China export goods worth billions of dollars to the USA every year.China was buying US government bonds worth billions of dollars every year.You are so wrong.
The global wealth disparity will continue to be a problem until the very end of human civilization.
We can't solve this problem with the financial system.It doesn't matter,if the system is based on fiat or cryptocurrencies-the wealth inequality will continue forever.
A decentralized financial system won't redistribute wealth across more people.Such system will just improve the security and efficiency of all financial transactions.

[AniviaBtc]

The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.

Let's face the reality that someone will become rich and someone will suffer from poverty depending on his hard-work.

We really need to be patient, and determined to escape poverty and make our lives much more successful and happy.

Global Wealth Disparity is forever, life works that way. The essence of working is to earn money and survive our daily lives, to buy our wants and to buy our needs in life. That's the reason why bitcoin existed, to have another currency and also to make people have a good asset or investment. That's why communism is really not a good idea because people will settle on relying on other people which is wrong.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

Looks like you have no idea what you are talking about, China has the largest reserves of foreign funds and they have around $3.4 trillion as per the data published last year and you are claiming that they will never accept the dollar  . Currency throughout history was centralized, a government or a king creates the currency to conduct trade and this is nothing new and USD is the global currency used in trade by majority of the country.

[youdacapt]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

Taking a look at some of the most likely coins to become a global currency at the moment:



USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

Dogecoin- A fun coin and with stable development but with pow it has the same issues as btc and if they moved to pos they'd still have the same issue due to these rich lists:

(European/Russian currencies): All still held by the same people whose ancestors were friends with the king/czar since trickle down doesn't work and there is not as many "new rich" as the america's

I can only see how a currency that is globally owned could become globally accepted.

People normally purport btc's wealth centralization as a reason to buy but at 7 billion users following this trend 1 billion people would have less than 0.0000001 BTC each....that's a greater wealth divide than we currently have with even USD. I can't imagine a world where the 100 people with large btc balances aren't hunted down by the billions of poor if that was the case.

TheGreatReset.Finance

I think for a start the USD is a globally accepted currency by everyone in the world except CHINA. China deciding not to pair with usd does not mean it is completely private and centralized.

Either bitcoin, etherum or doge; just as your bank network messes up whenever there is network congestion and transaction at the same time; this tokens would also experience the same (and this is why there are high gas fees); alternatives are with crypto you can always fasten up transactions at any time, but centralized banking never guarantees that bearish or bullish.

[20kevin20]

Rather than complaining about being poor, these people should work hard for a living. I am someone who works for almost 70 hours per week and I find it strange when lazy people complain about their poverty.

No offense but this sounds silly, especially since we are mainly talking about the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor ones that do not have a choice. It is one thing to be lazy and poor and it is another thing to work like a slave (literally) for corporations, earning a living in crappy conditions and having no other choice but to continue this way.

The latter, those who work like slaves for pure survival, are the ones I count - not the lazy part of the society. They are working their asses off earning in one month less than I earn in BTC per week right now. It's unfair, but the gap will only get wider.

[Vatimins]

     The title of the topic itself is quite confusing but I get what you are saying. Thee truly is a need for acceptance for this world and less differences because of ego and grudges. The world badly needs unity and all these can only start with the leaders themselves. If they do not do anything about these issues, nothing good will ever happen with this world.

     And about the last part of your post, it is pretty hard to understand. The division you are stating is pretty impossible to happen, and if it ever does, it may not even work. Just imagine buying with that amount given, what would your change be? And dividing it that way, what if they spend it? Are they still eligible for another dividend? Maybe I'm just a bit close minded or limited in imagining what you are envisioning but I really don't thinf the idea itaelf would work.

[FanEagle]

The US dollar is a truly global currency.
The Chinese have always accepted US dollars.China export goods worth billions of dollars to the USA every year.China was buying US government bonds worth billions of dollars every year.You are so wrong.
The global wealth disparity will continue to be a problem until the very end of human civilization.
We can't solve this problem with the financial system.It doesn't matter,if the system is based on fiat or cryptocurrencies-the wealth inequality will continue forever.
A decentralized financial system won't redistribute wealth across more people.Such system will just improve the security and efficiency of all financial transactions.

Well, you have said two very different things and they are not always relevant to each other. USD being a world true currency and China accepting USD are two very different things, doesn't mean both are right or wrong, doesn't mean they have to be same or different, I just mean that they are not the same thing.

Just to give you an example so that we can understand what I am saying better; let's assume china accepts USD, and of course USA uses USD but NO other nation ever uses USD, everyone decided that they will never accept USD again, as you can see that would make USD not a global money, but still China uses it, or let's say China decides that they will never accept USD ever again, but the whole rest of the world loves using it, that makes USD a global currency but not used by china. So, basically when you say China uses it that doesn't make it global and just because it is global doesn't mean china has to use it. That's all I am trying to say.

[bryant.coleman]

Rather than complaining about being poor, these people should work hard for a living. I am someone who works for almost 70 hours per week and I find it strange when lazy people complain about their poverty.

No offense but this sounds silly, especially since we are mainly talking about the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor ones that do not have a choice. It is one thing to be lazy and poor and it is another thing to work like a slave (literally) for corporations, earning a living in crappy conditions and having no other choice but to continue this way.

The latter, those who work like slaves for pure survival, are the ones I count - not the lazy part of the society. They are working their asses off earning in one month less than I earn in BTC per week right now. It's unfair, but the gap will only get wider.

The answer lies in your question. How come you are able to earn so much from Bitcoin, while others despite their hard work are able to earn much less? When I started with Bitcoin in 2012, I hardly knew anything about it. Despite that, I tried to enhance my cryptocurrency skills. Within two years, I was earning around BTC2 per month. If the poor want to improve their lives then they need to learn new skills. It is not the responsibility of the rich to teach them these skills. They have to learn it on their own. So the next time when someone complains about low wages, ask him to improve his skill set and then search for a better job.

You don't have a choice, only if you are handicapped or affected by a condition which makes it impossible for you to learn new skills. Other than that, it is just silly excuses to get handouts.

[Mauser]

Why is every currency so centralized? By doing this, none of them can become global currencies.

Taking a look at some of the most likely coins to become a global currency at the moment:



USD- Chinese will never accept it since it is printed indefinitely by USA

The problem we have at the moment is that no country would accept a foreign currency as the global currency. You say that China will never accept USD as the main currency world wide, but the same goes for Europe or Russia. All of these countries would want to see their own currency on top. While in Asia the Chinese currency might be very popular, there is no chance in the world to see Western Countries adopting the Chinese currency as number 1 either. As long as the control of the money supply within in the hand of one government we won't see a global currency.

[Cnut237]

Id like to point out to people here that the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is complete bull shit. [...] history wise the last 150 years is INSANE wealth generation for just about everyone.

^{[CITATION NEEDED]}


Income inequality has risen dramatically over the last half century, and continues to do so. I've chosen an income chart below, but that isn't even the main driver of inequality. Return on capital is the biggest issue. The richer you are, the better the investment opportunities you have, and the more your existing wealth grows. If rate of return on capital can exceed rate of economic growth, and in the absence of a wealth tax, then 'rich get richer' is inevitable. Meanwhile, 1 in 3 people don't have access to safe drinking water.


_{https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality#:~:text=Inequality%20in%20the%20US%20has,experience%20of%20other%20OECD%20countries.}

[Nhazwrath]

The problem with the Statement is in it's Framing.  By saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer you are in effect altering the perspective of the question and the answer.   I didn't disagree that the rich are rich what I disagree with is the poor being poor.  I am in no way going to attempt to compare a socialist hell hole to a first world nation.   Your chart probably does that without even telling you that it does. 

When in the history of humanity have the poor been Fat? You are comparing the poor to the rich how is this a good comparison?   Maybe you should be comparing the poor to the poor? and the rich to the rich?  How about the poor to the poor IN a socialist hell hole from 100 years ago to now?

You might think that well that improvement is just technology or something.   Lets Not forget How that technology came about and where is came from!

So I stand by my statement.  It's Bullcrap.  Cowpaddies  Horseturds.

The future is brighter then ever.  Envy is part of the problem. 

Be happy with what you Have, With a Eye on what you want!   This statement will improve yourself and everyone else's condition incrementally and is in action right now. 

[jostorres]

The problem we have at the moment is that no country would accept a foreign currency as the global currency. You say that China will never accept USD as the main currency world wide, but the same goes for Europe or Russia. All of these countries would want to see their own currency on top. While in Asia the Chinese currency might be very popular, there is no chance in the world to see Western Countries adopting the Chinese currency as number 1 either. As long as the control of the money supply within in the hand of one government we won't see a global currency.

I believe there is a "global currency" as in using that for exchanges between nations and that is as accepted and understandable as it gets. If you are talking about going to a grocery shop and buying with one currency all over the world, that is not going to happen, shops will not accept just one currency all over the world, but when we are talking about huge companies making huge deals, and they do use dollars there which could be "global currency" considering how big their deals are but that is just business to business and not in our regular lives.

So, we could probably talk about having a decent amount of crypto places, that is not going to be accepted everywhere neither, but at least it could get bigger than all other fiat currencies. However this is not going to be one day we wake up and find it like that thing, it is going to take decades and we need to fix some problems bitcoin has in order to get there.

[Cnut237]

what I disagree with is the poor being poor.  I am in no way going to attempt to compare a socialist hell hole to a first world nation. [...]

When in the history of humanity have the poor been Fat? You are comparing the poor to the rich how is this a good comparison?

Certainly standards of living are in general rising around the globe as a historical trend. I'm not arguing against this point, rather I'm saying that I don't think this should be used to suggest that inequality doesn't matter.

During 2020, Elon Musk increased his personal wealth by $140 billion. Meanwhile 400,000 people die of malaria each year, who could be saved by a $2 insectidal net. We can't conclude from this that the poor are in general getting richer, therefore wealth distribution is irrelevant.

But sticking to developed nations, and your point around weight, there is certainly an argument that poorer people can only afford cheaper foodstuffs, which tends to be calorie-heavy junk food. Yes, most people can afford basic sustenance, but even then there is the issue of increased foodbank use.


_{https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/}

And there are other indicators that poverty is worsening, the ratio of house price to income being an obvious example (chart below for the UK since the 1960s). Even anecdotally, a generation ago many family households had a single wage-earner, and an 'average' job provided sufficient remuneration, whereas nowadays the trend is towards households having both parents working as a single income stream is no longer sufficient to keep above the poverty line. The key driver of this trend being increasing inequality. "Trickle-down" is a myth perpetuated by the elite.

[Nhazwrath]

I'd like to point out that the 2 income necessary part is due to several factors. One of them being women demanding jobs equal pay.   With the close to doubling the available workforce you had a huge purchase power increase and the results are (what the market will bear), prices. 

Houses.  The idea that people always got a brand new house is a new one and pushed by good marketing.   Go back to history again and you will find that the norm is multi generation families in the same house.  A lot of time in the same room. 

The number of Malaria deaths has been dropping for years and there are vaccines on the horizon for it Mostly pushed by that guy everyone loves to hate Bill Gates I may not like him either but if he gets the vaccine done without getting paid for it....that's a so called 1%er for you doing bad things....

And Elon I don't think is even pursuing wealth, wealth is happening to him due to what he is doing.  He is a great example of why you need to leave people like him alone. hes dragging  4 industries 30 years forward, yes 4 of them.  Rockets, Cars, Satellites (and everything that goes with that) and possibly a human machine interface.   

The real question here isn't that there is income in equality.   

The real question Should be Why Are there extremely successful people?

Real income equality is a argument that says somehow despite all evidence that there needs to be equality in income(or outcome).   When reality has proven multiple times that this leads to rather bad things.  The universe clearly isn't built for equality if this was so there would only be hydrogen. maybe not even that.  It functions at all due to things being Unequal.

Lets move on to brain biology for a sec.   The human brain attempts to be efficient in energy usage. Its large and uses a lot of calories,  So it tends to edit itself to save power.  This is called neuro plasticity  So if the brain finds a short cut in its thinking, it Really wants to keep it.  Its 100% unconscious. This leads to all Kinds of long term problems.  So you've learned something that works short term but isn't very long term good.   Its hard to unlearn it, it gets worse as you get older.  Ever tried teaching a older person something new?  The usual response is "I don't need to learn that what I have got works".   Now, you CAN get people to learn new things if they are fairly intelligent to begin with.   What if they aren't?  Then its a fight.  A fight you'll lose.  Lets use a recent meme quote (they can remain retarded longer then you can remain solvent)  That right there is why they tend to get ignored.  No one has time. No on wants to be dragged in to the chaos of attempting to teach an adult child.

So this leaves a problem with people appearing to be stupid. How do you fix that problem?  That's a serious one and is Probably part of the real one.   

Again, not why are there poor people,  we know why.    Why are there rich people at all?

[Cnut237]

~

I don't think we'll ever agree, but I want to point out that I do enjoy the discussion.

Real income equality is a argument that says somehow despite all evidence that there needs to be equality in income(or outcome).   When reality has proven multiple times that this leads to rather bad things.

I'll also mention that I agree with this point. Absolute equality of income/outcome is a terrible idea, is grossly unfair, hampers innovation, ennervates drive, subdues talent and, as you point out, history demonstrates this quite clearly. I favour instead (the impossible dream of) equality of opportunity, where people aren't held back because they happen to be born in a poor country or a poor area of a rich country, and where people born rich aren't propelled into positions of authority simply because of their name. I do think that inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed, wealth inequality more than income inequality because elite income is derived largely from existing wealth. Talented people, hard workers, visionary entrepreneurs deserve to be wealthier, I'm not disputing that, even in some cases much wealthier... I just think that the excesses should be reined in a bit through more effective progressive taxation, and specifically a wealth tax. You mentioned in a previous post Bill Gates turning his attention, wealth and considerable talents towards the common good - this is laudable, and I'm a big fan. But he's an outlier amongst the ultra rich. In general, deciding whose lives get to be saved shouldn't be the preserve of individual billionaires, but rather of democratically elected governments and international not-for-profit bodies. Let someone have millions of dollars if he's earned it, fine, but maybe when it gets to a hundred billion we should be thinking it's a little obscene.

[Nhazwrath]

I am enjoying the discussion.  I am also aware that there is lots of things that appear unfair.  and there are absolutely things that Are actually unfair. 

Research golden rice.   that right there will help a lot more

My entire point isn't even really about income. its about wealth which isn't the same thing at all.   Humanity all of it despite the point about income disparity, is getting wealthier at a rate that's Stunning in comparison to the entire human history  Right Now.   The focus about income disparity is a distraction designed to make you upset and engage with bad actors.(who may or may not even be aware they are bad actors)

And Despite all of humanity's flaws and evil self destructive tendencies  We are still improving.  Some of those paths will be wrong some will be right. 

[Gozie51]

And Despite all of humanity's flaws and evil self destructive tendencies  We are still improving.  Some of those paths will be wrong some will be right.  

I look those human flaws from the area of government. IMO the government is the greater factor of wealth disparity. Every government have a set of people that they favour either directly by award of contracts or employment of the families of those at the corridor of power. They also indirectly favour some by throwing out some policies which will crumple some businesses and small growing businesses to show a light to another kind of business because of the policy, of course the saying that: when one door closes, another opens. That is exactly how wealth disparity is created as government continues to change hands. However, it is mainly for those who can easily metamorphose and change their course of direction as government changes policy but those who are weak or does not have the political and financial capacity, crumbles by the road side (is a survival race or fittest race).

In Nigeria as an example, the banning of crypto related accounts will definitely affect operators and bank owners may have more money at the main time that monies may be kept in banks (as interest) growing from it pending when the crypto operators decide what to do. So at the point, some other business may start growing because of the ban like P2P which gives other people business opportunity.

[wxa7115]

That is the thing, for all the criticism that capitalism receives the truth is that we have made great progress during the last decades and there are less poor all around the world, but it seems people want to live in an Utopia and that is not possible, there is always going to be those that have more and those that have less.

And then in order to correct this problem people decide to enact communism, or similar economic systems, that makes most people equal but not by rising their living standards but by decreasing them to the point many of those same people lament the fact capitalism is no longer in place but by the time they realize this it is too late.

The problem is that there are a lot of lazy and greedy people who decide that if there are richer people, then for some reason they should share with people like them. This has always been and is being used by dirty politicians, such as Lenin, Stalin if we talk about (the USSR), whose goal is to create an army of slaves from lazy and greedy people. They were not promised "you will work and make yourself a fortune", they were promised - "we will destroy the rich, and then everything will be free, and everyone can take whatever he needs." By the way, this correlates well with history - such regimes were actively created in the 19th and 20th centuries, when there were many poor countries, and significantly decreased by the end of the 20th century, when the average living standard in many countries increased significantly.
I'll finish - I'm against feeding embittered lazy people. Want to live well - earn it!

You're preaching to the choir, wealth disparity is always going to exist, it's nothing new and I do not see it ever disappearing, however we have made great progress during this century but people instead of looking at their improved living standards compared to what was available 100 years ago they see that someone else can buy a luxury car and they think it is unfair that they have to drive their car that is not as expensive but that can do 99% of what that luxury car can do.

This is why I have always believed that movements like communism and other similar ideologies are always based on envy, some people cannot just take that someone else has more money, is better good-looking, more talented or that can do whatever other thing better than them and they prefer to destroy those people rather than to accept that fact.