Are bitcoiners better people than the current rich?

[jbreher]

This is a rather tough question. When bitcoin shoots the moon, many early participants will become very wealthy. While that is good for early bitcoiners, we cannot ignore the fact that this newfound wealth is the result of a wealth _transfer_. Overall wealth is not increased, we are just transferring that wealth from fiat-holders to bicoin-holders. Others will lose so bitcoiners will gain.

Does this make Bitcoin no more noble than fiat? I say nay. The transfer of wealth to bitcoin-holders will be completely voluntary. In contrast, the transfer of wealth to fiat-holders that has previously occurred, has occurred through the violence of coercive government and the legalized thefts called 'inflation', 'partial reserve banking', and 'seigniorage'.

[jbreher]

Meanwhile in the off-topic section we have threads like what would you do if you had a million dollars and most of the answers are like:  "Yachts, Cocaine, Hookers".

Not to say the elite can't engage in those vices but last I check most of them put up the front of a traditional marriage with children.

I might venture to guess that is as much a result of the self-selected age demographic than any other inherent bitcoin/fiat difference.

I hasten to add that there is nothing inherently immoral about yachts, cocaine, nor hookers.

[jbreher]

Incidentally, it was international banking policies that drove Greece to the precipice of ruin. To claim that the bankster-schemed bail-in was their godsend is rather specious.

[Ruthful]

I hasten to add that there is nothing inherently immoral about yachts, cocaine, nor hookers.

The last part seems rather dubious to me.

[Stedsm]

The distribution on wealth in the bitcoin economy is even worse than the current fiat problem! Even less than 1% own a massive part of bitcoin.

[brian_23452]

I don't believe that power corrupts, I believe that the corrupt get into power - and power reveals their internal corruption.

What do you think of this quote?

Idealists and entrepreneurs gave us much of the internet and social media; now many of them are working on crypto-currencies

http://www.sibos.com/media/news/beyond-bitcoin

1.  Poverty predates money.  As far as I can think of, every single society that has ever existed, since there have been what we call societies, have had a small wealthy elite control a much larger, poor\middle class\whatever you want to call it.  It isn't a bitcoin thing, or a fiat thing, or a currency thing in general. 

2.  In order for there to be a wealthy elite, there must be a working poor.  For one thing, if a small, wealthy elite is going to be able to syphon off wealth without producing, that wealth has to come from somewhere else.  But more importantly, if we all have the same amount of wealth, I can't very well pay you to do my work for me now can I? 

3.  Considering that this inevitably happens all over, in every society that has ever existed, I think it is fairly obvious a basic characteristic of humanity itself, and not some condition that only effects a small minority of people. 

[itsAj]

I don't believe anyone is better than any other person it is all to do with environment and how you are raised with morals etc. Bitcoin focuses itself on exploratory ideas and freedoms.

[bababooey]

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't a better person than the current rich.

[Lauda]

Well you can't look at all bitcoiners since there are more of them than rich people (the recent list gives you a number).
If you pick out a handful of people here, they are most likely better than most if not all of the current rich people.

[jbreher]

I hasten to add that there is nothing inherently immoral about yachts, cocaine, nor hookers.

The last part seems rather dubious to me.

No, immoral behavior would be advocating the use of the violence of the state in order to prevent (or punish) purely consensual behaviors.

[Ruthful]

No, immoral behavior would be advocating the use of the violence of the state in order to prevent (or punish) purely consensual behaviors.

Depend or not you consider destroying your body with harmful substance or engaging in a denigrating and sexist trade "morally  acceptable".But I guess it's really up to you. IMO, I always thought paying for sex is quite pathetic, regardless of the moral debate concerning the purported profession.

[jbreher]

No, immoral behavior would be advocating the use of the violence of the state in order to prevent (or punish) purely consensual behaviors.

Depend or not you consider destroying your body with harmful substance or engaging in a denigrating and sexist trade "morally  acceptable".

To me, anything that is purely consensual is moral. OTOH, using the violence of the state to prevent someone from engaging in consensual behavior is clearly immoral.

But I guess it's really up to you. IMO, I always thought paying for sex is quite pathetic, regardless of the moral debate concerning the purported profession.

While I've never paid for sex (at least in monetary, prostitution sort of meaning), I don't find it pathetic. Is it pathetic to pay the staff at the auto oil change place for the professional service they render?

[Ruthful]

Is it pathetic to pay the staff at the auto oil change place for the professional service they render?

Is that  what kids these days call hookers now

[Wary]

When bitcoin shoots the moon, many early participants will become very wealthy. While that is good for early bitcoiners, we cannot ignore the fact that this newfound wealth is the result of a wealth _transfer_. Overall wealth is not increased, we are just transferring that wealth from fiat-holders to bicoin-holders.

Yes, some wealth transfer will happen. But major wealth of bitcoiners will come not from wealth transfer, but from wealth creation. Economy is not a zero-sum game, right? Bitcoin as a payment system is an institution of huge value. This value is being created right now and getting distributed between coinholders. Just like wealth of Google stockholders is result of value creation, rather than wealth transfer.

[jbreher]

When bitcoin shoots the moon, many early participants will become very wealthy. While that is good for early bitcoiners, we cannot ignore the fact that this newfound wealth is the result of a wealth _transfer_. Overall wealth is not increased, we are just transferring that wealth from fiat-holders to bicoin-holders.

Yes, some wealth transfer will happen. But major wealth of bitcoiners will come not from wealth transfer, but from wealth creation. Economy is not a zero-sum game, right? Bitcoin as a payment system is an institution of huge value. This value is being created right now and getting distributed between coinholders. Just like wealth of Google stockholders is result of value creation, rather than wealth transfer.

You seem to imply that the monetary value of Bitcoin will never be much greater than the sum of the value of the financial services of the network. I disagree. In any shoot the moon scenario whatsoever, the monetary value will completely dwarf the financial services value.

The financial services value is indeed a wealth created. However, the monetary value is wealth transferred. Ergo, as the monetary value dwarfs the financials services value, the vast majority of Bitcoin wealth will be wealth sucked away from fiat holders into the pockets of the Bitcoin holders.

If the financial services value of the network dominates, Bitcoin will have failed spectacularly as a money.

[Wary]

When bitcoin shoots the moon, many early participants will become very wealthy. While that is good for early bitcoiners, we cannot ignore the fact that this newfound wealth is the result of a wealth _transfer_. Overall wealth is not increased, we are just transferring that wealth from fiat-holders to bicoin-holders.

Yes, some wealth transfer will happen. But major wealth of bitcoiners will come not from wealth transfer, but from wealth creation. Economy is not a zero-sum game, right? Bitcoin as a payment system is an institution of huge value. This value is being created right now and getting distributed between coinholders. Just like wealth of Google stockholders is result of value creation, rather than wealth transfer.

You seem to imply that the monetary value of Bitcoin will never be much greater than the sum of the value of the financial services of the network. I disagree. In any shoot the moon scenario whatsoever, the monetary value will completely dwarf the financial services value.

The financial services value is indeed a wealth created. However, the monetary value is wealth transferred. Ergo, as the monetary value dwarfs the financials services value, the vast majority of Bitcoin wealth will be wealth sucked away from fiat holders into the pockets of the Bitcoin holders.

If the financial services value of the network dominates, Bitcoin will have failed spectacularly as a money.

What is the (future) value of bitcoin financial services? I'm not sure how to measure it, but there must be some ways to estimate it. For example, Austrians believe that  business cycles are caused by current financial system. If true, then value of new financial system should include cost of busts/depressions/stagnations it's preventing.  How much the dotcom crash did cost? How much the Great Depression did cost? And the following (and partly caused by it) WWII?

[Wary]

You seem to imply that the monetary value of Bitcoin will never be much greater than the sum of the value of the financial services of the network. I disagree. In any shoot the moon scenario whatsoever, the monetary value will completely dwarf the financial services value.

Apart from bubble crashes and wars we can try to estimate the other component of bitcoin financial services value: regular (in/de)flation.
Fiat inflation is around 3%. What would be bitcoin inflation? After a couple of halvings bitcoin emission will reach 2%pa. But if it replaces fiat, the demand will grow at a rate of world GDP, which is, say 7%. So bitcoin purchasing power will grow at about 5% after following halvings going to 7%. That is instead a dollar that goes down 3% pa, user will have bitcoin that goes up 7% pa. That's 10% pa difference. Which capital gives such profit? For an average person real, inflation adjusted investment is 5%. 10/5=2. That is it's the same as if for each dollar you exchange for bitcoin you would get, as a bonus, two "virtual" dollars that give you 5%pa each.

tl;dr: At the switch from fiat to bitcoin, wealth created will be twice as big as wealth transferred. (And it's just a part of total Bitcoin payment system value).

[jbreher]

What is the (future) value of bitcoin financial services? I'm not sure how to measure it, but there must be some ways to estimate it. For example, Austrians believe that  business cycles are caused by current financial system. If true, then value of new financial system should include cost of busts/depressions/stagnations it's preventing.  How much the dotcom crash did cost? How much the Great Depression did cost? And the following (and partly caused by it) WWII?

I don't think we need an in-depth analysis to show that the wealth creation due to bitcoin financial services will be dwarfed by the wealth represented by the monetary value of bitcoin. Let me try another route.

The bitcoin financial services are the arteries through which bitcoin monetary value flows. Yes, it takes capital - human and resources - to create these arteries. In the process of this creation, the value of the resulting financial services will -- if intelligently implemented -- exceed the value of the human and resources capital that went into their creation. IOW, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It is this difference that is the wealth created by the bitcoin financial services. This wealth will be earned and enjoyed by the people that create these services.

But all this is for naught if there is not a much greater pool of bitcoin, that will flow through these arteries.

In any scenario where bitcoin 'succeeds' in any meaningful measure, there will be a much greater number of people who passively use bitcoin -- to store value and/or to use as a medium of exchange -- than the number of people who create the aforementioned arteries. These passive users of bitcoin, should they HODL more than spend in the early days (years), will be the beneficiaries of a great transfer of wealth from fiat holders.

If the bitcoin wealth owned by the passive users does not completely dominate the created wealth of the bitcoin financial services buildout, then the entire system is woefully inefficient. IOW, it has failed spectacularly in its claimed mission to be a money.

I rather think it fail succeed spectacularly. I will harbor no guilt about the fact that I was early to detect the seeming inevitability of this great transfer of wealth.

Your fiat doom scenarios, while instructive, seem to me to be tangential (or maybe I have not yet seen the relevance). These problems are all self-inflicted by the fiat system, which repeatedly confuses an increase in the currency used to measure wealth (ignoring the subsequent devaluation) for an increase in actual wealth.

[jbreher]

You seem to imply that the monetary value of Bitcoin will never be much greater than the sum of the value of the financial services of the network. I disagree. In any shoot the moon scenario whatsoever, the monetary value will completely dwarf the financial services value.

Apart from bubble crashes and wars we can try to estimate the other component of bitcoin financial services value: regular (in/de)flation.
Fiat inflation is around 3%. What would be bitcoin inflation? After a couple of halvings bitcoin emission will reach 2%pa. But if it replaces fiat, the demand will grow at a rate of world GDP, which is, say 7%. So bitcoin purchasing power will grow at about 5% after following halvings going to 7%. That is instead a dollar that goes down 3% pa, user will have bitcoin that goes up 7% pa. That's 10% pa difference. Which capital gives such profit? For an average person real, inflation adjusted investment is 5%. 10/5=2. That is it's the same as if for each dollar you exchange for bitcoin you would get, as a bonus, two "virtual" dollars that give you 5%pa each.

tl;dr: At the switch from fiat to bitcoin, wealth created will be twice as big as wealth transferred. (And it's just a part of total Bitcoin payment system value).

I disagree. You seem to be conflating currency movements with wealth movements. Currency is just a flexible measure of wealth. Yes, the bitcoin holders will enjoy a comparative purchasing power advantage over the fiat holders. But the amount of actual wealth (e.g. tangible goods, services, resources, and other capital) is not affected by such relative currency movements.

Due to this, your example is an example of wealth transfer, not of wealth creation.

[bornil267645]

it still depends on the people who own the currency. Because he's the that will evaluate himself to the society, in a good way or bad way.