Hacker News Reader

Comment by slim | Hacker News Reader

Seems legit to me. It worked. There was no reason for them to want to cash out apart from resistance to change.

Meanwhile whoever donated it is seemingly furthering adoption of it helping solidify the unnecessary increasingly large wealth transfer from later adopters to earlier adopters - a promise where the money is only worth the artificial price if enough of society adopt it to allow early adopters to be made whole again without crashing the price..

So what. That guy helped the poor people, and helped himself even more. However on absolute terms, everyone involved is better off. If you are unhappy on how he did it, maybe you can donate your funds to poor people in a no-strings attached way. I don't see however why that would be much better for society.

He only helped the poor if the MLM-Ponzi scheme doesn't collapse and the poor aren't left holding the bag - which requires the remainder of society to be stupid enough to be the latest adopters, holding the bag, and then giving up a substantial amount of their buying power - in part because they're now competing with the extra money earlier adopters have because of the wealth transfer. Otherwise the poor then have transferred their actual money to earlier adopters who sold them the Bitcoin at an ungrounded-artificial price - which they're not going to get back and their Bitcoin then is arguably worthless, which it becomes when no one's willing to put more money in - or once there's a bank run and there aren't billions of USD in reserve from large institutions to try to counter a crash of future bank runs.

Also, the person, let's say they bought Bitcoin at $100 - and they gave it to them at $20,000 - then what they gave is 5% of that amount - and the full amount is actually realized/then paid for/"donated" by others; sure they potentially gave up 90% of the Bitcoin if they could have even realized a significant amount of that without influencing the price too much.

This is the same argument Facebook made for giving free internet to facebook.com but charging for every other website

There are hidden costs to economically disrupting developing economies even if it's "for the poor people". For facebook, it was decimating any local ISP growth by snatching their market. For this, there could be any other number of normal payment systems that are squashed even as this BTC patron moves on to pumping bitcoin elsewhere.

> For facebook, it was decimating any local ISP growth by snatching their market

When the hated big guys move, there is always the suspect that somehow, somewhere, somebody else could have done it better, or with less externalities or with less publicity or with less branding or in a way that it's local.

It's not the act itself which troubles people. People will always find a way to hate on Zuckerberg, Bezos, Brin or Gates.

Now that Netscape went belly up everybody suddenly imagines a world where if only Microsoft was broken up then we'd all live in a Jetsons type future with flying cars and tubes carrying us around, all thanks to Netscape

If we dismiss all corporate criticism as just another inevitability, then corporations will run unchecked without any criticism. I'm also not sure what Netscape has to do with decimating a developing country's economic infrastructure either.

It's well known that free models, like those of Tom's Shoes, hurt developing economies more than they aid them, so much that even Tom's eventually switched their model.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/one-one-business...

> If we dismiss all corporate criticism as just another inevitability, then corporations will run unchecked without any criticism

Who needs criticism when you are in control of B2 bombers? Let corporations play, let them compete and give them free reign, while remaining chill knowing that you always have the last resort option to tame them: violence in the form of B2 bombers

I'd be worried much more about the public officials who are in control of the aforementioned B2 bombers and should use them for the benefit of Americans.

This is all currency though. The difference is that if you adopted Bitcoin you wouldn’t get poorer as time went on.

You don't seem to understand bitcoin. You're talking about cashing out. Why would anyone cash out from bitcoin? Ok, you get some dollars. What do you do with them? They lose >10% yearly, whereas BTC has gained >200% yearly over the past 10 years.

Instead you hold it. And if you need money you borrow against it.

Likely the poorer people won't be able to save & hold much bitcoin at least in the beginning. But the government can keep their reserves (and pension funds for example) in BTC and thus benefit everybody.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com