Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230528215550/https://cryptofor...

Okay, well this is not what I initially suspected, it's a program to allow people with crypto to donate to volunteers who are going out on the streets and offering food and care packages to the homeless. This seems good.

For some additional discussion context I looked up the platform from the Oakland Homeless Advocacy Working Group:

https://www.shelteroak.org/hawg.html

I wanted to provide a summary but I realize I am late and need to head out. Taking a quick look, it seems that the latter group is focused more on legal measures to legalize encampments and work on supportive infrastructure and city-provided resources for these groups. I am sure that a combination of direct volunteer support and broader legal efforts can go hand in hand in supporting people without traditional housing.

View on HN

It was pretty cool when this was going on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapple_Fund

Wow thanks for this summary. I need to go redirect some snark now.

Okay, well what did you think it was, giving cryptocurrency directly to homeless people?

It would make sense. Kind of.

One of the many problems with the banks is that they may require you have an address you call home, in order to open, and keep, a bank account.

Bitcoin can, among other things, bank the unbanked.

Too bad grocery stores, and most other businesses, don’t accept Bitcoin as payment.

And keep in mind, many people are homeless without being drug users. So even buying drugs, which is one of the things Bitcoin is most suited for, is not super helpful to many homeless people.

Anyway. If giving Bitcoin to the homeless does not help them, it’s nice to see that there is a way that Bitcoin can be used for helping the homeless directly. Namely by donations which can be turned into foods and other things given directly to the homeless.

> Bitcoin can, among other things, bank the unbanked.

> Too bad grocery stores, and most other businesses, don’t accept Bitcoin as payment.

This means that Bitcoin cannot bank the unbanked (and it never could).

I also wonder how you would "bank the unbanked" by requiring them to have an internet-connected smartphone to even be able to be banked by Bitcoin.

Edit Smartphone or other internet connected device

> requiring them to have an internet-connected smartphone to even be able to be banked by Bitcoin

An internet connection is not required to hold a private key. A hardware wallet would probably make the most sense.

And they would be able to acquire that hardware wallet and get money into it how exactly?

And how would you create a transaction without access to internet or a fairly modern device?

one party has to have an internet connection, eventually.

you can trade signed transactions around like a file for a long time and then someone else goes to the internet cafe to bulk upload eventually.

no different than the practice of bundling credit card transactions together to reduce static fees, or settling a bunch of checks at the end of some time interval. it is a temporary trusted environment in all of those systems including bitcoin, no big deal. keep track of anybody whose payment failed.

bitcoin transactions can be signed and traded where only one party has an internet connection.

bitcoin transactions can be signed and traded where neither party has an internet connection.

it just has to be broadcast and added to the chain eventually. so even in a world without ubiquitous internet this concept doesn't go away, it will always exist in some form or anybody can recreate it or perpetuate a blockchain that has fallen into disuse.

"Just" needs to be bundled (who will do that?), "just needs to be broadcast", "just"...

At this point it's much easier and cheaper to open a bank account for every homeless person.

Other points: Some of the points, and others, covered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=36547210

The original comment was about giving cryptocurrency to the homeless. So you would give them a wallet with a private key. A benefactor could send that money to the wallet, no internet connection for the recipient required.

The original comment was about banking the unbanked.

With all the piles of would-bes, and justs, and perhaps in this thread (an inevitability in any crypto discussion) these pretend benefactors could just open bank accounts for the homeless, and it would be actually cheaper, and more beneficial.

See also other points: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=36547210

You said something wrong and I corrected it. That's all.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/homeless-not...

Smartphones are essential in daily life to many people, even if they happen to be homeless.

Hopefully in most countries it is possible to have an internet connection even if you don’t have a home address. I.e that even if no one lets you buy a mobile subscription it will still be possible to have prepaid SIM cards in your country. And that some of those prepaid providers do not require that you have a home address.

> Smartphones are essential in daily life to many people, even if they happen to be homeless.

Yes they are, and that is increasingly a problem. Especially for the unemployed and the homeless. Because you're required to have a relatively expensive gadget with good internet connection just to barely function within society.

Smartphones start at $20.

Urban areas where most homeless people are are blanketed with wifi.

1. Can those smarphones run the necessary software?

2. You're tying people to the whims of internet availability

3. (not yet discussed: main reason for being unbanked is not enough money to even cover the initial required balance)

4. (not yet discussed: bitcoin transaction fees)

But sure, do tell me how great Bitcoin is for "banking the unbanked": since we already increasingly exclude people by requiring them to have internet-connected smartphones what's another such requirement which is additionally also much more expensive for all transactions.

> Because you're required to have a relatively expensive gadget with good internet connection just to barely function within society.

In most urban areas, every fast food establishment, public library, coffee shop, grocery store and convenience store has Wi-Fi.

As long as a device has Wi-Fi and a free Google Voice or a dozen other VoIP apps, you don't even need cell service most of the time.

Some of the points, and others, covered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=36547210

You just carry around a QR code of your key, hand it to the merchant to conduct the transaction, and they promise not to make a copy of it.

Bitcoin can bank the unbanked, but only the very wealthy unbanked. For example, if you are a wealthy person in a country that is being heavily sanctioned, or if you are a wealthy person making a lot of hidden money from crime, your money is effectively unbanked, and Bitcoin is an excellent solution to that problem for you.

In Africa, where banks are rare, cellphones are used as a substitute. (https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2019/8/13/mobile-phones-ar...)

In the U.S., many (most?) who are homeless still manage to have cellphones.

Around the time of the $20K bubble, I asked a convenience store clerk if anyone actually used the Bitcoin ATM they featured. He said there were 2 distinct groups: Rich-looking, post-middle-aged dudes with fancy cars and homeless people.

The homeless used it because the banks refused to service them and sleeping on the street with cash in your socks is dangerous. That made the volatility and fees involved in cycling dollars in and out of a Bitcoin ATM look like great deal relative to their lack of options before.

Personally I thought it was cryptography at first and was even more confused.

Yes.

This is crypto we're talking about here, there's really no guardrails.

Yes, which I would have thought was misguided. As an outsider, we have seen so many asinine crypto projects in the last few years I am quite jaded about the whole thing.

Okay, well at least it is a charity that might do some good and help people.

When NFTs were hot, we made one that was intentionally tasteless thinking that it could raise awareness for people to donate to effective charities (pretending it was NFTs for needy children, but actually the proceeds from NFTs would go to the Against Malaria Foundation), but never could really get the whole thing right so decided not to launch it.

If anyone has an idea to actually execute that original idea right and do some good net net, here's the website: https://nftsforstarvingchildren.com/

I think making effective use of viral moments is just hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com