[lottin]

The point is that the process of bitcoin adoption is in fact a massive huge wealth-redistribution mechanism between adopters. Making people extraordinarily rich just because they were the first to buy a new currency and other people extraordinarily poor just because they were the last isn't probably something most people would agree with.

[pinkybanana]

> just because they were the last isn't probably something most people would agree with.

Most people also don't agree on huge salaries and bonuses for CEO's, in practice the people with money are willing to pay those perks. When people vote with their wallets, does it really matter what the people not voting are going to say?

[lottin]

It certainly matters if you don't want to live in fear for the rest of your life. Because if you think for a minute that the level of violence that would ensue would not be monumental you're kidding yourself.

[incrudible]

I think you are kidding yourself. Throughout history, cleptocracy has been the norm. Uprisings, especially successful ones, have been the exception.

The "you have nothing to lose but your chains"-argument just doesn't work on people who have more than enough junk to fill their stomachs (and brains) with.

[echelon]

CEOs, at least, tend to work at companies that add value to the world. Usually.

Bitcoin adds anonymous violence, increased CO2 emissions, and subtracts brilliant minds that could be working on more important problems.