Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by IndexCardBox 1691 days ago
Pareto's observations back in 1896 about land ownership in Italy still hold true...
2 comments

Yeah I think this is not really surprising. Why would bitcoin be any different than e.g. wealth more generally.
My understanding is it expends unbelievable quantities of resources pretending otherwise.
Where are people pretending that bitcoin will fix wealth inequality?
I hear this presented as a by-product of bitcoin all the time. People also say it will create world peace.

Here are the first two google searches:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2021/06/15/how-bit...

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-how-bitcoin-can-end-...

In the thread about Bitcoin and Costa Rica posted a few weeks ago.
As an asset not really subject to inflation (AKA tax on the poor), it could be helpful for those of moderate means to protect themselves against losing what little they have.

I've experienced hyperinflation first hand some 25 years ago - it's not fun. I protected myself somewhat by buying (and then gradually selling) dollars, but that won't work if the dollar starts circling down the shitter, which it might.

Going into foreign currencies is also not ideal because they are not legal tender, so you'll have to exit into your local currency, and to protect _themselves_ against inflation the currency exchanges pretty dramatically increase the spread, so you lose some money converting back and forth. BTC is not legal tender either, but it could be used "under the table" in lieu of cash if shit hits the fan, much like silver, gold, or ammo.

With a modicum of lawmaking it could also be used for payments between companies, which in hyper-inflationary economy based on fiat currencies make inflation even worse, because there's a latency between the time the company gets supplies and the time it ships product, and the company must be able to afford the new batch of supplies, so they eyeball what the prices will be, say, 2 weeks from now and set their prices accordingly (and sandbag on top of that as well). Do this 10 times through the supply chain and you get eye watering prices for final product on the shelves. BTC would fix that. It did not exist at the time, so people would barter instead, but that's pretty horrible, since you don't always have the stuff the other side needs, so you end up with horrendous chains of exchanges which fall through from time to time, causing a cascade of problems.

TL;DR: BTC could come in handy when printer goes brrrr.

People who have little, have little to lose in an inflationary environment. People who have any meaningful quantity of means invest them, and any investment other than holding a fist full of cold hard dollars isn't affected by inflation, although its real return may vary depending on how the underlying performs.

Further lower income folks tend to have a disproportionate amount of their net worth in debt instruments, and debt holders win in an inflationary environment.

> TL;DR: BTC could come in handy when printer goes brrrr.

That's not generally speaking what causes hyperinflation. It's caused by the population rejecting the currency.

Actually, no, that's exactly what causes hyperinflation, _by definition_ - a drastic increase in money supply, done to mask the fact that the economy is contracting. You don't go from this [1] to this [2] without the use of a printer.

And there are only so many "assets" you'll be able to buy if there's a run on assets - their prices launch into the stratosphere immediately in this situation, and then they just disappear. Besides, people of moderate means spend a large chunk of their disposable income/savings on necessities: gas, housing, groceries, car repair, healthcare, all of which are going to also launch into the stratosphere in this scenario. Some of them you can cut down on, others not so much. What will happen to the stocks (which most people on this site feel "protected" by owning) I don't even know.

[1] https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/transnistrie/5eb1ed1...

[2] https://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/66/Banknote_5000...

What is “it” in this case?
Bitcoin
Bitcoin is not a unitary rational actor, exhibiting thought or action.
Isn’t it obvious?
It wouldn’t be, but you wouldn’t know that from the hype.
Really? Can you point to any hype from the last, say, 5 years that even hints at thinly spread mining or ownership? Individuals were mining on their PC in its first couple of years, but that ended long ago.
That’s a straw man.

The hype is all about how it’s distributed and nobody controls it, when in practice it’s not much different from conventional money except that those with power are even more hidden.

Its distributedness is still worth something even if only a small number of people control most of it. If they go rogue or get stopped by the government, others can take over. That's quite unlike any centralized system.
haha. i feel like everywhere i look, i see the power law in action.