> Motivation of participants is irrelevant. Bitcoin is working because its participants are greedy and behave as such.
The key problem you're trying to glance over is the fact that not all participants have the same degree of influence or control.
A greedy participant who is in a position to manipulate the market to fit his goals is in an entirely different position than a greedy participant who is completely powerless and vulnerable to this manipulation.
Is it ok if someone participating in a Ponzi scheme is fleeced just because you accuse him of being greedy?
> Is it ok if someone participating in a Ponzi scheme is fleeced just because you accuse him of being greedy?
I know this is counter-intuitive, but yes. Yes, they think that.
They think that human nature is to be greedy and screw other people over to your own advantage. This is what they mean that capitalism is natural because it builds on human nature. Nevermind that for most of history human societies have been built on gift economies or that humans always cooperate in times of extreme crisis unless there are external influences explicitly preventing it.
Social interactions are transactional to them and if you luck out by participating in a Ponzi scheme early that's good and righteous but if you lose by coming in late and being fleeced, it's your own fault. Luck justifies the spoils of success.
> Nevermind that for most of history human societies have been built on gift economies or that humans always cooperate in times of extreme crisis unless there are external influences explicitly preventing it.
The key point here is that in BTC, or any crypto or unregulated market, there is no external influence preventing it. In fact, there are only external influences ensuring that they will screw up the little guy and fleece them out of their hard-earned money.
With real money, we have central banks actively working to both stabilize it's value and increase economic growth. That's as close there is to "cooperating in times of extreme crisis" there is at a national or even regional scale.
With crypto in general and BTC in particular, the name of the game is pumping it and let everyone else end up holding the bag.
> The key point here is that in BTC, or any crypto or unregulated market, there is no external influence preventing it. In fact, there are only external influences ensuring that they will screw up the little guy and fleece them out of their hard-earned money.
I'm not sure you're replying to the right point since it seems you largely also share the opinion that crypto is mostly a scam even if not every participant is in on it.
I was talking about hierarchies of power. Capitalism, caste systems, patriarchies (think of Middle Eastern "honor" systems), literally having a gun pointed at your head, etc. Those are external influences that can prevent and disrupt cooperation that would otherwise arise naturally.
If I see an overturned car on the road side, I stop to see if I can help. But if I'm on the way to my job which I need to continue having a roof over my head and feed my family and being late could get me fired and it's hard to find something else, I'm more likely to just move on.
It isn't working though. It isn't practically useful for anything. They only people getting value out of bitcoin are doing so by converting it back to fiat. You can't buy virtually anything with Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin was meant to be a pyramid scheme where you get rich by convincing others to prop it up long enough for you to cash out, it is working. As a currency, its a total failure.
This is a false statement, communities have found value in Bitcoin. El Salvador being the go-to example but we're also seeing adoption in other places, exemplified by the acceptance of Bitcoin at the Venezuelan airport. In addition to that we're seeing companies dedicated to the ad-hoc conversion of crypto to local currencies using specialized debit/credit card. This will effectively help facilitate the move to the ubiquitous spending of crypto.
The key problem you're trying to glance over is the fact that not all participants have the same degree of influence or control.
A greedy participant who is in a position to manipulate the market to fit his goals is in an entirely different position than a greedy participant who is completely powerless and vulnerable to this manipulation.
Is it ok if someone participating in a Ponzi scheme is fleeced just because you accuse him of being greedy?