[mrtksn]

I’m baffled how people miss this even if it’s the mission statement of Satoshi himself: Bitcoin is a tool to prevent wealth re-distribution. It’s whole idea is to ensure that the accumulated wealth is preserved. In 2008 it was against the government bailing out the failed banks but it’s also against any government interventions, including easing the wealth inequality.

In essence, the idea is that if a teenager in 2010 acquired 10,000BTC the society owes him food, shelter and luxury for generations to come.

It’s like being a landlord whom passive income guarantees him and his family a good life with no work when people working their arses off to be able to pay the rent.

[ineiti]

Wow - this is a really good description of Bitcoin. Similar to the tweet that said "Whenever I read 'decentralized', I think 'unregulated'."

[sqrt17]

The difference being that BTC has no utility that people depend on. They can refuse to buy the BTC from the now-GenZer or even the Winklevoss twins if they'd rather have food or shelter or a chanel bag rather than BTC. The real world phenomenon that this corresponds to is consumer price inflation or asset price inflation (assuming your asset is production capacity and the medium of exchange is BTC) Being a landlord, or being an oil baron in an economy that is dependent on petrol, is different because people actually need those things. So antidemocratic aristocrats who inherited a land with substantial oil reserves can now buy lots of startups via softbank or build artificial cities because our cheapest way to acquire petrol is still to dig it out of the ground in those countries where reserves accumulated in the last millions of years, and pay local rulers for the permission to do it.

[imtringued]

If we assume that we should maintain the current scarce currency system, then the only solution would be to have multiple competing scarce currencies. However, Bitcoin is not really competing against anything except maybe gold.

[iszomer]

> It’s like being a landlord whom passive income guarantees him and his family a good life with no work when people working their arses off to be able to pay the rent.

Not necessarily. The state still takes a percentage eg: property tax, maintenance, utilities, safety certifications, etc.

[kelseyfrog]

Why would the majority of people want that?