Quote from: Defkin on January 01, 2012, 06:15:20 AM

Quote from: BitJammin on December 31, 2011, 06:37:32 AM

Quote from: Bitman_Began on December 31, 2011, 04:38:38 AM

Retard.

I asked "what?" because your argument makes absolutely no sense.

We're not talking about fiat. Just because you can argue that fiat caters to the rich does not mean that you can make any conclusions about Bitcoin. Both can cater to the rich, but if you believe Bitcoin does not, then I would like to hear an argument that makes sense.

At the current rate of around $4 and maximum of 21m coins = theoretical but not practical maximum atm is $84m.

You can not buy a half way decent decent super yacht for that......... so atm bitcoin is not for the rich

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "cater to the rich" in the way that you say "for the rich."

By cater to the rich, I mean that it will either 1) help the rich get richer at the expense (direct or indirect) of those less wealthy or 2) will naturally be easier for a rich person to acquire and use than a poor person. I mean 'cater' in an accoutremental or ergonomic kind of way.

As an example of #1: If you can afford to buy a house outright (i.e. you are rich) then you end up paying less than if a poor person bought the same house because of the interest he would have to pay. Thus, rich people are more likely to be homeowners (duh

). This is where gentrification starts. Rich people move near other rich people, property values go up; poor people move near other poor people, property values go down. But, either way, anyone who isn't rich takes out a loan/mortgage. Bitcoin is great, but I don't see Bitcoin being so equally distributed among the population such that everyone can afford to buy a home without a loan. I haven't really spent time thinking about how we could manage to have bank lending on the scale we do if it weren't for fractional reserve banking. How will Bitcoin change this?

As an example of #2: If you are rich, chances are you were born into at least a fairly wealthy family. You would have access to people with knowledge of how to handle money and invest it, have access to the latest and fastest technology...heck you can even have money to pay people to handle and invest your money for you using the latest and fastest technology. This type of example was more along the lines of what I had in mind when I originally asked if Bitcoin catered to the rich. Rich people have the time to learn about Bitcoin, would be more likely to be exposed to the type of media that would even consider mentioning Bitcoin, have access to the technology and knowledge (or people) to engage in all aspects of Bitcoin -- mining it, trading it, investing it, buying and selling with it, starting businesses. Actually, they wouldn't even need to know anything about it. They could just pay people to build an empire for them.

$84m. might not get you the super yacht of your dreams, but it would allow some rich people the monetary possibility of literally owning the entire Bitcoin market. I believe that most rich people want to just keep getting richer (otherwise, why not retire or simply volunteer?), and having a lot of money allows you to make a lot of money. There are thousands of people living today that could swallow the entire Bitcoin market at any given time. And, while you can shift decimal places all you want, the more you do, the more power the rich are allowed.