I was honing in on this paragraph from the original poster:
“Wealth creation is not a bad thing, and the concentration of this wealth is also not necessarily a bad thing. How the wealth was acquired is what is important — honest wealth. Bitcoin is honest money. No coercion, no unfair advantage, no abuse of power, and no abuse of labor was needed to establish the newfound wealth of the original Bitcoin and cryptocurrency trailblazers. This is why trust fund babies who have been “trading for decades” shit on Bitcoin — they cant accept the fact that a geek who took an early risk on an unknown technology is now much wealthier than them, in the same way I can imagine a guy sitting on a solid gold throne must have scoffed at the idea of a geek in a garage being richer than him.”
I’ll start by stating the parts I disagree with:
- Concentration of wealth is not necessarily a bad thing.
- If how the wealth was acquired is important, then bitcoin is honest money.
- I’m not a trust fund baby, so I can’t speak for them — but I doubt as a class some of them [the ones who don’t like Bitcoin] don’t like Bitcoin because some geek got wealthy with it when they didn’t.
Now, I’ll state that the whole trust fund babies comment is so problematic from a logic perspective that it is difficult to parse.
I focused only on honest money. I used the original poster’s assumption that there is honest money and dishonest money.
I don’t think it is okay to ignore how you got the money.
Apparently, you do, Rick. You say: “ Money is a tool, not some glorious reward for doing what society wants you to do.”
Someone hacks a lot of accounts and makes a billion dollars and gets away with it.
Fine with you, Rick? It’s just a tool — not a glorious reward for what society wants you to do, right?