Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

Because bitcoin is completely irrelevant to the problems of poverty? Just throwing that out there as a possibility.

Bitcoin is no more "money" than Picassos are. Rare? Check. Traded anonymously? Check. Somewhat reliableish yet anonymous-ish transaction log? Check. Volatile as shit? Check. Completely arbitrary value created by oligarchs bidding against one another? Check.

No stabilizing influences? Check. Held and traded almost exclusively as a highly speculative investment or a hedge against imaginary catastrophes? Check. All we need is PicassoChain technology, and Sam Altman will be masturbating all over us.

Stefan's argument translates seamlessly and without loss of power: If socialists wanted to help the poor so much, why didn't they study and promote Picasso, rather than whining about diversity?

do you purposely say immensely dumb things so that when people respond with derision you can bust out the "not an argument" card

this makes absolutely no sense my dude

I mean, it's cute that you had to look it up on wikipedia. Socialists usually advocate for a borderless, stateless and classless society, where the means of production are owned by the workers themselves and controlled democratically, money is abolished and everyone produces -

- what they can and takes what they need. I want you to pay attention to the "open borders" bit here. What socialists essentially want to create is a society free of oppression, be it based on class, race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc.. Everyone is treated equally and -