undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjampekka2y ago0 comments

Now they instead gave the opportunity for other bitcoin holders to do good with the /dev/null'ed coins.

It's like giving up quota in a shared storage system for all others (in proportion to their quotas). And not like e.g. throwing away food or destructing buildings.

0 comments

crazygringo2y ago

But the point is that you can do far more good by sending the money to some of the people who need it most, those in the lowest economic positions.

Rather than effectively sending it to the "average" Bitcoin user, which is definitely not in the lowest economic position -- and whatever the average Bitcoin holder spends on charity, it's only a small percent.

This is why Bill Gates spends his money on the Gates Foundation where it's designed to help those who need it most, rather than lighting all his money on fire so that the deflationary impact will help everyone in proportion to their savings.

jampekkaOP2y ago

By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

I don't think it's clear whether the world would have been better or worse off if Gates would have just burned (or preferably /dev/null'ed) all his money.

crazygringo2y ago

> By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

No, because burning money is simply deflation, and existing money will continue to follow the same patterns of consumer spending.

The idea that consumer spending is worse than burning money doesn't make any sense -- they're the same.

That's the whole point of why targeted giving to charity is better. That's why the Gates Foundation is a million times better than burning money. The Gates Foudation isn't going to "consumer spending" -- it's helping those most in need, like people who would die from malaria otherwise.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

crazygringo2y ago

But the point is that you can do far more good by sending the money to some of the people who need it most, those in the lowest economic positions.

jampekkaOP2y ago

By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

I don't think it's clear whether the world would have been better or worse off if Gates would have just burned (or preferably /dev/null'ed) all his money.

crazygringo2y ago

> By the standard that someone would need it more, vast majority of consumer spending is a lot more wasteful than just burning money.

No, because burning money is simply deflation, and existing money will continue to follow the same patterns of consumer spending.

The idea that consumer spending is worse than burning money doesn't make any sense -- they're the same.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse