first, those were not the arguments in form "complaint about Bitcoin not working", those were attempts to rebutt my earlier statements why it's erroneous to view bitcoin in context of environmental issues.
> if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one
sure, early adopters will reap some benefits, but it's laughable to suggest they will be any competition to current elites. a valid criticism of bitcoin would be that current elites will adopt bitcoin to cement the existing inequalities, but a) that would already be some redistribution of wealth, b) there's already plenty of wealth cementing options in form of london real estate, etc, singling out bitcoin here seems disingenuous.
I'm not singling out bitcoin. In fact the London real estate is a good analogy to crypto.
You have people with London properties getting super excited and people with no such properties not getting excited at all. Both are right. A handful of previously poor people manage to get a property thanks to being in the right place at the right time or some other improbable condition, but most don't. Many participants in the market are already massively wealthy. Overall, nothing makes it plausible for the property market to be meaningfully called an engine for the redistribution of wealth
> if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one
sure, early adopters will reap some benefits, but it's laughable to suggest they will be any competition to current elites. a valid criticism of bitcoin would be that current elites will adopt bitcoin to cement the existing inequalities, but a) that would already be some redistribution of wealth, b) there's already plenty of wealth cementing options in form of london real estate, etc, singling out bitcoin here seems disingenuous.