Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins, considered a flaw in man's nature.
The topic of this article is to assert that Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work model and economic incentives end up turning this flaw into a positive - as the more greedy a human is the more they end up adding value to the economy.
In the Bitcoin whitepaper, common sense is applied to debunk the so-called 'Selfish-mining' attack:
If a large miner has significant hash power, and attempts to 'attack' the network in hopes of earning more money, they will actually end up providing more security, thus adding value. The miner will also make more Bitcoins for their efforts.
As Satoshi stated, they will make more money in this scenario than if they attempted to destroy the value of the network via an attack.
This point is further driven home in the excerpt from Craig Wright below:
I also want to point out references to this issue leading up to the hashwar on November 15th, 2018. At one point, SV miners had up to 80% of the total hashrate:
While the following miners were aligned:
Coingeek, BMG pool (nChain), SV pool, Okminer and Mempool
They did not 'attack' the network. Why? Why didn't these greedy money-grubbing capitalists use their computing power to rollback, double-spend and steal coffees and Juicy Fruit gum packs on the BCH chain?
Because they would undercut their own incentives. As a result of committing so much hashpower to mine honestly, they end up providing security for the very people's money that are so worried about an attack!
Moving onto another example, here on we have a function to vote on others' content and be rewarded for curation. The value proposition here is that if you discover good content and others vote, you are rewarded for voting early. This is very Ponzi-scheme-ish where the early voters are rewarded and the later ones lose money.
However since we are greedy and want more Bitcoin, by exploiting this feature we end up actually making the platform better. We will not vote unless we think others will after us - therefore the content we vote on must be worth reading, otherwise users would not vote in the first place.
Again we have a case here where users are greedily seeking to make money, but ultimately improve the social media platform for their efforts.
Another example is if you voted to donate towards someone's medical bills or fundraising efforts (which we have no shortage of here) - by being greedy you end up helping the person or contributing to their cause while attempting to make a little bit of Bitcoin yourself.
Bitcoin also enables new business models that are simply not possible with the monetary system today. The platform I write this article on only exists because micro-payments are possible. We are able to vote for 25 cents, Tip for 10 cents and charge as low as 1 cent for others to comment on your article.
Continuing with the idea of charging for others to comment, this is becoming more and more apparent (by the hour with all the Twitter drama...) that a need exists for this functionality. Ryan Charles has hit on this point very hard over the recent months.
Controversial figures would not be trolled so much if they could charge money for people to respond to them or send direct messages.
In reality, the quality of the message would increase since one must have to pay for it. That also increases the visibility of the figure to what his audience believe, because it would be more genuine than if they could comment for free.
A great example of this would be Donald Trump's tweets.
~55K likes and ~28K responses. Imagine if everyone had to pay as low as 1/2 a cent to reply to him. He would make $140 for a GD TWEET!
Of course the more controversial figure the higher they could charge to comment. You could price people out of replying by putting an absurdly high amount if you want to unilaterally get a message out (Ryan is doing this manually with Twitter, except not making any money from it).
With paywalls we can charge pennies for access to content. We can accuse the content-creator of being greedy for doing so, but they must increase the value of their content in order to justify charging for it in the first place. Otherwise they will be struggling to make ends meet as a content-creator and may have to find another way to make money.
The point is that not only does profit-seeking here enrich and satisfy greed, but necessarily increases the value and competition in the market.
With the concept of MetaNet combined with IPv6, we have the ability to put a Bitcoin transaction in the IPv6 header. This means that a site owner can charge simply for access to their website. They can then reject any HTTP requests that do not pay some Bitcoin to them when navigating to the URL. Even the poorest can take advantage of this money making opportunity by creating a valuable website.
With Bitcoin, we have a hyper-capitalist environment where humans can make money at the lowest levels, lower than ever before.
In the example above I mention that content-creators will face greater competition as a result, meaning we will have competition at the lowest levels as well (credit to Kevin Pham for this idea).
If we have competition at every level then the quality of the products and services offered at those levels must necessarily rise. The barrier to entry of the Bitcoin economy is lowered, enabling people who did not have access to now get into the economy and have opportunities to profit.
In this controversial video (ironically one that gets Craig a lot of hate) his message is ultimately positive. His comment to Rwanda about himself having more money than their whole country is not meant as a brag, but to call them out for not opening up their borders for free trade: (please watch the whole video):
Bitcoin enables a world that is more inclusive, as Craig is quoted as saying "Where we have to start learning what each others like". He states Africa is not poor because they are being exploited, but because they lack trade. Business done in Africa would lift them out of poverty much quicker from external individuals leveraging their greed to profit-seeking as opposed to giving hand-outs or starting some inclusive, scammy 'African cryptocurrency' (shitcoin).
This adds value not only in terms of profits but value that comes from engaging with others and making friends thus enriching our lives.
I have met so many people from around the world through our mutual interests in Bitcoin that never would have been possible without its creation. With Bitcoin, we interact in the manner of a small-world network - which represents Bitcoin's network topology.
I have found that this not only is the network the miners create, but the network the users engage in.
Because we are able to transact with each other truly peer-to-peer, the distance between us no longer includes hops to a 3rd party thus is dramatically reduced.
We now have this world where we want to connect with as many people as possible not just for the sake of making friends but to increase our profit opportunities.
Through our natural greed which was previously a flaw we can now leverage it to improve and enrich ours and each others lives.