
Homeless, Unemployed, and Surviving on Bitcoins - sk2code
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/09/bitcoin-homeless/
======
hooande
There were a few points that the article didn't bring up. I was surprised that
they didn't discuss the speculative value of bitcoins. There's no way that the
value of a dollar in your pocket will suddenly double, but the value of a
bitcoin has and will again. Obviously volatility isn't all fun...would you
want your salary paid in bitcions? In the current market you might actually
come out ahead over the next few years.

The second thing is that these bitcoin payment systems only work because they
dodge the minimum wage. There are a lot of things that homeless people could
do if it was legal to pay $.60/day. The minimum wage does a lot of good, but
the people in this article didn't seem to mind the situation. I think it's
because a lot of people don't think of working online as "real work" and are
ok with low paying tasks.

All in all this article was a feel good hit. Bitcoin allows homeless people to
avoid the shame of begging and the risk of robbery. They receive support from
their community to earn legitimate money by doing real work. Of course fake
youtube views and button pushing aren't very beneficial to society, but I
think there will be more useful work for them and others in the near future.

A functioning human brain is a very rare thing in the universe. The way we get
ahead is by utilizing everyone of them that we can find. We often write
homeless people off as a drain on society, but there's something to be said
for everybody pitching in, even if just a little bit.

~~~
VMG
_The minimum wage does a lot of good_

Interesting you say then when you can clearly see that actually hurts those
people.

~~~
crazypyro
Its almost like it both has advantages and disadvantages... How crazy...

~~~
VMG
You're right, I didn't consider employers of illegal workers and the
automation industry.

------
Taylorious
Love the picture of the "homeless" guy using a laptop newer than mine, with
his pet, nice bike, playing a video game while he smokes a cig. He also has an
energy drink... as if he needs it to get through his day of sitting around.
It's people like him who are hurting the homeless people that are actually in
need.

~~~
hosh
Wow, you guys talking about how this guy should have an apartment or something
because he has a laptop are lacking in empathy.

When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing,
lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … _things_?

If you can't even meet eyes with a homeless person, let alone really observing
the person, you can't even put yourself into their shoes, feel what they feel,
and see the world from their eyes. If you can't do that, then you lack
empathy.

And when you lack empathy, that's the seed of prejudice.

Or how about this article, posted here on Hacker News:
[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF-
profess...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF-
professionals-choose-to-live-in-RVs-4778625.php)

Those are startup founders that live in RVs … because rent is too high in the
Bay Area.

There are indeed homeless people who are mentally or emotional unstable. Not
all homeless people are like that. And there are mentally and emotionally
unstable people who live in homes. And then, there are systemic problems where
rent prices have driven people out of affordable homes.

As to the point about how having laptops point to a confusion in Maslow's
Hierarchy, I think that demonstrates more of the commenter's lack of
understanding of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

It is true that shelter is at the bottom of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
It is part of the human need to seek physical security, and is the foundation
for the higher level needs. However, "shelter" is so much more than an
apartment or a house. An apartment and a house are _socially approved_
shelter. Shelter is anything that will help you maintain homeostasis. It can
be a cave. It can be survival shelter in the woods. It can be under a freeway
bridge. It can be in a cardboard box. It includes clothing.

When you are in survival mode, you are not thinking about socially-approved
shelter. You are seeking _any_ shelter. People who go out into the woods
without a lot of training in wilderness survival tends to flounder around when
things go bad. Their minds, being unable to accept the situation as-is, keep
thinking that civilization will save them somehow, and cling to that. "If only
I can get out of these woods or find a ranger, I would be safe." Instead of
"Oh shit, a bad storm is coming, I need to get under covers NOW."

Likewise, having talked to some of the homeless, I was told how you can pick
out the newly homeless. They have so much pride (and shame), it kept them from
receiving help -- food, or shelter, or whatever. They are clinging to
behaviors that are socially-approved. Social approval is higher up on Maslow's
Hierarchy of Needs.

Believe me, if you were somewhere public and you hear gunshots, and you felt
your life threatened, you will probably _run_. And you won't be thinking that
the place you are running to is private property or not.

Finally, comments like these suggest that the commenters have not examined
their concepts thoroughly or looked into their own feelings about this.

People who live outside the socially-approved box are _threatening_ to people
living inside the box. This threat goes beyond the surface, "oh, he is going
to mug me." The aversion and disgust that keeps people from empathizing with
the homeless comes from pack behavior. Humans tend to aggregate in groups,
reject outsiders, and severely punish anyone who betray the pack.

This punishment is _exactly_ the kind of reflexive emotional response risk-
averse people have when you tell them about startup idea. "What's wrong with
these people? They must be crazy!"

It is also the emotional reaction that leads to comments like, "If he can
afford a better laptop than I, he can afford an rent. There must be something
wrong about him."

That's bullshit.

~~~
twoodfin
_When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing,
lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … things?_

That's a fairly vile perspective to project onto someone you're trying to have
a productive conversation with.

Please treat folks on hn with a bit more respect.

~~~
hosh
I've watched people and how they actually react to people on the streets. I've
watched myself. When aversion arises, I have seen this reaction.

Does everyone on HN have this aversion? No. I can't even see your faces, hear
your voice. But _everyone_ has _some_ kind of aversion. There is often
something vile lurking within the depths of people's hearts. It's ugly. I
wrote that to give you the reader, a sense of empathy for the people who turn
away in disgust from another human being, and believe me, I've seen that kind
of reaction in person.

I've seen it in people walking down the street being solicited by the
homeless. I've seen it in mothers and fathers turning away from their
children. I've seen it in politicians, and activists. I've seen it all sorts
of ordinary people.

I don't know if _you_ react that way. You might. You might not. You might even
react this way, and don't even know it.

The only way to be truly respectful is not to hide this, but to bring this
ugliness out into the open, to really look at it, and to accept that you have
these feelings -- whatever those feelings are -- arising from you. Who knows?
You might find the deeper root causes for those feelings.

~~~
twoodfin
"Some kind of aversion" is a long, long way from seeing other human beings as
" _things_ ".

I think it would be better if we all acted as if hn were populated by people
much closer to the former end of that spectrum.

~~~
hosh
> "Some kind of aversion" is a long, long way from seeing other human beings
> as "things".

Every moment you to avert your attention, you are treating a person as a
thing. You stop seeing the person and react to the aversion instead.

This is something that happens with pretty much everyone.

The difference here is for me, I am seeing people who, from time to time, will
have aversions, and will in that moment treat that person as a thing. For you,
it seems to be an unforgivable act that once committed, can never, ever be
redeemed. I think that latter is another form of typecasting, don't you think?

I think it is useful to recognize that each of us have done this in the past,
as a way of being aware of what is happening in the present moment. So that,
when you _do_ find yourself walking down the street, and you are busy, rushing
to somewhere else, and someone asks you for change: do you at least stop, look
at that person in the eyes, and sincerely tell that person, "No, I don't have
change for you. Sorry."?

------
shn
I don't know, it just sounds a sensational story to draw readership. Yeah,
maybe he did it for couple of days/weeks, but doing this in a disciplined
manner for a long time to earn measly couple of dollars does not make sense
all.

~~~
diydsp
Yes, certainly a tech-meets-social-issues story like this is shining fodder
for Wired which is certainly an occasion to ask yourself "why does someone
want me to believe this"...

Meanwhile, I, too, have been considering the longer-term effects of this
article. Without making judgments on anyone, it seems the larger effect of
these men is to "soft-launder" bitcoins back into cash. They (aided by brokers
like Gyft) are on the bitcoin -> cash side, while in parallel, there is a
large world (substantially underground) of cash -> bitcoin people.

If this model is true, the sustainability of the operation will continue and
vary/grow as long as the parallel, (somewhat underground) world of BTC does.
If this is true, the food these gentlemen eat is the result of a mild
additional transaction fee for sustaining the complementary shadow world,
which shows zero signs of folding.

------
techtalsky
Seems like you could make more than .60 a day doing Mechanical Turk jobs. It'd
be a little less mind numbing than watching commercials every day.

~~~
runj__
cmd-F Mechani

Oh, there you are.

Exactly. You can easily make ~10cents a minute, that's 6 dollars an hour. It's
probably pretty hard work but the premise of this is just so...

If you're homeless in america, sign up for mechanical turk. You'll make more
than enough for food.

~~~
super-serial
How do you make 10 cents a minute? Have you ever tried?

When I needed money I tried... I made $2-$3 per hour writing articles.
Transcribing audio, doing surveys and small 5 cent tasks all paid less per
hour.

~~~
runj__
I've only ever created HIT's. Normally paid waaaay over $10 an hour.

------
cinquemb
From some of these comments, it amazes me that people want to dictate how
others should live their lives while doing nothing to improve the situation or
to solve the systemic forces that faces the individuals mentioned… unless some
of you happen to be on the Federal Reserve board or a CEO at a TBTF bank that
owns shares in it, because _obviously_ they are very, very good at allocating
capital and resources to us all, while we tell more people to participate the
in bread and circuses in order to be _useful_ in this society…

"What you eat don't make me shit, and who you fuck don't make me come"

------
knowaveragejoe
It seems to me that it is not a property of bitcoin or cryptocurrency itself
that is allowing these folks to supplement their income with "manual" labor.
Instead it feels like the fact that it's a new, relatively unexploited market
that is enabling these ventures to scrape together the people and resources
necessary by using extremely thin margins. I can't imagine this will be viable
for long as more people get into it.

Sure, you can provide clicks in exchange for bitcoin, and that might help some
homeless people right now. But what happens when that becomes over-saturated
and/or youtube et. al. get better at preventing that? Amazon Turk + BTC could
be viable.

> This is the only property for which Dale is currently accepting digital
> currency, but so far, he says, “it’s been a good experience because bitcoins
> have gone up in value, so it’s more than I would have gotten in regular
> dollars.”

I bet he won't be so happy when the price swings in the other direction.
Therein lies the eternal problem with BTC for trade on a scale even beginning
to approach that of what goes on in the world today.

~~~
seansoutpost
Im really surprised that doesn't exist yet. YC applications still open? :)

~~~
mkr-hn
There are already microtask sites similar to Mechanical Turk that pay in
bitcoin.

------
shocks
> He doesn’t have to worry as much about getting robbed.

Er, laptop?

~~~
Romoku
He could have an online wallet or have his wallet.dat file synchronized to
SpiderOak, DropBox, et al.

~~~
SolarNet
I think the idea is that his laptop could be stolen/robbed.

They are often worth a bit of money. But I bet there is a
performance/age/fencing/cost point where it isn't worth it to rob someone for
it.

~~~
rjwebb
Do thieves understand this?

~~~
ameoba
Crackheads trying to get their next fix just take any sort of electronics and
get $10-20 for it. It doesn't generally matter what it is - they'll take it if
they can get their hands on it & want to unload it ASAP. If they've been
strung out & off the grid long enough, they might not know the difference
between a walkman and a iPhone.

A professional thief, OTOH, probably does know what's worth taking and what's
worth keeping. The problem is that, while committing a robbery, you don't
exactly have the time or resources to go on eBay and price check everything
you see. It's more practical to take everything that might be valuable & then
figure out what's worth trying to sell after the fact.

------
sidko
Just so everyone knows, the calculation with watching videos at BitcoinGet is
wrong. They would be making 6 cents for watching 12 videos and not 60 cents.
This makes it even less of an incentive to go there. I am surprised they do.

The site pays 40uBTC/video, which converts to 40*10^-6BTC = 0.00004BTC =
$0.005(assuming 125USD/BTC) = 0.5 cents/video = 6 cents/12 videos.

Also, it is a Silicon Valley startup Virool that offers these videos, not
BitcoinGet per se.

~~~
abuda
If true, seems like a pretty big oversight by the author and editor. They
claim 0.0004 BTC per view, when in reality it's 0.00004? Your math checks out,
but I'm not familiar with what the site actually pays.

While it was a good read about the other merits of bitcoin, there's a pretty
huge difference between earning 60 cents a day vs 6 cents a day...

~~~
sidko
I am pretty sure that the payout per video is 40 micro bitcoin (it was
recently dropped from 50 micro bitcoin). Unfortunately to see this number, you
need to register. It's a common amount for watching one Virool video (e.g.
another site ABitBack pays only 30 micro Bitcoin per Virool video).

I am surprised too that the error hasn't been corrected yet. The difference is
10 times, which isn't insignificant.

------
Lewton
Some of the comments on that article are surprisingly nasty

~~~
_delirium
Comments on general news sites tend to be cesspools in general. Oddly, the
same people posting weird vitriol about how America is being ruined by
freeloading parasites seem to be: 1) not highly educated; and 2) able to spend
hours and hours a day posting angry comments on news websites. I wonder where
they're getting their own income from. Are they all retirees and students?
People on SS disability? Stay-at-home parents whose spouse works? Survivalists
in an internet-equipped cabin in Montana?

~~~
total__C
Conservative political groups in the USA pay people to basically troll on
major news sites/message boards/blogs:

[http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/are_right-
wing_libertar...](http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/are_right-
wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations?page=0%2C1)

~~~
joshuahedlund
That's a great conspiracy but I'm not sure those folks have that much market
share in the grand scheme of things (and it's possible liberal groups are
doing the same thing). I don't know how many news site comment sections you
tend to frequent, but I feel like I've seen just as much "dumbed down" liberal
"trolling" as the reverse.

~~~
diydsp
heh. I bet the political leanings are simply an artifact of the Greater
Internet Dickwad Theory. [1]

[1] [http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/uncat/dickwad-
th...](http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/uncat/dickwad-theory.jpg)

------
oleganza
Funny. Photo on the second page has a subtitle "Angle mines bitcoins on a park
bench." [http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-
content/uploads/2013...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Bitcoin-Homeless-13-660x440.jpg)

------
toisanji
there should be a service that combines amazon turk with bitcoins.

------
rorrr2
The math doesn't add up.

At "0.000133 bitcoins a day" it would take 7518 days (more than 20 years) to
make one bitcoin.

At "0.0004 bitcoins" per video it would take 2500 videos to watch to make one
bitcoin.

The amount of wasted human capital is insane. Why don't these people get jobs?
There are tons of posts on Craigslist for jobs that don't require any
education - delivery, waiters, busboys, cleaning, etc.

~~~
SolarNet
"Why don't these people get jobs?"

Because: THERE. ARE. NOT. ENOUGH. JOBS.

* The economy crashed a while ago. We still haven't recovered all the jobs we lost, by either absolute or percentage.

* Increased automation and efficiency is slowly removing those jobs you just described. Exec, a YCombinator app, makes a more efficient and automated solution to craigslist cleaning jobs. This is happening in every sector in this country. These changes ELIMINATE JOBS, these jobs will never come back. And the jobs they create do not replace the ones they removed, not in quantity, or in aggregate tax quality (i.e. one well paid programmer does not replace the amount of tax revenue from 4 people splitting the same salary. Let alone the fact that executives often take a cut of that increased productivity for themselves. Let alone the fact that it puts more load on welfare for the 3 lost jobs).

* Every single one of those jobs you just listed likely requires a number of things in today's saturated jobs market: High-school or college education (too many people, not enough jobs, means overqualified hiring requirements), a permanent address (hard when you are homeless), a certain appearance (hard when you are poor, without a place to live or bathe), some sort of experience (hard to get in this job market, especially when under educated, in poor health [mental or physical], and every other reason here), transport to and from work (or even for the work), ect.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole picture, it's a
dire one.

~~~
luscious
There are always enough jobs. There aren't enough jobs that people are willing
to do for the money others are willing to pay. If I knew someone near me was
living on <$1/day, I would raise their pay to $5 to do something mundane. If
that person could find 15-20 of me, they are above the poverty line. My
standard of living has gone up and so has theirs AND they now can circulate
that money to others in their service - and so it goes on.

The problem isn't a lack of jobs, it's the draining of capital flow that
happen when the monetary system dries up. Whether you believe that to be
unfairness or just some players being so adept at the game... that doesn't
matter.

The ball needs to move or people who want to play the game will be sitting
out. If the ball is kept moving, even artificially, anyone who wants to play
will get to play. The only ones left out would be willingly out or
mentally/physically unable to play at all.

Right now, we let the game rules be such that some smart shits helped some
lucky shits collect the ball and now the dumbshits think the pile of "money"
is worth something when not in circulation. Look at all my symbols of
currency! Doesn't matter if it's dollars, metals/commodities, or the
butcoin... without a functioning-thriving ebb and flow of currency, everyone
is poorer.

Spend like death with 0 is the goal. Don't take on debt or get greedy. We'll
all live better.

~~~
lotsofcows
"There are always enough jobs." That's patently rubbish as can be seen all
around the (1st) world at the moment.

However, I don't agree with the parent's comment that technology causes a lack
of jobs - also obviously untrue if you look around you.

Currently we're on the tail-end of a recession, thus money isn't moving
around, thus it's harder to insert one's self into the money stream.

As people start spending, jobs pick up. This is already happening in most of
the richer parts of the recession hit world. Here in the UK, unemployment has
been dropping steadily. New small businesses are appearing fast.
Manufacturing's on the way up.

FWIW, I agree with everything after your very first sentence.

~~~
fantnn
The fact that there aren't currently enough jobs could very well be an
unquantifiable negative externality of having a minimum wage.

------
usaphp
Ok, so I am paying around 30k of my hard earned money as taxes from working
10+ hours every day, just so this guy can do nothing all day long and get free
food stamps...I would rather spend this money on my kids and family...

~~~
reginaldjcooper
I know, right? Let's take back all these entitlements from these lazy poors.
If they really want to eat they should get a job like the rest of us.

And let's have a word with the inefficient government bureaucrats. How do they
start with your hard-earned 30k and end up with just enough to give this guy
food stamps? Totally inefficient if you ask me.

~~~
jebblue
>> How do they start with your hard-earned 30k and end up with just enough to
give this guy food stamps? Totally inefficient if you ask me.

They started it with the welfare system, good idea but then let the majority
of its users abuse it rather than finding work. They started it, they keep it
going because their users vote for them which keeps them in power.

