Topic: Why is Bitcoin the Dumbest Thing Ever Invented (Read 1117 times)

I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up.

Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them.

This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism.

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

If you think it is dumb then what about the other crypto currency?
And if it is a dumb thing invented why is it still in the industry and one of the most popular and highest price in cryptocurrency market?
There are so many people who are against Bitcoin or crypto, but most of them would just ignore it and continue with their life.

Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

Suppose that someone invented a crypto postal service. Or is short a crypto-post. Its purpose is to transfer envelopes and boxes quickly, safely, and decentrally. However, there is a catch. The envelopes and boxes are empty. They hold nothing. From the outside, the crypto-post would look similar to a traditional post. Because obviously, a traditional post transfers envelopes and boxes. And that crypto-post transfers them as well. But in reality, it would be the dumbest thing ever invented given that the very reason envelopes and boxes exist is to serve as a container for holding letters, documents, and products. Their purpose is not to be empty.

The so-called crypto-currencies, such as Bitcoin, are exactly like our hypothetical crypto-post. From the outside, Bitcoin looks similar to traditional currencies. It is a system that has units which are transferred between people. If you have a bank account or a banknote, what you have is some name such as USD, and a number that represents the quantity of units in a banking system. If you have a Bitcoin account you also have a name - BTC and a number that represents the quantity of units in the Bitcoin system. But the catch is that the units in the Bitcoin system are empty. They are just like envelopes and boxes in our crypto-post. They are containers that hold nothing.

On the other hand, units of traditional currencies are containers that hold something. They hold debt. Namely, these units are created as loans of commercial banks to individuals and companies or as purchases of government bonds by central banks. So if you have for example dollars you have something that the government and millions of people need for satisfying debt owed to the US banking system. If your neighbor has a $500K loan with a mortgage on his house, while you have $500K you have something that can save them from the mortgage. You have a product needed by them, just like letters, documents, and products transferred via postal service are needed by people.

Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created as debt, they are empty. They are containers that hold nothing. Often, people say that Bitcoin is simple and thus better than a complex banking system that manages fiat currencies. But of course Bitcoin is simple given that it manages empty units. Fiat currency units hold debt and managing debt is complex. It includes contracts, credit assessments, collaterals, foreclosures, etc. And this requires resources, both material and human. With Bitcoin, the author just wrote a protocol that tells people: "You have 10 units", "you have 0.5 units", "you have 50 units", etc. But units of what? A company? Something tangible like a precious metal? Something intangible like a patent, copyright or software license? No, none of that. In the Bitcoin system, people buy and hold units of literally nothing. Units that are empty. That is why it is so simple. Managing empty units is simple. But extremely dumb. Just like it would be managing empty envelopes and boxes in our hypothetical crypto-post. With Bitcoin, such managing even requires the consumption of enormous amounts of electricity. That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme

We let you be with your thoughts and ideas and we will have our own. We can't and don't want to convince you that Bitcoin is something useful and worthy and you shouldn't try and do that with us because we feel your arguments are dumb and not Bitcoin or the fact that energy is being used to run it.

A lot of energy is used to produce a lot of products in the world, are all those products useless or is it dumb for the companies to be using so much energy only to create a materialistic thing such as a doll or anything in general which doesn't serve much purpose but is created because it is sold and they earn money for it. So your arguments don't really make much sense.

Expect receiving a lot of hate and call you for something you don't like since they don't like what they see since it sounds like you hate bitcoin then came here just to spread hate. So try to understand where they came from and open yourself for criticism since you brought up some discussion about bitcoin so expect some words that you don't like to here will come up. But I don't really think that bitcoin is easy rich scheme since there are so many struggles to face before we can earn this. Maybe there are some people spread some wrong information about it that's why those newbies think about bitcoin is get-rich-quick-scheme but in reality there's nothing like that exist in real world.

Regarding the last. I didn't say that Bitcoin is useless, but dumb. Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme, some kind of unit-based pyramid scheme. But as a concept it is dumb. It spends energy on managing empty units. If you wanna buy an empty box for $70K because you think someone else will buy it for $100K that's the scheme. But if someone spends enormous amounts of energy to run such a scheme that's dumb. Of course, calling that empty box a valuable asset, comparing it to gold, or suggesting it is the future of postal services is dumb as well.

~snip
 But I don't really think that bitcoin is easy rich scheme since there are so many struggles to face before we can earn this. Maybe there are some people spread some wrong information about it that's why those newbies think about bitcoin is get-rich-quick-scheme but in reality there's nothing like that exist in real world.

In a discussion, the goal to achieve is to have valid arguments for the thesis you defend. What you people do is trolling. You engage in ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, and idiotic accusation about hate. In the same time you completely ignore the thesis at hand.

Regarding the last. I didn't say that Bitcoin is useless, but dumb. Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme, some kind of unit-based pyramid schemes. But as a concept it is dumb. It spends energy on managing empty units. If you wanna buy an empty box for $70K because you think someone else will buy it for $100K that's the scheme. But if someone spends enormous amounts of energy to run such a scheme that's dumb. Of course, calling that empty box a valuable asset, comparing it to gold, or suggesting it is the future of postal service is dumb as well.

Let me ask the same question to you. What are you trying to achieve exactly? What are your arguments about if you don't hate Bitcoin or think it is useless? Let's say you don't hate Bitcoin but you just think it is something not worth giving this much hype or importance or it is something completely useless, in either way, you are not going to gain anything by sitting in the forum created by the creator of Bitcoin and try and convince people about what your beliefs are because that is not going to work. So it's dumb of you to be trying to achieve that here. You can go preach what you are trying to prove here on some busy street and you might find a few people standing with you among the crowd but that is barely going to happen here, my friend.

Besides, if you think Bitcoin is useless or whatever, do you believe that companies and firms such as MicroStrategy, Grayscale, Blackrock, Microsoft, Tesla, and many more along with their owners and management are a bunch of fools being interested in something useless?

Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created as debt, they are empty. They are containers that hold nothing. Often, people say that Bitcoin is simple and thus better than a complex banking system that manages fiat currencies. But of course Bitcoin is simple given that it manages empty units. Fiat currency units hold debt and managing debt is complex. It includes contracts, credit assessments, collaterals, foreclosures, etc. And this requires resources, both material and human. With Bitcoin, a guy just wrote a protocol that tells people: "You have 10 BTC units", "you have 0.5 BTC units", "you have 50 BTC units", etc. But units of what? Units of a company ownership? No. Units of something tangible like a precious metal? No. Units of something intangible like patents, copyrights or software licences? No. In the Bitcoin system people buy and hold units of literally nothing. Units that are empty. That is why it is so simple. Managing empty units is simple. But extremely dumb. Just like it would be managing empty envelopes and boxes in our hypothetical crypto-post. With Bitcoin, such managing even requires the consumption of enormous amounts of electricity.

That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.