Topic: Article: Bitcoin - a Payment Simulator Taken Seriously (Read 447 times)

Here, simulator means having numeric values attributed to addresses without their holders being the owners of some resource in the quantity of attributed values. In short, the attributions just mimic the recording of quantity that occurs when resources are produced or exchanged through economic activity. Read the article. Your answer shows you didn't read it.
Nothing is created. Energy is spend on maintaining the record of numeric attributions. In short, it is spend on running the simulation.

While I generally agree with the definition of economy as a concept and of money as a concept, it's not all that simple. For example, acceptability of local fiat can be very low in a different country, next to nonexistent. That means there's a limit to that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by uniformity as money is often banknotes and coins that aren't unoform at all.
As for the claim that it's a payment simulator, it sounds as it it means it isn't real, it's a fake etc. That certainly isn't it. You know what else is a payment simulator? When you pay by card in a shop, and your online banking tells you that you spent money there. The money will actually leave your account much later, so all 'transactions' we rely on aren't really happening, at least not at that moment. Bitcoin is real enough to work and be trusted.

I agree fully with what davis196 said. Most of them forget to consider the fact that bitcoin does not work just like that where you send money from one side and receives from another side. It’s literally process of creating something by using real energy (electricity), real machineries work it, computations happening for real and much more stuff to give it real world presence.

If we take into account OP calculations then there is no point to the traditional bank system! After all it’s just printed piece of paper with some famous personalities printed on them. 

Stop repeating those nonsense conspiracy theories about fiat money being just paper. Banknotes or bank accounts hold info about quantity of debt that the holders own. Debt is a resource that brings goods, services or labour when it is paid. The article explained this in pretty simple terms, so everyone can understand it. Try to read and educate yourself for a change, instead of being the sheep that follows the herd.

The idea that it is "allegedly" used as money or could be used money, is the same thing as we can say about regular money. You are holding a piece of paper that puts a value to it, 100 dollars could buy you some things (not as much as it used to lol) and you are just giving a piece of paper and nothing more, but it does represent money.

You may say but that is created by the government and backed, but it is not backed by gold or anything, just the power of the country and some countries are terrible like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, so that means it actually doesn't have any meaning at all, we put the meaning in there, and when we don't, it goes down like the fiat of those nations. We put the value in bitcoin too, just like we do with fiat, same thing.

Money is not a simulation, but a resource. When you have no resource in a system, then you simulate it. Nakamoto did that by simulating a resource quantity via numeric attributions.

C'mon. You're like a child with this "you don't understand bitcoin" argument.
Fiat money is means to express quantity of debt. Debt is a resource traded on the markets just like a product or a service. In the Nakamoto's system you have no resource so it is simulated by mimicking the recording of quantity as explained in the OP.

Wrong! Blockchains provide a distributed ledger for making simulated transaction with realtime records.

The banking system makes real transactions, with debt.

You cannot compare a simulation with the real thing. It's ridiculous.

I agree, Monopoly is not complex enough. It's a simple simulation of capitalist economy.

"Monopoly" does not attempt to simulate a real-life economy and only a foolish person could think such a thing. If you think I'm wrong then tell me where in the game are interest rates and inflation, where bonds are issued, money is printed, and leveraged bank loans are given and defaulted on.

I believe it's not hard to know that fiat currency is a total failure but the government will never agree or want to accept the fact about it and in other for them t gain people's trust they have to say something bad about Bitcoin.
I read that someone said Bitcoin is backed with nothing which is not true because Bitcoin is backed with its community support, blockchain technology, and controlled supply.

Having said that, I don't think the number of people that didn't accept Bitcoin should matter to us because at the early stage of every innovative concept only a few people always accepted it and if we go back to the statement made by the OP we can also see that the author of the possible article she read to compose her post is never Bitcoin enthusiast

This is a very cool new take on how they could diminish the value of bitcoin whereas Fiat has been not used as anything but government saying "trust us, this has value" and nothing more. I personally would use this "online transaction simulator" all my life over fiat if that was the case, but unfortunately not all people accept it so I still have to use fiat, but imagine how much I like it enough to never use fiat ever again if I was given the option.

You can try to make it look like bitcoin is not the greatest currency ever, but that is not going to work with people like me, because we know the reality that fiat has been terrible for many years so far and it should not be changing anything soon neither.

snowshow now admits


so he admits he has not learned about bitcoin. or learned if it works as intended..

his whole premiss is about an article..

if he read bitcoin code he will learn soo much, real quick and realise how much he didnt know before

The funny thing is that when you start your silly definitions, everything else you claim later start falling apart too. Like money which is also a "simulation" in your little world that it doesn't really exist and people took it seriously. So there is no "real money" either to use to "play bitcoin" or get it back from new players.

I am not claiming that the system, the simulator and its components doesn't exist. But money with units pagged at 21 million. That's non-existent. It's just simulated.
So I cannot claim that the Monopoly game simulates capitalist economy if I haven't bothered to study it? Your logic is pretty weak.
Yes, I know that people care about the simulator and its components because they play it with real money and thus need new players to get the money back. But that's irrelevant here.

That is irrelevant here beause the system already exists whether the word "allegedly" appears in some paper or not.


Then, you can't claim that something you haven't even bothered to study is a simulator.


The "article" is also irrelevant here as it is the Bitcoin software that people care about - and not the academic whitepaper - which functions contrary to your claims of being a computational "simulator".

Allegedly means that something is claimed to be the case, although there is no proof. Nakamoto claimed their system creates money, although it just simulates money via the record of numeric attributions. That's why they defined an electronic coin in terms of the chain. Because there's no money in the system. If there's no money, there's nothing to define, except the components of the simulator. The chain of digital signatures is one such component.

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the simulator. Nor about how these components work. Because the whole point of the article is that there's no money in the system, no electronic coins pagged at 21 million. Coins are just simulated via numeric attributions recorded into the blockchain. It's like a stock simulator. It has numbers and names recorded but manages no real equities. It just simulates them via the record.

You're constantly missing the point of the article and respond to irrelevant things. Just try to accept the fact you participate in a simulation and that's it.


 

he is just a troll.. bored of life bored of reality but not ready to learn how things really work.. and he does not understand bitcoin..nor wants to know

. best to not argue about his misunderstanding and instead just use his misunderstanding against him

and so

by snowshow not being sure if the whitepaper writer created bitcoin.(by saying allegedly) then in snowshow mind the white paper has less relevance to bitcoin.

thus snowshow should stop reading the white paper and instead actually learn bitcoin

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.
Allegedly invented? If you put this into question then you should be ready to put up some evidence to the fact that it was not invented by Satoshi. If you don't have such evidence, you should stop using this word and instead write facts as they are. No one "alleges" that Satoshi is the creator. He is.

Also, what does it mean its own money? The payment system's money? Bitcoin has its own money... I've never heard that before.

Are you the author? I can't find author's name. Is he ashamed?

yes bitcoin is code. blockchain data and ASIC devices that use electric.. not whitepapers

and the good thing about the code is that it is open-source so you can read it.

yep.. bitcoin is not paper
you are trying to describe what you see in a "whitepaper" dated and released 2008

 .. you are not trying to describe the blockchain, its data or the devices it uses or the code that enforces the rules. that only began in january 2009

if you cannot tell the difference between the 2 different things. then spend some time to learn the difference between bitcoin "blockchain together with open-source software and protocols" vs whitepaper/articles

try to check the code, look at the blockchain data and touch an asic.
then you may begin to learn how things actually work


for instance bitcoins mining process uses ASICS not CPU's. ASICS are not mentioned in the white paper.

learning about bitcoin by only looking at "a article" or "whitepaper" as you suggest, shows you are not learning much about bitcoin.
especially when you only take snippets of a sentence of a white paper you are not fully understanding. where you have not read the entire context, content

That's not how it works, if all miners stopped all at once the trust sector of it would stop but then people with computers would start using it again because there is a money to be made to keep it safe. Plus there is no connection between selling and stop mining, which means that just because miners stopped doesn't mean that we are going to end up with people selling.

I can take myself for example, I own bitcoins and I have a bit of money and I can guarantee you that if miners stop, I wouldn't be selling and if people start selling then I would start buying as well, many people think the way I do and that means the price could not be zero for sure.

Nakamoto: "we define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures". So, the reward to the miners is the chain. I can have the chain for free by downloading the blockchain. There's nothing in the system except the blockchain together with open-source software and protocols. All that is freely available to everyone. Some magical, scarce coins, some digital milk or gold, whatever, with units pagged at 21 million are not real. Their production or exchange is simulated via numeric attributions. Check the article for details. I hope this helps.

miners have a cost to mine blocks.. but their reward is not the blockchain. they are not trying to sell the blockchain
their reward is the coin produced within the block they worked on

farmers have a cost to farm cattle pastures.. but their reward is not the cattle pastures. they are not trying to sell the farmland
their reward is the milk produced within the farm they worked on

---

part of mining is collating transactions of proof or transfer of coins from one owner to another

part of farming is collating the accounts of milk transports to retailers and customers

---

someone buying is not trying to buy the blockchain or the block. they are buying the coin
someone buying is not trying to buy the land or milk delivery report. they are buying the milk

---

coin holders do not want to sell their coin at a loss

milk holders do not want to sell their milk at a loss

Whatever, energy is spent for manipulation with numeric attributions. I have problem about your claim that numeric values are backed by electricity. If numeric values attributed to a person are "backed up", than there must be some resource counted with those values in the ownership of that person.

Not my definitions. Bitcoin has value, to someone I guess. But bitcoin is freely available to everyone. It's a chain of digital signatures - according to Nakamoto's own definition. You can have the chain by downloading the blockchain.

Yes, milk is a resource. But what that has to do with the Nakamoto simulator? This creation simulates transfer of resources by mimicking farmers when they record quantities of transferred milk.

1. yes energy is "spent".. not saved
2. bitcoin is not about trading electric batteries with potential energy to power other electrics

the spent energy has a cost. and people trade for what is created(mined coins) when that energy is spent/used. 
because they want the convenience to have coins but without the inconvenience of having to mine them. so they buy the coins from people who have coins (whom had costs involved in their acquisition of the coins).

..
analogy:
when a farmer pays for land and buys cows to graze on it to create milk. ..and then those cows actually do create the milk.

that milk is not "stored land". .. its milk
that milk has the costs of the land and the cows.

people want milk because it has a benefit for them. but those that want milk dont want to become farmers. so they just buy milk at a fair price that should atleast covers the farmers costs

the now milk owner does not now own "land" nor want to own land.. he owns milk that milk had a underlying cost in its production.

well under snowshows very own definitions

snowshow's messages hold no value and are meaningless because the amount of energy and time he put into creating characters on a page have no meaning or value. (correct snowshow?)

his messages stored on this forum are just random characters on a page with no value or meaning.(correct snowshow?)

if so, then.. bye snowshow.
you are just wasting your time and energy, (by your own admission, right?)

Unfortunately for you, Satoshi did not code Bitcoin as a monopoly game, else it would've had OpenGL as well  

Power and energy is not spent on "verifying numeric attributions", it is spent finding a solution to a cryptographic challenge to mine a block. This is precisely what Nakamoto was talking about in the whitepaper so I don't see what problem you have about this.

You got it all wrong. Let me help you understand. Power or energy is spent on verifying numeric attributions There's no some energy stored somewhere for bitcoin holders to access and use. All the energy invested by miners is spent for a chain of digitally signed numeric attributions to grow. That chain is a record of simulated transactions with electronic coins. Coins are simulated via numeric attributions. They don't exist in reality Just like the items in the Monopoly game.

It's not imagination. It's reality. It's your choice whether you want to believe it or cry wolf.


Yeah well those "numeric values" are backed by mining power.

If all miners everywhere stopped mining then the asset backing bitcoin will disappear and the price will sink to zero. But since more miners are joining, the amount of backing asset increases, which supports higher Bitcoin processes. This is not an activity you can just plug into a supercomputer with current time and space capacity and "simulate" it, whatever weird meaning you have for that.

Right here, you have in the Bitcoin network an "environment where resources are produced and exchanged". You can stop spreading disinformation now.

Hahaha. You have a big imagination. You cannot change reality by playing semantics. It's a simulator in a sense that by mimicking the recording process, it simulates the environment where resources are produced and exchanged. Because in the majority of such exchanges numeric values are used to count the quantity of transferred resource units. Nakamoto's system is not the environment where resources are produced and then exchanged. However, by using and recording numeric values, the illusion of such environment is created.  This makes Nakamoto's invention a simulator. And this has nothing to do with some determinism - whatever you meant by this abstract concept.

no
government modern fiat is pushed to be that belief because they didnt want government fiat to be backed by a real underyling thing of value.

..
imagine a medium of exchange as not just a price.. but a sandwich of different amounts
- - - - - - - most willing to pay before disagreement/dis-interest
   ..          ..
..    ..    ..     price (speculative market)
         ..
- - - - - - -underlying value

the 'most' and 'underlying' are the support and resistant walls where no one wants to sell below or buy above

the price is the filling in the middle that changes depending on peoples personal desires/demands/ personal choices and barter


when the price is low its NEAR VALUE when the price is high its at a premium and over valued

bitcoins are created at a cost(mining) you cant just create bitcoin out of thin air for free. it actually costs electric and time to create bitcoin

as coins move between people where someone sells a coin. he sells it and the new buy then has their acquisition cost..

the paradigm of mining cost and acquisition costs push up the underlying value amount progressively.. which then affect the window of the speculative market above that

yes the price within the window is not fixed and is based on different peoples agreement. but that market window of possible prices.. sit WITHIN the window. which has a base underlying of value propping it up where the lowest "price" possible is non zero

Economy is about producing and exchanging resources. It has absolutely nothing to do with believing. A belief is a state of mind of a person.

The banking system produces and exchanges debt - a resource, with quantity of that resource being recorded with deposits and banknotes. You can see in the article more details.

The Nakamoto simulator attributes numeric values to the addresses and records them into the blockchain in order to mimic the recording that banks use. In that way an exchange or a transaction is simulated. In other words, nothing was exchanged or transferred, but the record creates the illusion it was. Bitcoin is just a chain of digital signatures recorded on the blockchain. You can get it for free. Together with other blockchain components and open-source software and protocols it constitutes the Nakamoto simulator.

The main issue with that (as many people have pointed out to you in previous threads) is that Bitcoin is not a simulator. Bitcoin doesn't have the required parts that would make it a simulator. For instance - all simulators are deterministic - for a given input, you can get the same result over and over again. This is not true for Bitcoin because the from a probability point of view, the miner that successfully mines a block is picked at random from the set of miners.

If it is not deterministic, it cannot be a simulator in the first place (if it was, then it could not be money).

I’m not really good with economics, maybe someone can help explain to me, but from my own understanding- everything is either backed by debt or belief of the people that such asset has a value right? Even the fiat we are all using today has value because we all believe that it does right? Which is why the government can devalue it at anytime. So why do people have problem with Bitcoin? And moreover it’s not like bitcoin is something that anyone can easily get, only few people can afford what it takes to mine Bitcoin, which is why it is very scarce , so I don’t see anything wrong with the value or price. If it was something that anyone can easily get, then maybe we can talk about it not truly deserving the value that is being tagged on it.

There's no Bitcoin mining. There's energy spending for verifying numeric attributions before recording them into the blockchain. Sure, energy has value. But you're not buying energy when joining the Nakamoto simulator. You're just participating in a simulation where the recording of numeric values attributed to your address mimics the recording of real transactions.
I am not disputing the implementation of Nakamoto's simulator. I am just showing why Bitcoin - a chain of digital signatures, is freely available to everyone, and why it is just a component of the simulator.

Currency is the record of resource quantity owned by currency holder. Fiat currency is the record of debt quantity. Bitcoin is a chain of numeric attributions -  a component of a simulator that mimics fiat currencies by recording numeric attributions to the blockchain. Hence bitcoin cannot be a currency by definition. It's a component of the Nakamoto simulator.

That's the definition of currency not money. The main characteristic of money is having a fixed value which currencies (like fiat) do NOT have.

There is no simulation in bitcoin. It is real transactions transferring real values between individuals without a third party involved.

#technobabble

Why would anyone want to waste more time on this nonsense?

You fail to understand that the implementation of Bitcoin is not the same as described in the whitepaper. For example, you say it's not backed by anything. The whitepaper does not mention this, but the coins are backed by a corresponding amount of mining hashpower.

Bitcoin mining consumes energy and this energy has value. This value is being transferred into the value of Bitcoin.
If the Bitcoin blockchain was a simulator, then what's the point of wasting so much electricity for such simulation?
We could simply use the altcoin blockchains, which don't use as much electricity as the BTC blockchain or we could create a transaction simulator, which doesn't consume any electricity at all.
This is just another "Bitcoin isn't backed by anything real, so Bitcoin doesn't have value" type of FUD articles. Nothing new here.
The anti-Bitcoiners must come up with new and interesting concepts and ideas, instead of repeating the same old FUD.

Abstract

Economy is a pretty simple concept - it is a system for producing and exchanging resources. Money is also a simple concept - it is a specific type of resource that has features like durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, and acceptability. In 2008, a person or group under the identity Satoshi Nakamoto, allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money in the form of electronic coins, generally known as bitcoins. Here, we will use Nakamoto's own definition of coins in order to demonstrate that they invented no such system. Instead, they invented a payment simulator. In this simulator, cryptographically signed numeric attributions are recorded into a distributed database called "blockchain". This mimics the recording of quantity that occurs when resources are produced or exchanged through economic activity. Given that Nakamoto's invention neither produces nor exchanges resources, this makes it a simulator, a Monopoly-style game, and not something that relates to real money or economy.

Here you can read the article: https://btcsim.wordpress.com/