Topic: Bitcoin Doesn’t Exist, Or How Satoshi Nakamoto Tells Lies To People - page 3. (Read 1154 times)

If you can give me 10 BTC or provide the private keys to the address that have them, and allow me to transfer it to my own address, then I will accept that you have given me 10 BTC, provided at least 1 confirmation or block of the transaction.

If you have no problem arranging for all that, then I accept you have given me the BTC. But you have not made any arrangements at all. There is an address in my profile, you can try sending there if you want to prove something. So far, there is not.

I have no interest in your Ferraris and I'm certainly not paying for them. If you give them to me, that's different.

You have not given me 10 BTC yet, so ... this is all pointless.

If you are merely talking semantics, it makes no difference to me whether it's a quantity statement of a supposedly non-existent Bitcoins. We all know it's control or access to the same quantities but everyone accepts it as just "you sent me bitcoin, or I paid you bitcoin" which can be easily confirmed, if you actually sent it.

So send or do not send, I don't care if you think it exists or it doesn't, if it shows up in my wallet and I can confirm it independently from you, together with all the thousand of other full nodes out there, then I will accept you sent me BTC. If it's on the blockchain, it exists on the blockchain.

Satoshi has been out of the picture for several years, you can leave him out of it.



You said you believe in God but you also sound like an atheist. That seems contradictory.

I believe in God because I have evidences for God's existence. On the other hand, there aren't evidences for Bitcoin's existence. Only statements about its quantity that Satoshi's software puts in the blockchain. Statements aren't evidences, but products of human mind. Evidences exist outside of human mind.

Regarding the rest. I don't answer personal or non sequitur questions.

Why the wall of text OP? You tryin' to be different from other people who spread FUD in this forum? Because this isn't the way that you should've worked because not everyone will have the patience to read your rhetoric or essay whatever you want to call it because it is a wall of text, try again next time. By the way, why do you believe in God when you can't see him/her but don't believe in bitcoin when there is a code that proves it's existence?

Interesting. So, you will not accept my statement that you have 10 eggs if I didn't actually give you 10 eggs. You will not accept my statement that you have 10 Ferrarris if those cars are not in your garage and you have possession of the key that turns them on. Nor will you accept my statement that you have 10 BTC if the quantity is not in your wallet. Ok. Then I have only one question for you: why then are you accepting Satoshi's statements that you have xx BTC if Satoshi never actually gave you BTC, but only quantity statement - "xx", and name "BTC"? Because quantity statement and name is something that you recieved from me as well: "10", "eggs", "10", "Ferraris", "10", "BTC". And I have no problem arranging for you to have them verified on the blockchain and to get you private keys and address that you control. If I arrange all that will you give me xx USD for the quantity statement on nonexistent Ferraris? If not, why are you giving xx USD for Satoshi's quantity statements on nonexistent BTC?


The fact that exchanges have the liability towards you to transfer quantities to your wallet, has nothing to do with the fact that in the absence of new investors no subjects exist that have the liability to provide you something for these quantities.

Also, you keep talking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't exist. Only fake quantities on Bitcoin exist. If Bitcoin would exist you would be able to show either tangible or intangible good that provides direct benefit, or financial instrument that have subject with the liability to provide you something for the quantity in your wallet.

Again, exchanges have the liability for you when you buy bitcoins from it. Exchanges are required to hold at least enough bitcoins in their systems to stay solvent, for their users to be able to withdraw (It's common sense, although there is yet to be legislation anywhere that enforces this). The ability to withdraw the bitcoins is how the liability is paid back to you.

It is worth noting that there is no concept of claims, liabilities, or reserves outside exchanges, at software and hardware wallets. This is what makes it a successful decentralized currency in the first place, because outside the exchanges there is no company or bond issuer or bank that can become insolvent and alter the value of a bitcoin.

Outside exchanges, bitcoin is not connected to any other currency's exchange rate.

Inside exchanges, it's connected to whatever exchange's currency rates it has.

Also inside the exchanges, the bitcoins inside exchange cold storage/hot wallets aren't connected to any exchange rate, because it only in the exchange software that connects to the bitcoins (however it represents them in its software) these rates. The exchange software is the one that enforces these rates, by sending or receiving the appropriate amount of cash from its bank & payment processor when a bitcoin withdrawal or deposit happens, respectively.

It also happens to be the way stock, bond and forex exchange software works as well. Even these assets can have different prices on different exchanges and it happens all the time.

So you want a real comparison to company equity and bond principal and not exchanges, OK. But it will be an apples to oranges comparison because bitcoin is a currency, not a stock, bond or loan.

You probably know that in bitcoin we have miners who extract a block reward that becomes increasingly smaller every 4 years. So the total supply of bitcoin that has currently been mined can be used as a statistic by which to calculate the bitcoin price. It cannot determine the price by itself. Just like equity, principal and how much your bank loaned you can't determine those prices as well (in the last case it would be the price of the debt should you want to sell it to a third party).

---

Finally, I got enough talking points to write my opinion piece. Now I can spend my time doing more productive things

I will not accept that you gave me 10 eggs if you didn't actually give me 10 eggs, nor will I accept that you gave me 10 Ferrarris if those cars are not in my garage and I have possession of the key that turns them on.

If you say you give me 10 BTC or 10 bitcoins though, I will also not accept that you actually gave me 10 bitcoins until I see the quantity in my wallet, verified by miners. If it's nothing to you, I could care less, because to me, it is something.

But until I can verify in my address that I control, that I have the private keys to, that the transaction was confirmed in a block, then you did not send me any bitcoins.

At this point, it is irrelevant what the US dollar (or fiat) price is of those bitcoins. If a block explorer does not say I have it, you did not send it, then I don't have the bitcoins. If my wallet software (that does not look too fancy as I just use either Bitcoin Core or Electrum) does not indicate the addresses contain bitcoin, then you didn't send me any bitcoins.

Beyond all this discussion, it becomes either academic or moot or pointless as most of us don't have time to explain anything else to you. If it's being talked about, that's something, not nothing.

It seems you didn't get what the liabilities actually mean in financial assets. The absence of new investors is the best way to explain this. So, you have a stock and no new investor is willing to buy it from you. Does that mean you are left with nothing? No, because the company has the liability towards you and that liability is called equity. Equity is paid to you either as dividend or buyback and liquidation value. In bonds, it is the bond issuer who has the liability towards you and that liability is called principal. In fiat, borrowers and banks have the liability. Borrowers must use quantities that you hold to pay off the debt, which is why, they are forced to exchange their goods, services and labor with you. The banks must liquidate the loans with issued quantities, which is why in the case of borrowers default, banks have the liability to exchange foreclosed property of borrowers for your quantity. After all, deposits are explicitly stated in the balance sheets of the banks as liabilities.

So whatever your interpretation of claims and liabilities is, it is completely wrong. Because, in the absence of new investors no subjects exist that have the liability to provide something to the holders of blockchain quantities.

That's pretty much what I was talking about when I mentioned "ownership of debt".


In fact there are claims and liabilities. The owner of the private key for an address who sends bitcoin to another owner owns a "claim" of the BTC over the other person, who holds the "liability".


Yes.


Even though the only thing happening was the nodes writing the transaction on the public ledger, that does not mean that funds are not moving around as reserves. Bitcoin completely abstracts this concept because its own protocol has no concept of financial reserves, which also happens to be the reason why random new cryptocurrencies have almost $0 market value when they are listed. It is the process of listing the cryptocurrency on an exchange that enables the exchanges themselves to attach their financial reserves (their own users' cash) onto bitcoin, hence why every exchange has a slightly different price.

This widget on Google that we call the "BTC price" is not an aggregation of all these prices, it is nothing more than Coinbase's BTC-to-USD ticker.

Spending of old investors' money, by itself, does not imply that those investors are not getting claims to their spent bitcoins (or liabilities for their bought bitcoins).

When we say "financial assets" what we actually mean is claims and liabilities. When you own goods, no subjects existe with the liability to provide you something nor you have claim towards the subject, because goods in themselves have tangible benefit. But when you own a financial asset, which have no tangible benefit, such subjects exist. And you own a claim towards them. In my OP I gave the examples of liabilities in the case of fiat, stocks or bonds and subjects (borrowers, company, bond issuer) that have these liabilities. In case of newly issued banknotes by the central banks, subjects are commercial banks or governments. That's because new banknotes are issued as loans to said subjects. So, the bases for financial assets are liabilities of actual subjects. And every holder of the financial assets has clam towards these subjects.

On the other hand, holders of blockchain quantities have no claims to actual subjects, given that no subjects with liabilities are created when new quantity is put into the blockchain. So no financial asset exists behind blockchain quantities. That's why without new investors voluntarily accepting the quantity, holders have nothing.

What you are actually saying is that my investment in blockchain quantity is backed by my own investment(my fiat reserves), which is obviously nonsensical. All that I and prior investors did, was paying off the existing members of blockchain. Our funds didn't end up as reserves for our blockchain quantities, but as spending of old investors.

Well I always like a constructive debate.


Going back to your analogy about bitcoin and MS Office licenses, you are right that there is something behind the quantity of MS office licenses - the MS office programs.

In bitcoin you can't benefit from the transaction outputs behind the quantity of bitcoin. That's because MS office licenses are goods, and not financial assets.

Gold, cash, Tesla stock, futures, these are all financial assets because they are backed by something that doesn't have a tangible benefit to people (ownership of debt). Same reason why sneakers, phones etc. are not financial assets because there's no ownership of debt backing them, it's some physical benefit backing them.

Now let's prove that bitcoin does have an ownership of debt:

When some country mints new banknotes (the US did that in 2013 if my memory's correct), they must find something to back this quantity of banknotes. So they take a ton of foreign exchange reserves (such as cash or precious metals) and use that as the basis of the debt - ownership debt relative to these foreign assets.

In Bitcoin, the "foreign exchange reserves" are investors' fiat currency. So you can view the quantity of bitcoin backed by ownership of investors fiat reserves and this is precicesly why the price is able to go up and why it was originally zero: The more fiat that investors bring, the more reserves that can be repurposed as debt.

Combine that with the bitcoin supply being fixed, and you have a constant total quantity versus an ever increasing asset reserve.


You can't. That's precisely what my last two paragraphs were about.

You seem to get stuck on "quantity" for some reason and your definition of quantity and what other people's definition of quantity must be, is open for interpretation.    You are saying that "other code" like MS Office is different than Bitcoin, but the Bitcoin protocol are a combination of ideas and inputs from several Open source developers from all over the world ==> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

Bitcoin exist and you can physically see the lines of code and the output that it generates and the energy that it use and the nodes it is runs on... so your whole theory falls flat...when you actually know what you are talking about. It is as real as the numbers that are entered into a Bank account and/or Reserve Bank.... only difference is... one is backed by debt and the other by Supply and demand for a virtual token. 

So there's an application called wallet, through which you wanna tell me that I own a specific quantity of Bitcoin. You wanna repeat Satoshi's lies. Ok. I want to tell you something as well. But, not by using fancy application. Instead, I am going to tell you directly: "Nhazwrath you now own 10 Ferraris". There you go. Via declaration I just made you the owner of a specific quantity of luxury sport cars. You see, I didn't even ask you to show me the POW like that guy Satoshi. That guy asks the POW from people and only then he is willing to declare them the owners of revolutionary digital asset via his software. I declared you the owner of luxury sport cars without the POW, without fancy application and without a software.

Now, how is the declaration that you read in your wallet different from declaration that you read here on forum? Both declarations have quantity and name and both are referred to you. And in both cases you are unable to show things which the declarations talk about. All you can show are declarations themselves. Nothing else. How naive you have to be to think that you own a thing just because someone said so by using fancy applications? And how naive you have to be to give up an actual ownership in the exchange for a declared one?

You could've saved us the stress and time by going straight to the point, writing a thousand words without concrete information is the same thing as spamming. It pains my eyes to come to the forum and start reading negative research about bitcoin and Satoshi. Bitcoin teaches us that scarcity gives value, the lesser people with bitcoin the better.

I don't see a wallet address where I can send Bitcoin.

Still not serious I see.

Let's suppose I say to you: "give me your bike and I will say to you that you own 10 eggs". You accept the offer. You give me your bike and after that I say: "you now own 10 eggs." Was that market exchange or gift from your side? Well, the latter because I gave you nothing. I just said something. I made a statement. Now, what's the difference if I put my statement into a database as data, instead of name "eggs" I use name "bitcoin", I use software for making the statement and my name is Satoshi Nakamoto?

Ok, let me make this easier for you by asking you a question. If bitcoin is a thing that exists, then you don't need a new investor to voluntarily accept quantity next to your address in the exchange for his funds. Rather, you can benefit from the thing behind the quantity, which you claim exists. However, if Bitcoin doesn't exist then you are left only with quantity next to your address. Since quantity by itself is just a mathematical concept you are left with nothing. Now the question: can you benefit from the quantity next to your address without a new investor voluntarily accepting this quantity?

I have personally called your bluff and put money on the line that Bitcoin is Nothing, by offering you that Nothing to Buy coffee with. 

Since you are currently refusing the bitcoin for coffee you are unserious in your arguments.  Any serious truth seeker would have taken the offer and opportunity to prove me wrong.

I know that I like proving people wrong.  =>

What if I told you that there is something backing those BTC numbers?

Just like there is a tangible item backing each MS office program (the license key), the item that backs the quantity of BTC is the transaction output.

Whereas you can get more than one copy of a MS office program in the activated state by possessing more than one key, by possessing more than one "mass" of BTC you get a transaction output in a different size.

Just as not all MS Office keys are created equally (those 10 keys might as well be for Personal, Business, Office 365 and Enterprise), neither are transaction outputs.

MS Office license keys (just a string of alphanumeric "codes") the "numbers" back the virtual tangible MS office "source code", the "program".

And similarly, the BTC "numbers" back the virtual tangible transaction outputs which are stored on the ledger.

Get it?

Hey, this could be a good guest post for Bitcoin Magazine, "Bitcoin exists; beyond the numbers on the balance".

Code is a set of program instructions that do something. Hence, code is something that exists. Numbers are human concepts that express the quantity of existent things. So you can say that you own 10 (quantity) MS Office programs. But quantity in itself is just an abstraction, mathematical concept of the human mind. In blockchain, you have numbers, but not the thing these numbers are supposed to quantify. The thing is nonexistent, and as such it is called bitcoin. P.S. nonexistent things have no value, not even zero. Dust particle has zero value, because it exists. Value is the property of existent things. The phrase "value of Bitcoin" or "Bitcoin has zero value" is an oxymoron given it gives the property of value to something that doesn't exist.

Satoshi created software via which he tells lies after POW: "go spend electricity, show the POW and my software will tell you that you own 50 peaces of a digital asset called bitcoin." That's a lie. No address holder owns digital asset. It only holds number next to its address. Number that quantifies nothing. And nothing is called "bitcoin".

Your prophecy on governments and banks I don't want to comment.

It has a lot to do with Bitcoin, because YOU are using it as a comparison. Answer me this... Can computer code have value? (Let me answer for you, because I know you are cherry picking certain things in people's responses and you are just answering those... Yes, it can have a value, because we are paying for digital software like MS Windows or Office / Applications in Play Store etc.. etc.)

So if a well-known artists creates digital art work and he/she link that to a transferable Blockchain (Smart Contract) ...then people will pay for that art... because there are a demand for it.

So, Satoshi created a "digital" token that are limited and transferable, so people can take ownership of that digital token and it is displayed on a public ledger that are shared.

Soon Governments and Banks will have their own tokens & Blockchains ....and Fiat slaves like you, will once again be forced to use that. (Why is there not a global ban on Crypto currencies?.... because government and Banks want to develop their own)