Those are your fantasies, not my claims. My claim is pretty simple: there's no digital resource or asset called bitcoin in the bitcoin system. I gave pretty simple experiment in the OP to demonstrate that. You all completely ignore the topic at hand and just engage in ad hominem attacks. The most common is this" "You don't understand bitcoin...".
So, there's nothing for me to address. Your opinions on me are not the topic here.
You changed your claims multiple times, you tried everything you can, but all of it got disproven. And then you just come up with another claim. And now your last resort is calling people cultists again, but if you understood how decentralized Bitcoin is this doesn’t even make sense and just shows that you indeed have no clue what’s going on. And nah people don’t read from the same book, they verify individually, people here are not even linked to each other. We don’t even know each other or have ever talked with each other before. Just verify everything individually, that is the only way to get it. You won’t get around education to understand Bitcoin, that’s the real problem here for the haters. Because they’re unable or lazy to do it. But it’s positive for Bitcoin as it keeps the people out, that just won’t take the time study it, naturally. So we will reach higher quality results in the end, as you can’t fake your way in.
tadamichi, you just described, in a way, how science progresses. That is, it's individual scientists verifying experiments done by others, others that they may not know. They are all trying to decipher, unravel a great mystery that is an ultimate truth. The final truth of how the universe works is unknown, we only know a tiny bit that has been unraveled by experiments and observations. This is how our understanding advances. At least, ideally. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way, think of the epicycles of astronomy of the past.
And, like you state, the process keeps those out that have a poorer understanding of science, since they would be unable to reproduce those same experiments, since "you can't fake your way in".
For the case of bitcoins it is a bit easier. Bitcoin's final truth is somewhat known since the source code is public for all to see. And if it's too complicated to follow, to understand it in code form, many have written articles, books, to help explain it, like the white paper or the book: "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos.
What is unknown about bitcoin is what will be done with it in the future, what other layers will be built on top of it (the lighting network is an example of a secondary layer).
There are parts that are known and public, but not to everyone.
Similar to studying physics, i probably wouldn’t be able to propose any future changes in our physics models, because i only studied parts of it and my knowledge doesn’t go deep enough. Yet i still know enough about it to understand how it works and to use it where i can. And it’s enough to catch my interest in certain areas.
If i tried to propose some change or start to do accusations that physics is a scam, it would become clear quickly that there are holes in my knowledge and it’s not true. That’s how i wouldn’t be able to fake my way into physics and change the way of thinking. For my ideas to have weight, it requires some heavy work and studying to really change the way people think, because ultimately the truth outweighs lies and bs. Similar to how epicycles got debunked.
Yet anyone is open to contribute to physics and we have people trying to say flat earth is real and we’re being scammed. Then it’s a question if i value stephen hawkings work more, than some idiot where it’s obvious that they didn’t spend more than 5 minutes thinking about it. It’s not even necessary to trust hawking, just verify his claims. And this is probably the only way to fully get physics, by verifying everything individually. And yet it’s still impossible to convince them of the truth, you could probably send them into space and they would still deny it. But the majority will still follow the truth and make use of physics even if they don’t fully get it themselves.
Bitcoin is similar to this in some way. Sometimes its even challenging to get for highly educated people, for whatever reason. It’s highly interdisciplinary, but they also have ties to the current system, similar to how long it took to change consensus about earth not being the center of the universe, because people benefited from it politically. Our current models aren’t accurate enough to fully get Bitcoin, having specialised knowledge in just one field isn’t enough. Similar to how it wasn’t enough to just study the bible to understand the universe. And it took a long to make people realise that the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Bitcoin is open to anyone for contribution, similar to science. And it thrives the more proof based, open to everyone and willing to follow the truth it is, that is where both Bitcoin and science thrive the most. Previous forms of money thrived on their users being uneducated and uniformed about it. Just think about fractional reserveing, it completely works on the basis that not everyone can withdraw their money, just until people realise this. Gold coins have also been debased trough cheaper metals troughout history. These forms of money thrive on people not understanding it. And in these opaque systems it isn’t immediately clear to separate between bs knowledge and truth. In Bitcoin it’s obvious fast, similar to when science follows it’s core principles. That’s when the two shine. The more great minds we have studying Bitcoin, the easier it will be to preserve what made Bitcoin great troughout time and implement great ideas for the future.
? FYI: Bitcoin is a crypto
