Topic: How Satoshi Nakamoto Fooled the World - page 22. (Read 8983 times)
In general, this can be said about all cryptocurrencies. And in general - isn't the market mythical? After all, in fact, everyone is selling just papers.
Yes, certificates of investments can be written digitally or on paper. But you cannot eat them.
If you don't want to buy bitcoins then don't do it. There are many goods that people buy especially in the investing field that you can not eat, that does not make them a scam. Alone for this statement you are now on my ignore list.
Yes, certificates of investments can be written digitally or on paper. But you cannot eat them.
If you don't want to buy bitcoins then don't do it. There are many goods that people buy especially in the investing field that you can not eat, that does not make them a scam. Alone for this statement you are now on my ignore list.
I still benefit from censorship resistant transactions if no new participants join.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
So, how are people able to return their investments in the bitcoin system without new investors? That is what it means to benefit from the system, from bitcoin.
It's not surprising someone as morally bankrupt as yourself is attempting to move the goalposts, but that's not what it means to "benefit from the system", unless you are merely a speculator. Granted, for some that is the primary motivation for getting involved with Bitcoin. And I feel sorry for those people. Nothing in the whitepaper says the purpose of Bitcoin is to buy it cheap for fiat and then sell it high for fiat. But you, like many in the shallow and uncomprehending media, are only capable of seeing that side of things. Which is why you parrot the weak and flawed arguments posed in crappy articles from worthless gutter rags with no journalistic integrity. You don't have an original thought in your empty little head.
The real benefits of Bitcoin are the tamper-proof sending of funds without interference from, or reliance upon, any middlemen, the transparent and open nature of the network allowing anyone to validate that a transaction has taken place and all the other things that have been repeatedly explained to you. All the things fiat cannot offer us. You are willfully blind to that side of the argument. You won't acknowledge it because you are fundamentally dishonest. A putrid little shitweasel with no decency.
OP: 
When one does not have the ability to understand, one wanders and consequently reaches conclusions based on the "LCD".
The situation with bitcoin is simple, hundreds of years ago the words was the payment currency that was represented in a good or barter, there was what It is known (knew) as a verbal commitment, nothing more was needed, but it was obvious that bad boys no pay and cheats have always existed in the history of mankind.
Then came paper (papyrus), coins, etc. so bitcoin is not different this is reference from the historical past confirms that forms of payment evolve, my idea is very simple and brief and without referencing dates, etc. in consequence "The Point/OP" is already ridiculous to say that bitcoin is not based on anything. (It's song song overcome)
Yes, certificates of investments can be written digitally or on paper. But you cannot eat them. They are intrinsically worthless. So, when you invest into them the system that issued these certificates must grant you the access to the value inside the system. In the bitcoin system no such value exists. The system is empty. And that's why the current holders of bitcoin must scam new investors to give them the value. That's the essence of bitcoin scam. Previous investors are scammed, and that's why they are forced to scam the new ones. When one does not have the ability to understand, one wanders and consequently reaches conclusions based on the "LCD".
The situation with bitcoin is simple, hundreds of years ago the words was the payment currency that was represented in a good or barter, there was what It is known (knew) as a verbal commitment, nothing more was needed, but it was obvious that bad boys no pay and cheats have always existed in the history of mankind.
Then came paper (papyrus), coins, etc. so bitcoin is not different this is reference from the historical past confirms that forms of payment evolve, my idea is very simple and brief and without referencing dates, etc. in consequence "The Point/OP" is already ridiculous to say that bitcoin is not based on anything. (It's song song overcome)
I still benefit from censorship resistant transactions if no new participants join.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
So, how are people able to return their investments in the bitcoin system without new investors? That is what it means to benefit from the system, from bitcoin.
It's not surprising someone as morally bankrupt as yourself is attempting to move the goalposts, but that's not what it means to "benefit from the system", unless you are merely a speculator. Granted, for some that is the primary motivation for getting involved with Bitcoin. And I feel sorry for those people. Nothing in the whitepaper says the purpose of Bitcoin is to buy it cheap for fiat and then sell it high for fiat. But you, like many in the shallow and uncomprehending media, are only capable of seeing that side of things. Which is why you parrot the weak and flawed arguments posed in crappy articles from worthless gutter rags with no journalistic integrity. You don't have an original thought in your empty little head.
The real benefits of Bitcoin are the tamper-proof sending of funds without interference from, or reliance upon, any middlemen, the transparent and open nature of the network allowing anyone to validate that a transaction has taken place and all the other things that have been repeatedly explained to you. All the things fiat cannot offer us. You are willfully blind to that side of the argument. You won't acknowledge it because you are fundamentally dishonest. A putrid little shitweasel with no decency.
OP:
When one does not have the ability to understand, one wanders and consequently reaches conclusions based on the "LCD".
The situation with bitcoin is simple, hundreds of years ago the words was the payment currency that was represented in a good or barter, there was what It is known (knew) as a verbal commitment, nothing more was needed, but it was obvious that bad boys no pay and cheats have always existed in the history of mankind.
Then came paper (papyrus), coins, etc. so bitcoin is not different this is reference from the historical past confirms that forms of payment evolve, my idea is very simple and brief and without referencing dates, etc. in consequence "The Point/OP" is already ridiculous to say that bitcoin is not based on anything. (It's song song overcome)
When one does not have the ability to understand, one wanders and consequently reaches conclusions based on the "LCD".
The situation with bitcoin is simple, hundreds of years ago the words was the payment currency that was represented in a good or barter, there was what It is known (knew) as a verbal commitment, nothing more was needed, but it was obvious that bad boys no pay and cheats have always existed in the history of mankind.
Then came paper (papyrus), coins, etc. so bitcoin is not different this is reference from the historical past confirms that forms of payment evolve, my idea is very simple and brief and without referencing dates, etc. in consequence "The Point/OP" is already ridiculous to say that bitcoin is not based on anything. (It's song song overcome)
Snowshow in front of his screen:
So, I'll ask you once again: where do you see value in the bitcoin system if not a single bitcoin holder can return even a dime worth of investment without new investors?
And yet, it's been told to you, thousands of times. Here are a few for emphasis:I still benefit from censorship resistant transactions if no new participants join.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
You can benefit from the security and the anonymity of the system. One crypto owner can buy a good from another crypto owner and therefor both benefit from the bitcoin system. There is no need for a new buyer to enter the bitcoin ecosystem.
Back to the rest of your question. I can send you $100,000 worth of Bitcoin without a third party interfering with our transaction and requesting documents for identification and proof for source of funds.
I can move $1,000,000,000 abroad without making anyone notice that I did. It is a transaction stored in a public and transparent legder, but pseudonymity makes it so that there is no clear evidence of who I am and with enough privacy and care, I can make it close to impossible with the current knowledge, information and technology to link the transaction to my identity.
I can purchase a ton of goods using Bitcoin directly, at my own will, even by physically shopping and checking out in a similar way to credit card payments. Only without banks.
I can store information directly on the blockchain.
I can use my own resources and energy to 'generate' or, as we say, mine Bitcoin at my own will.
These are just a few of the things I can do with Bitcoin. This is how I benefit from it. Tell me where exactly is the 'new investors' part in any of the five scenarios I have mentioned above. Exactly, there is not.
I can move $1,000,000,000 abroad without making anyone notice that I did. It is a transaction stored in a public and transparent legder, but pseudonymity makes it so that there is no clear evidence of who I am and with enough privacy and care, I can make it close to impossible with the current knowledge, information and technology to link the transaction to my identity.
I can purchase a ton of goods using Bitcoin directly, at my own will, even by physically shopping and checking out in a similar way to credit card payments. Only without banks.
I can store information directly on the blockchain.
I can use my own resources and energy to 'generate' or, as we say, mine Bitcoin at my own will.
These are just a few of the things I can do with Bitcoin. This is how I benefit from it. Tell me where exactly is the 'new investors' part in any of the five scenarios I have mentioned above. Exactly, there is not.
Then I think value is actually subjective. If all of a sudden nobody thought USD had value, it will not have value any more. If all of a sudden everyone thought Bitcoin was worthless, it becomes worthless. We as a society decide what is valuable and what is not, otherwise precious metals would not become worth less during peaceful times and worth more during panic. Its value changes depending on a number of conditions.
Bitcoin is just another manifestation of the same debt.
In the past people have been using shells, or silver, or gold for the same job. Why can't we use Bitcoin? Because it's... digital? Or maybe because the governments cannot alter the value at will with inflation?
In the past people have been using shells, or silver, or gold for the same job. Why can't we use Bitcoin? Because it's... digital? Or maybe because the governments cannot alter the value at will with inflation?
Debt in crypto is the appropriate amount of US Dollars (or whatever other fiat currency) that was used to buy the bitcoins in the first place. This is what backs the quantity of BTC.
Besides, transaction establishment existed long before debt became a thing.
Quote
So, bitcoin doesn't have powers to do something, or to benefit someone.
That is not the case since bitcoin is an anonymous store of wealth that can be send worldwide and transported written on a paper. With the rest what you wrote I agree, the only difference is that I understand that the user case that I described as a anonymous payment system results in the value of bitcoin. Other then that there is no value stored in bitcoin that is true, but that is obvious to everyone since bitcoin only consist of numbers (like your online banking also at least in germany, since onlinebanking does not store money but is a written duty for the bank to give you money if you want it)
I showed you ten times how are people able to return their investment in fiat currency system without new investors. I explained how people can return their investment in Tesla system without new investors. I know that "1 BTC", 1 USD", or "1 TSLA" can be written digitally or on paper and sent worldwide. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking how is the holder of "1 BTC" able to return investment from the bitcoin system given that they invested in the bitcoin system. It's pretty simple question.
So, I'll ask you once again: where do you see value in the bitcoin system if not a single bitcoin holder can return even a dime worth of investment without new investors?
And yet, it's been told to you, thousands of times. Here are a few for emphasis:I still benefit from censorship resistant transactions if no new participants join.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
You can benefit from the security and the anonymity of the system. One crypto owner can buy a good from another crypto owner and therefor both benefit from the bitcoin system. There is no need for a new buyer to enter the bitcoin ecosystem.
Back to the rest of your question. I can send you $100,000 worth of Bitcoin without a third party interfering with our transaction and requesting documents for identification and proof for source of funds.
I can move $1,000,000,000 abroad without making anyone notice that I did. It is a transaction stored in a public and transparent legder, but pseudonymity makes it so that there is no clear evidence of who I am and with enough privacy and care, I can make it close to impossible with the current knowledge, information and technology to link the transaction to my identity.
I can purchase a ton of goods using Bitcoin directly, at my own will, even by physically shopping and checking out in a similar way to credit card payments. Only without banks.
I can store information directly on the blockchain.
I can use my own resources and energy to 'generate' or, as we say, mine Bitcoin at my own will.
These are just a few of the things I can do with Bitcoin. This is how I benefit from it. Tell me where exactly is the 'new investors' part in any of the five scenarios I have mentioned above. Exactly, there is not.
I can move $1,000,000,000 abroad without making anyone notice that I did. It is a transaction stored in a public and transparent legder, but pseudonymity makes it so that there is no clear evidence of who I am and with enough privacy and care, I can make it close to impossible with the current knowledge, information and technology to link the transaction to my identity.
I can purchase a ton of goods using Bitcoin directly, at my own will, even by physically shopping and checking out in a similar way to credit card payments. Only without banks.
I can store information directly on the blockchain.
I can use my own resources and energy to 'generate' or, as we say, mine Bitcoin at my own will.
These are just a few of the things I can do with Bitcoin. This is how I benefit from it. Tell me where exactly is the 'new investors' part in any of the five scenarios I have mentioned above. Exactly, there is not.
Then I think value is actually subjective. If all of a sudden nobody thought USD had value, it will not have value any more. If all of a sudden everyone thought Bitcoin was worthless, it becomes worthless. We as a society decide what is valuable and what is not, otherwise precious metals would not become worth less during peaceful times and worth more during panic. Its value changes depending on a number of conditions.
Bitcoin is just another manifestation of the same debt.
In the past people have been using shells, or silver, or gold for the same job. Why can't we use Bitcoin? Because it's... digital? Or maybe because the governments cannot alter the value at will with inflation?
In the past people have been using shells, or silver, or gold for the same job. Why can't we use Bitcoin? Because it's... digital? Or maybe because the governments cannot alter the value at will with inflation?
Debt in crypto is the appropriate amount of US Dollars (or whatever other fiat currency) that was used to buy the bitcoins in the first place. This is what backs the quantity of BTC.
Besides, transaction establishment existed long before debt became a thing.
Quote
So, bitcoin doesn't have powers to do something, or to benefit someone.
That is not the case since bitcoin is an anonymous store of wealth that can be send worldwide and transported written on a paper. With the rest what you wrote I agree, the only difference is that I understand that the user case that I described as a anonymous payment system results in the value of bitcoin. Other then that there is no value stored in bitcoin that is true, but that is obvious to everyone since bitcoin only consist of numbers (like your online banking also at least in germany, since onlinebanking does not store money but is a written duty for the bank to give you money if you want it)
I don't really know how it works beyond what I have already said... so yeah, you might be correct. We might all be fucked at some point, but I still think that it is one of the greatest asymmetric bets that normies (regular people) have been able to have in front of them including that it seems to be facilitating the greatest wealth transfer in history.. so hopefully your .001% (or whatever the appropriate probability assignment?) scenario is not correct.
I didn't ask you to write peoms and I didn't ask you about prophecies.
Why would it matter what you asked me to write? First of all you seem to have a pretty fucked up view of the topic, and surely some folks, including yours truly, was willing to entertain some of your ways of presenting your case.. but in the end, there ends up being hardly any (if any) there there..,. Your ideas of supposed lack of value in bitcoin end up being quite vacuous, even if you attempt to present them in ways to attempt to suggest that you have some kind of profound viewpoint on the matter.
I am not interested in your opinions on the future, and whether you all will be fucked.
Why do we need to wait until the future? People are already doing quite well with bitcoin. Bitcoin is already a success in a large number of ways. Sure, there are future considerations too, yet there seems to be no need to be projecting some indefinite point into the future in which supposedly we are all going to be fucked, but in the meantime, we have ended up suffering worst costs if we attempt to follow your nocoiner approach - that really has already proven to not be a good one.. and even if we were to hypothesize that you have gotten into bitcoin and you are currently in the red, then at that point there might be some need to figure out what your approach might be from there.. including maybe continuing to dollar cost average or buy on dips or just HODL through the whole matter. Hopefully people are not failing/refusing to sufficiently and adequately account for their own cashflow situations and to make sure that they have their expenses sufficiently covered including maintaining some decent level of emergency expenses too.. and surely with an investment like bitcoin, the first several years could take some time to get into profits - and of course, there are not guarantees either, so in that regard, no one should be investing more than they can afford to lose - even if the investment thesis these days seems to be quite stronger than it was in 2014 or even 2018 - so even if there are way fewer folks projecting bitcoin to go to zero, I still believe that there are a lot of benefits towards planning, strategizing and employing a somewhat prudent investment style while building ones bitcoin portfolio that might even take 4-10 years to build.. depending upon individual circumstances that should also be accounted for.
I asked you, in the context of those two examples , how bitcoin has value, or how bitcoin benefits people, if once people invest their value in the bitcoin system they are unable to return even a percentage of value, without new investors?
If this simple question is to hard for you to comprehend, I can ask you even a simpler one.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that. However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
If this simple question is to hard for you to comprehend, I can ask you even a simpler one.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that. However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
For sure, you seem to be creating an artificial construct and then wanting to me to jump into your artificial construct. I have already address the value question in regards to bitcoin, and you can keep fighting it all you like but I see no need to accept your framework, even though you continue to insist that I am not sufficiently/adequately playing ball with you.
It seems to me that I already sufficiently tried to play ball with you, and you fail to play ball back with me and you continue to insist on your way of framing value which ends up putting us into dumb hypotheticals that are detached from reality.. Furthermore, it seems to me that bitcoin has a strong enough fundamental case in terms of network effects that anybody should be able to initially allocate anywhere between 1% and 25% of his/her investment portfolio into bitcoin and then go from there. Of course, if there is a lot of skepticism about bitcoin, then the level should be lower.. perhaps closer to 1%. If you want to remain a nocoiner then that is your choice, but 1% seems to be a more prudent approach, even for a bitcoin skeptic... and sure, some people might even take 3-12 months to get their bitcoin allocation up to 1%, and for sure, individual circumstances are going to vary in terms of whether they have other investments and how they decide to get into bitcoin, whether it would be DCA, buying on dips, lump sum investing or some combination of the three in order to establish their initial stake - and hopefully, researching into bitcoin at the same time in order that they are going to become more comfortable with whatever strategy that they have established and maybe even tweaking their strategy once they are more informed about what brings value to bitcoin.
You don't have to accept anything. You just have to answer where's value in the bitcoin system if not a single bitcoin holder can return their investment without the value brought by new investors. Because, you constantly preach about bitcoin's value, or bitcoin did this, bitcoin did that. Bitcoin is just an evidence that people invested into the system, and has, for e.g., this form: "0.123 BTC". If they invest more they get bigger number. So, that's some kind of digital certificate of investment, as I have explained in the post #395. So, bitcoin doesn't have powers to do something, or to benefit someone. It's just data verifying that people invested in the system. If they invested in the system, then the system has to return them their investments. Yet, this is impossible. They cannot get anything from the system, but instead, they must wait for someone from the outside to bring the value in. Which is an indispensable proof that nothing exists in the bitcoin system. Just like in my fictional system, where I got people to invest in it, but then, they were able to return the investments only from new investments. It's literally mind boggling how you repeatedly ignore this important point, and just talk about completely irrelevant stuff. Or you just repeat that mantra about bitcoin's value. So, I'll ask you once again: where do you see value in the bitcoin system if not a single bitcoin holder can return even a dime worth of investment without new investors? Or to put it another way: if the influx of new investors stops, how can the holders return their investments? Given you constantly preach about value in the bitcoin system, then you obviously know the answer.
Bitcoin is a myth it's an old story before bitcoin has a high selling price as it is now but now I dare say bitcoin is real because many people who invest in bitcoin have succeeded and it's real not a myth.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I will eventually.
I want to point out that you don't get to decide what is money to others. If Bob and I decide something is money to us, than so it is.
You may say that cigarettes are not money. But inmates all understand that cigarettes are money, even the ones who don't smoke. They all threat cigarettes as money. In fact your dollars are almost worthless to an inmate.
Are Pokemon cards money? You can debate that with a 5 year old and you will lose the debate.
And yes, I agree, you can't hold it touch or see a Bitcoin. But try to think of the internet as it's own sovereign country. Every sovereign country has it's own central bank and currency. Now the internet has it's own central bank and currency.
And like everything else on the internet, in the digital world, you can not touch, hold, smell, or see Bitcoin. Bitcoin simply would not be able to exist as internet money if you could hold it in your hand.
But I am always surprised at people who keep saying you can't touch Bitcoin therefore it's not real. Yet they use bank cards, credit cards, and other digital forms of currencies. In fact when my own father told me Bitcoin can't be touched, I told him I would buy him a steak dinner if he could reach into his pocket and touch his money.
He lost. I still bough him.a nice steak paid for with digital not real money on my credit card.
20 years ago I was screaming on the roof tops that there is a global agenda to make all fiat currencies digital with no cash. All digital currencies controlled by government. And most people laughted at me. Today those same people accept that 98% of all transactions in my country are digital only with no real fiat paper backing it up.
The world will move towards digital currency alright. But it won't be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. And it will still qualify as cash.
Feel free to completely ignore me. Many people did 5 and 6 years ago. Now many if them are asking me about Bitcoin.
I want to point out that you don't get to decide what is money to others. If Bob and I decide something is money to us, than so it is.
You may say that cigarettes are not money. But inmates all understand that cigarettes are money, even the ones who don't smoke. They all threat cigarettes as money. In fact your dollars are almost worthless to an inmate.
Are Pokemon cards money? You can debate that with a 5 year old and you will lose the debate.
And yes, I agree, you can't hold it touch or see a Bitcoin. But try to think of the internet as it's own sovereign country. Every sovereign country has it's own central bank and currency. Now the internet has it's own central bank and currency.
And like everything else on the internet, in the digital world, you can not touch, hold, smell, or see Bitcoin. Bitcoin simply would not be able to exist as internet money if you could hold it in your hand.
But I am always surprised at people who keep saying you can't touch Bitcoin therefore it's not real. Yet they use bank cards, credit cards, and other digital forms of currencies. In fact when my own father told me Bitcoin can't be touched, I told him I would buy him a steak dinner if he could reach into his pocket and touch his money.
He lost. I still bough him.a nice steak paid for with digital not real money on my credit card.
20 years ago I was screaming on the roof tops that there is a global agenda to make all fiat currencies digital with no cash. All digital currencies controlled by government. And most people laughted at me. Today those same people accept that 98% of all transactions in my country are digital only with no real fiat paper backing it up.
The world will move towards digital currency alright. But it won't be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. And it will still qualify as cash.
Feel free to completely ignore me. Many people did 5 and 6 years ago. Now many if them are asking me about Bitcoin.
I don't really know how it works beyond what I have already said... so yeah, you might be correct. We might all be fucked at some point, but I still think that it is one of the greatest asymmetric bets that normies (regular people) have been able to have in front of them including that it seems to be facilitating the greatest wealth transfer in history.. so hopefully your .001% (or whatever the appropriate probability assignment?) scenario is not correct.
I didn't ask you to write peoms and I didn't ask you about prophecies.
Why would it matter what you asked me to write? First of all you seem to have a pretty fucked up view of the topic, and surely some folks, including yours truly, was willing to entertain some of your ways of presenting your case.. but in the end, there ends up being hardly any (if any) there there..,. Your ideas of supposed lack of value in bitcoin end up being quite vacuous, even if you attempt to present them in ways to attempt to suggest that you have some kind of profound viewpoint on the matter.
I am not interested in your opinions on the future, and whether you all will be fucked.
Why do we need to wait until the future? People are already doing quite well with bitcoin. Bitcoin is already a success in a large number of ways. Sure, there are future considerations too, yet there seems to be no need to be projecting some indefinite point into the future in which supposedly we are all going to be fucked, but in the meantime, we have ended up suffering worst costs if we attempt to follow your nocoiner approach - that really has already proven to not be a good one.. and even if we were to hypothesize that you have gotten into bitcoin and you are currently in the red, then at that point there might be some need to figure out what your approach might be from there.. including maybe continuing to dollar cost average or buy on dips or just HODL through the whole matter. Hopefully people are not failing/refusing to sufficiently and adequately account for their own cashflow situations and to make sure that they have their expenses sufficiently covered including maintaining some decent level of emergency expenses too.. and surely with an investment like bitcoin, the first several years could take some time to get into profits - and of course, there are not guarantees either, so in that regard, no one should be investing more than they can afford to lose - even if the investment thesis these days seems to be quite stronger than it was in 2014 or even 2018 - so even if there are way fewer folks projecting bitcoin to go to zero, I still believe that there are a lot of benefits towards planning, strategizing and employing a somewhat prudent investment style while building ones bitcoin portfolio that might even take 4-10 years to build.. depending upon individual circumstances that should also be accounted for.
I asked you, in the context of those two examples , how bitcoin has value, or how bitcoin benefits people, if once people invest their value in the bitcoin system they are unable to return even a percentage of value, without new investors?
If this simple question is to hard for you to comprehend, I can ask you even a simpler one.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that. However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
If this simple question is to hard for you to comprehend, I can ask you even a simpler one.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that. However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
For sure, you seem to be creating an artificial construct and then wanting to me to jump into your artificial construct. I have already address the value question in regards to bitcoin, and you can keep fighting it all you like but I see no need to accept your framework, even though you continue to insist that I am not sufficiently/adequately playing ball with you.
It seems to me that I already sufficiently tried to play ball with you, and you fail to play ball back with me and you continue to insist on your way of framing value which ends up putting us into dumb hypotheticals that are detached from reality.. Furthermore, it seems to me that bitcoin has a strong enough fundamental case in terms of network effects that anybody should be able to initially allocate anywhere between 1% and 25% of his/her investment portfolio into bitcoin and then go from there. Of course, if there is a lot of skepticism about bitcoin, then the level should be lower.. perhaps closer to 1%. If you want to remain a nocoiner then that is your choice, but 1% seems to be a more prudent approach, even for a bitcoin skeptic... and sure, some people might even take 3-12 months to get their bitcoin allocation up to 1%, and for sure, individual circumstances are going to vary in terms of whether they have other investments and how they decide to get into bitcoin, whether it would be DCA, buying on dips, lump sum investing or some combination of the three in order to establish their initial stake - and hopefully, researching into bitcoin at the same time in order that they are going to become more comfortable with whatever strategy that they have established and maybe even tweaking their strategy once they are more informed about what brings value to bitcoin.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that.
Let us stop here for a moment. In your fictional scenario, why do you think people would "invest their value in your system"? I think that is an important part.
Please do that and post a link here. If it is that easy then I would be curious how you are doing.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that.
Let us stop here for a moment. In your fictional scenario, why do you think people would "invest their value in your system"? I think that is an important part.
However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
Quote
Yes. By luring investors with false promises about your "system," and later changing your terms, you would be considered to have deceived your investors, thus labeling you as a scammer.
However, I am not sure how this relates to Bitcoin in any way.
It relates to Bitcoin because people invested in the bitcoin system based on Satoshi's promises of money in the Whitepaper. Money is some kind of value that benefits people. However, no such value exists in the bitcoin system, which is why the investors are unable return their investments from within the system. Instead, they must wait for the investments of new investors for these returns. Hence, a textbook definition of an investment scam. In a legit systems, investors are able to return their investments from the value that is present in the system or that is created in the system - as I explained above in the two examples (Tesla, fiat currency system). If there were value inside the bitcoin system, then the current holders would use their evidences (certificates) of investment (bitcoins) for the access to that value. The same as certificates of investment in the Tesla system (stocks) or in fiat currency system (deposits and banknotes) grant access to the value present or created in these systems. But given that no such access exists, these certificates, that is bitcoins, are just fake data. Something equivalent to counterfeit money. And are used only to lure new investors into the scam. However, I am not sure how this relates to Bitcoin in any way.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that.
Let us stop here for a moment. In your fictional scenario, why do you think people would "invest their value in your system"? I think that is an important part.
However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
Yes. By luring investors with false promises about your "system," and later changing your terms, you would be considered to have deceived your investors, thus labeling you as a scammer.
However, I am not sure how this relates to Bitcoin in any way. Bitcoin, and the blockchain technology behind it, delivers exactly the "system" that people have been longing for. Ever since the introduction of Ecash by David Chaum in 1983. This particular "system" is the realization of a decentralized trustless system. This trustless system may not be perfect, but it does provide the ability to move funds without relying on any third party. It works regardless of the current value of individual units within the system.
So, if you have an idea for a better system, you are more than welcome to share it. Many have tried, and many have failed, but that does not mean that a new system will not replace Bitcoin at some point in the future. For now, though, Bitcoin remains the king.
I don't really know how it works beyond what I have already said... so yeah, you might be correct. We might all be fucked at some point, but I still think that it is one of the greatest asymmetric bets that normies (regular people) have been able to have in front of them including that it seems to be facilitating the greatest wealth transfer in history.. so hopefully your .001% (or whatever the appropriate probability assignment?) scenario is not correct.
I didn't ask you to write peoms and I didn't ask you about prophecies. I am not interested in your opinions on the future, and whether you all will be fucked. I asked you, in the context of those two examples , how bitcoin has value, or how bitcoin benefits people, if once people invest their value in the bitcoin system they are unable to return even a percentage of value, without new investors?If this simple question is to hard for you to comprehend, I can ask you even a simpler one.
Let's say I created a system. Then I say to people: "invest your value in my system". And people do that. However, once people invested their value in my system I said to them: you are unable to return even a dime worth of value from my system, and if you want to return your investment, you have to wait for new investors to bring value into my system. Would you call me a scammer, and would you say that my system is worthless?
I don't have to do anything. I proofed you wrong many times and gave you arguments why your assumptions are not correct. If you keep asking the same questions without accepting the answers this will lead to nothing. The problem is that you read something about the USD and are not able to adapt this system to the bitcoin. Because you are not able to adapt it you say that bitcoin is not existent and a scam. Only you don't understand that the problem is on your side and not on the side of bitcoin.
Jump to: