Topic: How Satoshi Nakamoto Fooled the World - page 9. (Read 8983 times)

I already sufficiently and adequately responded to all of these points.  I have no burdens to show more or to repeat myself as you are proclaiming.


Did someone die and put you in charge of my discretion or anything else?  I hope not.  

Accordingly, if I feel like writing more, including but not limited to an "endless rant," about some matter that I believe is helpful or useful to point out within this thread, then I will.  Many of us have probably spent way too much time entertaining you on your various attempts to frame this topic related to whether bitcoin has value and or whether its price adequately reflects it value.  

Surely you have concluded that BTC's value is way less than its price, and seem to be arguing that BTC's price should be at zero in order to be aligned with its value (as you perceive it to be), and I have doubts about anyone who knows much of anything about BTC really agreeing with you in regards to bitcoin's value being zero.

I doubt that we really need to get into too many assessments regarding how much relative value that people place on BTC in relationship to its spot price, and of course those opinions differ quite substantially, including that there may well be close to 99% of the world's population that have not engaged in a sufficient amount of action to actually buy any BTC (or to get involved in BTC - such as buying it), yet I am not going to presume that all no coiners (99% of the world's population) believe that BTC's value is zero like you do.  Maybe we should label those people as pre-coiners rather than no coiners? and it is likely safer to assume that the nocoiners/precoiners have not sufficiently been motivated to take action to buy BTC because they have not figured out a way that they believe BTC might benefit them in the present or future that is sufficient enough for them to either try to figure out how to get some or to start acting in that direction.  There are probably a decent number of them that have no clue what bitcoin is, and surely there are some of them that heard the name bitcoin, and others who think that they know what bitcoin is but have hardly any clue (maybe like you, Snowshow?).

Of course, there are also quite a few folks who believe that BTC's value is greater than its current spot price and even consider the 200-week moving average that is currently at about $22,535 reflects a kind of bottom indicator - especially since the 200-week moving average in bitcoin has historically moved up which means vast majority of time BTC's spot price tends to be quite a lot higher than the 200-week moving average. Again, you can look at the above link that shows bitcoin prices back to 2012 and the 200-week moving average (which is largely a 4-year price average) to see how the 200-week moving average continues to move up and the vast majority of the time, the BTC spot price has been higher than the 200-week moving average.. Of course, there are no guarantees that such ongoing upward trends will continue, but there is no real meaningful or important information to suggest that such upward trending fo the BTC price and also the 200-week moving average will not continue.  So, as I type this post, the BTC's current spot price of $21,350-ish, which is even below the current 200-week moving average seems to reflect a bargain price if using that 200-week moving average as a kind of price bottom indicator.

Again, there are no guarantees in regard to which way BTC's price might go, but it does seem that currently bitcoin does have one of the free-est of trading markets in the world in terms of how it is traded in a variety of locations around the world, many of them 24/7 but not all of them, and of course, BTC can be traded directly between individuals too, used for transactions directly on the blockchain, and through various second layers, including but not limited to lightning network.  

It seems reasonable to speculate that the BTC's spot price is likely to move towards its value in the long run in such a way that with the continued passage of time, BTC spot prices are likely to become less and less volatile, but it could take 100 to 200 years to witness greater stability in the BTC spot price in the event that world-wide adoption continues to increase, which seems to be ongoingly happening (even though sometimes seems to be slowly taking place), but continues to happen, and surely many of us into bitcoin speculate that world-wide adoption will continue to expand which tends to contribute towards continued upward pulls on the BTC price in the coming years.

I also mentioned previously that I believe that bitcoin has a projected value of at least 1,000x the value of gold, and currently the BTC spot price is less than 1/10th Gold's spot price, so surely it could take 100 to 200 years for BTC's spot price to meet up with I believe to be its projected value relative to gold, and I doubt that we even need to sort these kinds of matters out because even if BTC's current or future spot price might not exactly represent the value that various members of the population assign to it, we will likely continue to witness turmoil in the BTC's price in the coming years, and likely ongooing upward pulls on the BTC spot price - even though in the shorter term it is much more difficult to figure out if the BTC price might be going up or down, even though I would consider the 200-week moving average as an ongoingly good BTC price bottom indicator, even though we do have various ongoing macro-issus potentially pulling downwardly on the BTC price and some other leveraging and historical risk-taking mistakes that are getting sorted out currently too.

So even in the real world, if you happen to be correct Snowshow in regards to the BTC value being at or near zero, then in the longer term, we should expect to see a continued gravitation of the BTC price in that ongoing downward direction towards zero, and surely I personally consider it bad financial advice to either refuse to get involved in BTC or to sell your BTC based on beliefs that the BTC price is going down, but people are free to do what they like.. and it seem to me that anyone with an investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer will likely be in profits 4-10 years down the road with their various purchases of BTC today... and of course, there are no guarantees, even though it is quite likely - like I already mentioned, that the ongoing existence of BTC is likely facilitating the largest of wealth transfers in history, even though it could take a while to play out - but the fact that we have such an ongoing transfer of wealth going on through BTC, you should appreciate that I am suggesting that the wealth is being transferred from the folks who do not have BTC to those who do have BTC, even though such wealth transfer is likely to take a long to time to play out (perhaps 100-200 years or longer? and cheaper prices now as compared with the passage of time).

... and of course, there are no guarantees, either.. but good for folks to consider their allocations into bitcoin, and even if you might feel like a bitcoin naysayer, it still seems prudent to get some kind of allocation, even if it is on the low end of the 1-25% initial allocation that I recommend.  The more bullish folks might well gravitate towards higher allocations and the more bearish folks towards the lower end, and we have also seen in recent times that conservative investors who are not overleveraging themselves in their bitcoin investment are likely going to do better than those who are either gambling with their BTC or overly leveraging it.

By the way Snowshow, even a seemingly dumb fuck like you, may well be better off to make sure that he has at least a 1% allocation in bitcoin in case you are wrong about bitcoin going to zero.. and probably you already have BTC anyhow.. I am not even going to concede that you are that dumb to really believe all the bullshit that you are spreading.  Maybe even your handlers are paying you in BTC, no?

I answered this, you just lost at your own bs game, you werent even good enough to construct a bs test that Bitcoin cant pass.

• If you have 200.000 more addresses, you can cryptographically sign 200.000 more messages on different funded addresses.
• You can send out 200.000 more Bitcoin inside the network, you dont need a buyer to send something, you can send to any address without anyones permission.
• You can store 200.000 times more Bitcoin in a permission-less, unconfiscatable way.
• You have collected 200.000 times more Bitcoin.
• You can open 200.000 more channels on lightning for example, if you each fund them with the same amount.
• You can open a channel on lightning with 200.000 times more liquidity, giving 200.000 times more liquidity to the other network.

No single Bitcoin sold, yet a utilisation of 200.000 times more.

But, in reality, there is NO Nakamoto scheme. It's just another imaginary construct you made up in your head. Sometimes it's fascinating to watch real life debunk a fiction that you'd invented for the purpose of social manipulation . . . but usually, it's just sad and pathetic.

Now you've just described the process of joining Nakamoto scheme: someone give you a resource, and you sent them a number. They gave you a resource people can utilize, and you gave them a numeric label that shows they have joined Nakamoto scheme just like people got some kind of a label when they joined Bernie Madoff's scheme.

---

Let me repeat what I already explained. Fiat money is numbers that represent the quantity of debt (loans) created in the banking system. Numbers are not supposed to be backed, but debt. Debt is backed by collaterals. Numbers are just information, like the one you see on invoices about quantity.  Try to educate yourself instead of just repeating nonsense conspiracy theories.

---

All that text but not a single word about how a person can utilize bitcoin without dumping it to someone else. Hahaha.

Let me simplify for you: there are two friends. One just gave a car to get 2 bitcoins. The other gave a couple of dollars to get 0.00001 bitcoin. The first one comes to you and ask: "what utility can I get that will be 200,000 bigger than the utility that my friend will get if no one wants to buy our bitcoins?"

That's a simple practical question. What is your answer?

What is mindblowing to me is that you have the audacity to say this to the person who still treated you fair and responded constructively, even after the all the bs you produced.

Not every number is a Bitcoin, just writing 1 on a piece of paper wont grant you access to the private key necessary to an address with 1 Bitcoin on it. But Bitcoin isnt just a number its a full peer to peer electronic cash system. We already understood that you prefer to account in cows(with the fetish of barter you keep expressing), but you can even break this down to numbers, by counting how many cows(resources) you have. Numbers are simply the most efficient way to account for something, so Bitcoin uses numbers as a unit of account, it would be a problem if it didnt.

People already did, its proven in reality. You dont have the authority to decide what counts as utilisation and what not, in the first place. If i sign a cryptographic message on the most uncensorable network, its utilisation. If i send or recieve Bitcoin, without selling/ buying them, its utilisation. If i store messages on a public ledger, like satoshi did on Block 0, its utilisation. If theres ways to use Bitcoin as a base protocol to provide security/ enable different networks, its utilisation. We are just at the tip of the iceberg, this is an innovation in computer science with many more applications in the future possibly.

Its like you found out what a market is, then had to think of a way to turn it/ rephrase into something negative and then refuse to apply this logic to anything outside of Bitcoin. Your whole talk is to take something and then find ways to make it seem like a problem, when in reality you are the problem, and other people are happy to use the systems we have now and value the work other people did for them.

We know, but how many times did you actually yourself? And how many times does the regular person do it? An individual probably used Bitcoin more for non monetary purposes, than previous forms of money like gold or fiat.

Bitcoin is used for this purpose too, there is even a whole loan marketplace in Bitcoin on this forum.

Its simply acquiring a fraction of a company, theres no guarantee of profit or anything. You can only buy them on a regulated market as a regular person, when a company is public. Companies dump and buy shares on the market themselves, they actually do what youre assuming about Bitcoin to their own investors, dont make a religion out of economics and assume everyone else is a selfless value providing angel.

We did and again its not something negative that Bitcoin provides utility to everyone, even if they have less of it. This is something positive and not something negative.

And then to your ridiculous requirement. A person with 10 Bitcoin could also split their Bitcoin into more different addresses, than a person with 0.1 Bitcoin. So they could sign more messages on different Bitcoin addresses, for whatever purpose this serves, but its more utilisation. They can also make more transactions before running out of Bitcoin, than a person with less Bitcoin, so again they can utilise it more. With more Bitcoin they can also open more/ higher funded channels on different networks like lightning, which actually influences how many transactions they can route on this other network, because they provided higher liquidity, giving them more income from routing in the other network.

Theres many examples of how a person with more Bitcoin gets 100 times more utility out of it, without having ever touched a Bitcoin/Fiat market.

Your whole existence here in the last months was gaining primary school level knowledge about something and then thinking on how to rephrase it into something negative. Are you a journalist? (No attack against journalists who still do their job, i respect them even more)

Not even that nowadays. Since 1971 that shiat currency is backed by millions and millions of nothing! The only thing keeping value is the sheep (the people) that were fouled by governments believing that what the state says is valid. So, the value shiat money has, is backed by trust... Trust can't even be quantized, for fuck sake. This @Snowshow is defending who know what! He's just trying to make a non-sense point of his opinion which has as much value as his shiat money!

Clockwork again.
After I have purchased Bitcoin, I have that number next to my address, no one can really take it away from me by any means, and further more, I can send it to you in exchange for some service or good from you and there you have, I just used my Bitcoin to purchase a resource with value!
The imagination is in your head, not in our heads. And it's not only imagination. It seems a mix of jealousy, lack of synapses and a brainwash from your governments, politicians, etc, over the years!

But bitcoin is a number. Numbers are infinite in quantity. Just because you set up a protocol that the maximum sum of numbers in your system is 10, that doesn't mean units of that number are scarce. Units of the number 10 are numbers. And numbers are infinite in quantity.

It's literally unbelievable that you people cannot comprehend something so simple and because of that you buy numbers that everyone can create in their mind and put on whatever media.

You responded to nothing. Let me help you. I am talking about the fact that bitcoin is just a number, a label that you get when joining Nakamoto scheme and that no human being is able to utilize it - which is why everyone must dump that numeric label to someone else. Only in that way people can get the resources and have the utility. That's essentially what I am saying.

In order to respond properly to the above, you have to show that people are able to utilize bitcoins without dumping them to someone else. Gold can be utilized as a metal for various purposes. Debt (recorded with fiat money) is utilized at loan repayments as explained in OP. Bike is utilized for driving. Shares in companies are utilized through access to profits or equity of the companies. So, no need to dump them to someone else. Now you explain how bitcoin can be utilized without dumping it to someone else.

Nothing else is important for this topic. You must show that people are able to utilize bitcoin. Also, a guy with 10 bitcoins in comparison to a guy with  0.1 bitcoin, must be able to get 100 times more utility if bitcoin is able to be utilized.

So, stop writing endless rants about irrelevant issues and try to address the issue this topic is about.

So then you are saying that you have a different meaning for the term "exchange".

I showed you a simple example that shows that your "impossible" scenario is easy to pull off, and your response to it is to make up a new meaning for an English word.

This would appear to be heading into wasteful nonsense, or maybe that was your intent.

I just read a series of articles from 1835, written in The Sun, a New York newspaper.  In which Sir John Herschel, a famous astronomer at the time, using his great new telescope "of an entirely new principle", tells us that he has spotted life on the Moon.  And that these creatures are humanoid in shape but with wings, like that of a bat.  He is calling them "bat-like winged humanoids", or rather "Vespertilio-homo".

This is were we get the term "Moon bats".



The image above is a lithograph of what can be seen through the new telescope.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about this. Scarcity is simply a characteristic of anything (resource, money, time) that directly relates to its supply. Bitcoin is capped at 21 million. There can only ever be 21 million coins in circulation ever. No one can mint more. Thus it has scarcity. It like renewable energy vs non-renewable. Non-renewable energy has scarcity as there is a limited reserve of non-renewables. Ideally renewable energy does not have a scarcity as it is a constant supply. Thus technically the cost of renewables is simply manufacturing costs. Whereas for non-renewable you would be factoring in supply vs demand. Thus supply/demand dynamics also relate to Bitcoin because of its scarcity. This is what gives Bitcoin its value.

The dollar or any fiat is essentially backed by assets held by the central bank. Thus the value of the dollar is determined by the assets that it is backed by. I think perhaps what you mean is that Bitcoin has no asset backing it, like the dollar or other fiat. But that is because Bitcoin is largely an asset, not really a currency.

That with your hardware wasn't an exchange. Because, you didn't provide a resource to the builders of that hardware. They simply joined Nakamoto fraudulent investment schemes and were labeled with number 5 for joining.

I don't think he has scammed the world the idea was revolutionary but it takes time to prove its valuable and reliable and uncertainty times is what make sit happen.

No I don't.  I post what I believe is responsive and relevant to the discussion.



No need.  I already did what is supposed to be done from my own perspective.  There is no need for me to try any harder merely because you want to have a different conversation about mostly nonsense.  I have at  least attempted to bring some meaning to the whole matter - and you have shown your self to be a pretty damned bad judge of meaning and relevance..


I have already responded to this vacuous point as well, to largely show that it is bullshit... and other members have done so too.. quite repeatedly.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. A transaction is the exchange of resources. Resources provide utility and by comparing the utilities of two resources people know how much of one resource can be given for another or vice versa. Attaching a number to your online address has nothing to do with the transactions, but with joining Nakamoto's fraudulent investment scheme and being numerically labeled in the process.

After you buy bitcoin, you have number next to your address. Nothing else. That's reality. Everything else is your imagination.

I proved everything in my OP. You're just playing semantics. Attaching numbers to addresses is not a transaction but entering Nakamoto scheme.

You keep ignoring this discussion and just repeat irrelevant issues and bitcoin propaganda. Try for a change actually respond to the issue which this discussion is about. It is explained in the OP and rephrased in my last response:

"...Well, the whole point is that such schemes have zero value simply because there are zero resources in them for scheme members to access. And for that reason members must wait for new victims to join in. The same is true in Nakamoto scheme. Bitcoin has zero value because there's zero resources in the scheme for bitcoin holders to access. And that's why these holders must wait for new victims to join in and bring the resources."

"impossible" you say, well guess what, I have done the "impossible".   ... I'll use simpler numbers for the example, but it would still apply to your larger numbers.

A few years ago I bought a piece of hardware for 5 bitcoins.  After the exchange was made, I received the piece of hardware that I wanted, and the builders of that hardware received my 5 bitcoins.

But here is the interesting part that relates to your "impossible" scenario:  ... Someone else, call them "Bob", that wanted ten pieces of the same hardware, that I had just purchased, would have needed to spend 50 bitcoins.

And so here we have the impossible happening: someone named Bob, once their purchase goes through, was able to get ten times the value for their 50 bitcoins than I did with my 5 bitcoins.

This all happened without the exchange of any dollars, or any other foreign currency.

I, on various occasions have used bitcoin without someone needing to purchase them from me.  That is, there was no exchange of dollars, or any other foreign currency.

How is this possible you might ask?

tadamichi already lists some good examples.  I would simply be repeating what they have already said.

And, there will be other uses for bitcoin in the future that we are currently unaware of.  ...  Consider the internet in 1990, before they came out with the world wide web (www).  Could you have seen all of the uses for http ?