Topic: What is the 'purpose' and 'nature' of Bitcoin? Some questions. - page 3. (Read 3505 times)

The actual purpose of bitcoin was to make an alternative way for people  to trade and  exchange money on the internet , a safer way to shop online without having to use your credit card that is linked to your bank account which will compromise it,but from that idea it created the best way for hackers and bad people to use money without being tracked down, that is why governments can't control it and that is why they made it illegal in some areas, that is why it didn't become an international currency

Coherent conversation with you has proven to be impossible,
Only option left is to borrow a line from Spoetnik.

@HS



 

See point 1 above. Do you mean 'with'?


Have I not already said that I'm talking about Bitcoin? Please refer to the title of this thread, then re-read the questions that appear in the first paragraph of my opening comment. I asked the same questions half-a-dozen posts later because none of the answers I received actually addressed them.

I have specifically asked how people would explain the benefits of an existing currency called Bitcoin to non-Bitcoin users, with a view to determining how they would persuade a non-Bitcoin user to switch to Bitcoin. I have also asked whether Bitcoin conveys any benefits that people actually need. I think my views on the subject are clear, but I was asking people to explain their views on the existing benefits of Bitcoin vis-a-vis fiat currencies and other e-payment systems. Do you understand?


Again, the purpose was and still is to discuss Bitcoin (it's purpose and nature) as it currently exists, not a cryptocurrency which does not currently exist. OK?

HS

Nope the haze is still there. Must be hell to drive when those blinders on.


Your haze must prevent reading comprehension, if you can't understand what I said.
It means BTC will not be replacing Fiat , it will be another better designed Crypto that achieves that goal.


 

1. If you intend to lecture people on their reading comprehension then first learn how to spell and construct a sentence.
2. You are again referring to my proposal even though this thread is about Bitcoin.
3. The 'answer' provided is an answer to your own question, not mine.

I will pose my question as a very simple statement in the hope you actually get it this time: "The benefits of Bitcoin do not meet people's real-world needs, i.e. Bitcoin is not a real alternative to fiat."

Do you agree with this statement or not? Yes or No? If you do not agree then why?

HS

Dude ,

really always saying no one has answered your questions, when the answers are posted Right in front of your FACE.
Does it help your Reading Comprehision at all, if I make the Font Bigger.


Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges,
But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it.
You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.


Did that break thru the haze or are you still blind to the answer before you?

 

What 'physical asset' does Bitcoin offer? It is a virtual currency, not a physical asset. If what you're saying is true then why would anyone ever use Bitcoin? Think back to when it was first introduced - someone took a leap of faith and decided to use it. Or do you think it sprang into existence overnight complete with bitcoin exchanges, bitcoin ATMs, a few millions users, and an equivalence value against the dollar, sterling, etc?


This thread is not about my proposal. It is about bitcoin. Nevertheless...

1. What my proposal actually does is remove cost considerations in relation to recycling and environmental concerns, thus making it possible to maximise the resources that are available. It also allows for massive input into R&D to develop new and innovative technologies to address these issues.

2. See above. When Hal Finney performed the first bitcoin transaction, did he do so because bitcoin was a physical asset or backed by a physical asset? No he did not. He took a leap of faith and used the software, which was all bitcoin was at the time. Was Hal Finney a fool? If I employ your logic then it becomes impossible to conceive how bitcoin has got to where it is right now without assuming that each and every bitcoin user is a fool.


Again, think back to the early days. Bitcoin may be backed up by fiat now, but was it backed by fiat right from the start? Was it backed by anything more than the early adopters' belief that it might have some future utility?

You still haven't answered any of my questions. I'll give you the short version again. My contention is that the reason people aren't abandoning fiat in favour of bitcoin is that a) the benefits bitcoin offers do not actually correspond with their wants and needs, and b) bitcoin doesn't offer them anything more than what existing monetary systems offer, i.e. it is the existing systems in an alternative form rather than an actual alternative. Do you disagree? If so, why?

HS

bitcoin 2009-2013 was great. it actually offered everything M-pesa had, but without the need of vodaphone control.
people could program their own exchanges, do local trades using paper wallets and the cost of using bitcoin was negligible.

however bitcoin 2013-2016 has changed, not offering the same freedoms as m-pesa. the tx fee alone has priced out developing countries from using bitcoin as a real day-to-day currency.
the lack of momentum of scaling has slowed down being able to use it in a short time guaranteed transfer. thus not useful for actually shopping with bitcoin.

bitcoin has now become just an investment vessel for developing countries. and is starting to do the same for developed countries too. all because coders in certain groups decided to not use real code rules to scale bitcoins utility forward. but use economics to shift demand backwards purely for a "fiat" money grab

If btc mining is simulation,then fiat money are just paper with pictures.

Yes,bitcoin is just a bunch of programming code,but that doesn`t matter.The system is important.

With btc,the money supply is "automated",with central banks the money supply is controled by humans.

Did you even do a little bit of research before you posted? M-Pesa (M for mobile, pesa is Swahili for money) is a mobile phone-based money transfer, financing and microfinancing service, launched in 2007 by Vodafone for Safaricom and Vodacom, the largest mobile network operators in Kenya and Tanzania.

It has nothing to do with Bitcoin. ^hmmmmm^

BitPesa is a payments platform that offer an easy way for individuals and businesses to make payments to and from sub-Saharan Africa.

Let me clear that up for you
Think about what a financial transaction Actually is . You walk into a shop, are 'charged' for any goods or services and Pay the Vendor for said goods, so the next time you arrive he will have the goods or services you need verses Robbing the Vendor and him not being there next time you need something.  
Your idea of creating a separate illusion will not work , as you have given the vendor & regular people no reason to fall for your illusion , except for your understanding , that since the bankers are creating an illusion , you can too. Illusions don't work that way, Vendors & regular people actually have to really believe your illusion, which the bankers used the gold standard in the beginning (A physical asset) , your illusion does not offer a Physical asset , so it will never fool anyone.

Money has only become an illusion when they removed the Gold Standard in the 1930s, until then the Fiat was directly exchangeable at a bank for gold.
It did have value which was lost, The guys perpetrating the illusion of amount of value offered are the Bankers, not the shop keepers or regular people.



BTC was the first , and it has some advantages to begin with , like being able to pay someone on the other side of the planet fairly quickly.
The Infrastructure is still being built , that will allow a world wide virtual currency.
Compared to cars , which also was many years before there was mass adoption.
https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/blog/before-the-model-t-henry-fords-letter-cars

We are still in the early phases of crypto, the final winner will be Truly Decentralized, Energy Efficient, Quantity Large enough to be global, but still be affordable,
That coin is not BTC (in its current configuration), but another.  

Timeline will be determined by Diffusion, Everyone here are early adopters, there are many more stages to come before mass adoption,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

 

FYI:
Flaws in your specific illusion, is it fails to consider two primal issues.
1.  Physical Resources are not Unlimited .
2.  Your Illusion fails the believably test, because you are not initially backing it with a physical resource.

FYI2:
Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges, But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it.
You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.

"It is a lot like M-Pesa, but offers the benefit of not being able to be rolled back or controlled by a central party". They might not immediately see the benefit of the latter, and I don't particularly care to force the issue. Adoption -- at least lacking some catalyzing crisis -- does not subsume from the center. It occurs at the margins. Patience, grasshopper.


None of that shit matters to an end user. My above point is enough.


Because M-Pesa was right place right time with a distribution network that was already in place with a captive customer base, and an advertising budget.

I'm still waiting for answers though. Why don't you have a go? According to jbreher, these are the benefits of Bitcoin:


Ayers says:


Some people would benefit from reduced fees, provided they're not one of the billions who can barely afford to live yet alone send money abroad. Zimbabwe? Venezuela? Any massive increase in the volume of bitcoin transactions and wallet ownership to suggest that citizens of these countries are switching to Bitcoin? Let's face it: if citizens of these countries can't be persuaded then who can?

Seven years after its introduction and Bitcoin has what? Two million users globally? Three million? Maybe five million? I'll be generous and say ten million. Could it be that there's a chronic mismatch between what Bitcoin provides and what people actually want or need? That in terms of what they want and need, Bitcoin provides them with nothing that the existing system doesn't already provide? That it's not a real alternative?

HS

Hi. This was my question: "What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do?" But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"

The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?

HS

@HS
Called it , 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16930063


@jbreher

No matter how concise or how clear your answer, nothing seems to get thru to HS.
Experience that myself with him in another topic.

 

Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation.

Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.

It's interesting that you refer to it in religious terms re: "Then and only then can it be idolized so that it may rule over all." I take your comment with a pinch of salt, but you're not the first to portray it like this. A few days ago, someone told me that he would refuse to do anything that "violated the sanctity of the global ledger", as if the global ledger is a virgin goddess who sits in a temple and must be worshipped from afar.

I'm not religious, but many translations of the bible interpret 'sin' as 'debt', i.e. "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." - see Matthew 6:12

Bankers don't like to talk about 'debt forgiveness'. Some of them even think it's 'immoral'.

"A neutral entity that does not believe in right or wrong in order to evade the effects of karma."

Think about what a financial transaction amounts to. You walk into a shop, are 'charged' as a debtor, found 'guilty' by default, and ordered to hand over a token symbol of your 'guilt' to 'pay off' your debt. It's ridiculous though, because the token symbols we use are promises to pay (actual and digital promissory notes) that can only be converted into other promises to pay. OK, you can exchange a promise to pay for goods and services, but that just repeats the above cycle. You can only convert a £5 note into another £5 note, or other denominations of debt representing the same amount. We are asked to repay debt with debt, which makes the debt meaningless precisely because it can never be repaid. If you think about how modern money is created then it quickly becomes apparent that the debt never existed in the first place - it's just an illusion. It can't be paid back because it was never supposed to be paid back, because it doesn't really exist.

We have literally made an idol of money. All forms of money are just symbols that we attach meaning to. A dollar is just a dollar sign, and a pound is just a pound sign. The virtualisation of money itself makes this even more clear, because we're worshipping a non-existent entity - just the symbol (£/$/BTC etc.) itself.

I say that we should stop pretending that this debt is real and stop perceiving other people as 'debtors'.

Less of this: https://s11.postimg.org/nh2fdckoj/idol_worship.png

More of this: https://s16.postimg.org/dmoql3yed/forgiveness.jpg

If we're going to talk about it in religious terms then I say "There is no god but man."

HS

To be honest, bitcoin is for the geeks mostly. Unless you are interested in geeky stuff, you are most likely to have no clue about bitcoin. That's why people in Tanzania or Kenia will look you as they've seen a ghost unless you cross your way with geeks there. (I suppose that would be a rare case)

It is the same thing in Germany or USA too. The thing is, since the social media is a lot well developed in the first world countries. They probably heard it in somewhere at the worst case.

they would benefit from less fee for example for sending money abroad, outside from their country, they would also benefit for faster transaction, if they use zero-transaction confirmation, that some merchants offer, and their fortune would not lose value over tiem like the usd, due to inflation

Hi. That's not an answer to my question though. Please see my reply to Pursuer above.


Please see my reply to Pursuer above.


That's exactly my point, i.e. Bitcoin is a simulation of mining. So what is the point you're trying to make here?


My bank stores a number as an electromagnetic charge on a storage medium, so I already know my balance doesn't exist in any 'real' form. What would happen if you could flick a switch and turn off the electricity supply to your town or city? How 'real' would your balance (in Bitcoin or otherwise) be then?

Approach someone on the street, show them the ledger, and tell them it represents 'proof of trust'. Will they accept this at face value or will they ask for an explanation? Will your explanation be self-referential (i.e. the ledger exists, therefore it is 'proof of trust') or will you have to explain the code behind the ledger so that they understand how the ledger is created? Above and beyond even that, would they take your word for it? Trust is neither code nor data but a state that exists in the human mind.


No, I'm using a specific group of people as a test case in an attempt to get someone to explain what the practical benefits of Bitcoin are to those who do not currently use Bitcoin. It really doesn't matter if the people in question are in Tanzania or Texas. What is the incentive for choosing Bitcoin over fiat? What does Bitcoin offer that fiat doesn't? Next time you overhear someone moaning about money why don't you go over to them, explain how Bitcoin can solve their problems, and let me know what they say?

HS