Bitcoin Forum

The Banach–Tarski Paradox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA)

As of Jul 31, 2015, the above video has enjoyed 3,853,383 views. If the folks viewing that can wrap their heads around the Banach-Tarski Paradox concept, then Bitcoin, with or without the math, should be a no-brainer for them.

Since modern money is based on a lie, I think following paradox is more appropriate:

That's not a paradox :(

The fact it had three million views does not mean all those viewers could wrap their head arround it, it is peanuts compared to the views of gang nam style and I still cannot wrap my head arround why that exists or got the views..

Therefore your argument does not relate in any way to Bitcoin becoming mainstream.

Actually it is. It's the famous "Liar's Paradox" and goes back to ancient Greece. There are many variants of it.

Consider the statement: "This statement is not true."

If the statement is true, then it is not true. If the statement is not true, then it is true.

The same idea was used by Russell to create the Russell Paradox which shook the foundations of mathematics early last century.

Funnily enough, however, Banach Tarski is not a "paradox" in the strict mathematical sense. (Sometimes "paradox" is used to indicate simply that something is confusing, and Banach Tarski can certainly be confusing.) Banach Tarski is a legitimate theorem. The only catch is that it depends on the "Axiom of Choice" which is not universally accepted. In fact, Banach Tarski is an example of a consequence which leads some people to reject the Axiom of Choice.

Funny but you're looking it from the wrong angle. Videos like Gangnam style do not exist for the public to wrap their heads around. Probably that's why they got so many views. Now you can call this a real paradox! :)

Oh memories: i remember when in 4th grade some teacher told us that on a sidemark. I was totally jazzed by this..

But today i think its totally dumb honestly. Don't get how mathematicians could get so pumped up about it. Probably because its a metaphore for some very special definitons of mathematical set theory.
But if you look at it at face value, its only a statement which references the state of itself in a "looping" and broken way. It has similarities to a coder who does a loop wrong and so does the computer crash, because the computer can not finish calculations.

If one starts humming to oneself :"let's say the statement is true, then..." (as i did in 4th grade) you already got it wrong in my opinion, because the statement is referencing a property of itself and the reader is then tricked to believe that he is the judge of that property and becomes confused.

But that this is not really meaningful you see with this sentence:

"I'm a dog".

Is now the sentence referencing itself? Or does it mean The writer who wrote it thought he was a dog?

The Key is: The sentence itself was always written by somebody and has no consciousness of its own, so any statement it makes about itself is just meaningless blabla.

Bruno's Conjecture stipulates that both camps are equal in size. In fact, since the advent of Bruno's Conjecture, a third camp came into existence, thus now all three camps are equal in size, commonly referred to as Bruno' Conjecture Prime. Those who don't or can't wrapped their heads around either conjecture make up a forth camp, which ... Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunos_Conjecture (caveat: the link may not work for those in some camps)

Fiat within itself is a paradox. Dollar is less and less valuable, it loses purchasing power since decades ago, yet, America has keep growing and developing, people still accept dollars all over the world, and it doesn't seem like its going to change anytime soon, no matter how many QE they do.

Yellen Paradox?

Well, I partially agree. In natural language, it's just a brainteaser. Philosophically it can be interpreted to mean there are some statements which are "meaningless".

Mathematically it can have real consequences. If a logic is sufficiently powerful to form a statement like "This statement is false," then the logic is inconsistent (Russell's Paradox). Even if the logic is consistent, similar techniques can be used to prove incompleteness: some true statements are unprovable (Godel incompleteness). Maybe it's fair to say the natural language version is just a "metaphor" for what's being done mathematically though. Certainly no one proves Godel incompleteness by saying "This sentence is false. QED."

Well that's the ideal situation. Fact is as long as bitcoin is continued to be associated with scams, gambling and illegal stuff the progress may not be as fast and as postive as we thought it would be.

very nice video. i completely agree btc is sure to become mainstream.

I expect Bitcoin to become as mainstream as the Banach Tarski result. ;)

Interesting point.  Only need 21 million people to see the value in bitcoin to have a "21 club" so to speak.  With 7 billion people in the world finding 21 million people to hold a deflationary currency like bitcoin shouldn't be hard.  It's .3% of the world population owning 1 bitcoin or 1 in 333 people roughly.  But we know that there are a lot of hoarders with a lot more than one bitcoin, so it is not exactly as though we need to count on those figures.  I think the economic pressures and negative media will keep most people from owning bitcoins, but some financially savvy people with investment capital may set some aside for the future or invest in physical mining.  Over the short term, of course, the original adopters and other "whales" will continue to splash causing volatility but the long term fundamental prospect seems the same- $0 or $1,000,000.  The one question I have is whether or not central banks and governments will allow bitcoin to exist as a deflationary global currency over the long term.

I'll bet most of those millions clicked on it to impress a hot chick or guy looking over their shoulder on the train. When I check analytics for sites I've operated in the past I'd say 1-5% spend enough time on a page to comprehend what it's conveying.

We don't actually need 21 million. Considering tons of coins, literally a couple million, got lost forever, naturally it becomes more scarce. Also, we don't even need average joes on the millions, we only need a couple of dedicated whales to invest and the price would go to jupiter. The marketcap is tiny.

It simply because most of the people do not have any other choice than using domestic fiat money. If they have the freedom to select what type of currency they use, it will be very different, just like some countries using USD as currency due to poor domestic money

In fact, when majority people's salary is received in the form of fiat money, they will even fight to protect its value. So once it is widely spread, it's impossible to stop

You know Bitcoin is becoming mainstream when you start to see Banks investing and begining to show a big interest in the digital currency.

Honestly I think it will be pretty difficult for bitcoin to become mainstream. It's not very user friendly.

I'm very disappointed the video didn't immediately repeat when it ended.

why not click play again? How easy is it!

One day bitcoin is fully regulated by the most of the govs and constitutions. Ppl may start to trust and use it.

Most of us here already don't trust the governments and their regulations, so how would you expect that most bitcoiners, along with other people, would still stay with bitcoin when it is regulated in all countries?

 
 
Whoooosh.

You can not regulate Bitcoin.You might be able to regulate companies using Bitcoin but that's it. And when we will see decentralized exchanges and marketplaces it's over with regulation. Furthermore I don't believe every country will regulate Bitcoin companies as much as the US might do in the future. We already safe havens for Bitcoin companies. Guess what these companies will do if htey get pushed too much in to a corner by government? They will leave and settle somewhere else.

it is like trying to regulate piracy, if anything has to be learned about banning piratebay or the likes, it does not stop, you cannot control what people demand(unless you are apple, you can command your apple fanboys to do whatever is your bidding). If people want to use bitcoin and use it for what it is intended for, it cannot be regulated and indeed they will seek ways to evade any means a government has to try and regulate something that is not in their hands. "You have no power here!"