Bitcoin Forum

What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do? 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?

With the above in mind, is there any fundamental difference between a 'bitcoin miner' and a bank?

Below is a link to a mining simulation. In what way does Bitcoin differ from this? In what way do the virtual 'coins' that are 'mined' by 'miners' differ from the virtual 'materials' that are 'mined' in this simulation?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/321660/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/321660/)

Is Bitcoin just a mining simulation? If it is just a mining simulation then why do we pretend that it is 'real'? Why do we pretend that virtual 'coins' are scarce when they very obviously are not? Why do we pretend that they even have to be 'mined' or 'earned' in any conventional sense? For example, if I were to tell you that the system requirements for playing the above mining simulation are a warehouse full of ASIC processors and vast quantities of electricity then what would you say? Wouldn't you say "That's completely nuts! You're charging me to 'mine' something that doesn't even exist! I can do that on my own PC or device!"

Elsewhere on this board, I've been informed that 'trust' or 'confidence' can only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger." Do you agree with this? Or is it the case that 'trust' and 'confidence' are values that are built over time by human interaction? Will someone 'trust' or have 'confidence' in Bitcoin simply by being presented with mathematical 'proof of trust' in the form of an algorithm or a few lines of source code? Or will they say "Actually, I'd prefer to use the system and determine for myself whether I think it's trustworthy or not"?

"Bitcoin merely replicates the defects of existing monetary systems in pseudo-decentralised form". Do you agree with this statement? If not, why?

HS

i didnot got your question completly but whatever i understand according to that i will start explaning bitcoin to them by basic like its not an app or site or software its a money system buf m-pesa is not.even bill and notes are not money they are just some agrement which promis to pay money in exchange

Hi. In what sense is Bitcoin or M-Pesa not software? Can you use Bitcoin or M-Pesa without software? At what point does software become a 'monetary system'? The mining simulation I referred to is also software, so is that also a 'monetary system'? If it is not currently a 'monetary system' then could it become a 'monetary system' simply by adding code to allow users of the software to exchange the virtual 'ores' they mine for themselves?

HS

Nice to see you open your own thread to seed with your rants.  :D

You want to argue the state of Reality itself verses the Illusion.

Instead of pestering everyone with questions, that you don't believe their answers.

Why not go ahead and tell them your master plan of how everything should work, from an unstable mind's point of view.
I am sure they will be riveted.

 8)

FYI:
Since you mentioned Wei Dai,
social costs of intelligence:
Why good memory could be bad for you: game theoretic analysis of a monopolist with memory.
(if you imply a more spiritual outlook to his analyses , Memory is not the problem, Lack of Forgiveness is the problem.)

Why cleverness could be bad for you: a game where the smarter players lose.
(if you imply a more spiritual outlook to this analyses , Being Smart is not the problem, Lack of Kindness is the problem.)

So I take that as Be Kind & Be Forgiving.  :D

Bitcoin is like M-pesa except there is no single company that controls it. The people that use m-pesa must trust that Vodaphone won't go bankrupt or devalue their money.


Owning or using bitcoins does not require mining. Anyone that can use M-pesa can also use Bitcoin.


A bitcoin miner does not hold, loan, or transfer money. It validates transactions.


"Mining" is just a metaphor. There is no actual mining of bitcoins.


Bitcoin is 100% transparent. You can be sure that transactions have not been manipulated or forged because the all of the information is publicly verifiable.


No monetary system can be without flaws because value is subjective. Furthermore, money isn't value, it just represents value.

M-Pesa users actually already have a advantage over other people, in that they already grasp the concept of a digital currency. M-Pesa

however is centralized and this is where Bitcoin is much better. When the mobile service providers are forced by governments to act in a

specific way, they have no choice in the matter.. They operate in these countries with the permission from these local governments... So they

must play by their rules. If you are a "pure" Bitcoin user, that does not use third parties, then you have 100% control over your money.  ;)

The difference between banks and miners are that Miners are not a individual entity... but a collective global action from a group of

independent people.  ;D

For one thing Bitcoin as a commodity is accepted and traded all over the world. You do not NEED a computer, internet or electricity to use Bitcoin. You can have a "Paper Wallet" that is simply a Private Key written down or stored like a password and sell the Private Key if you need to. There are people that will gladly pay you cash for the Private Key of a Bitcoin Address with any funds on.

Yes, you would need a computer to "Spend" the Bitcoins (send the Bitcoins to a new address) but as long as you have the Private Key you can just sell/trade that.

Just a carry over from another thread. You still have nothing to offer in terms of a critique of my proposal, which is freely available for anyone to read. You've yet to address so much as a single line of it. Just more insults, more assumptions about what you think people want to hear. If you refer back to the other thread you allude to then there's a familiar pattern isn't there? I ask a question and the response is an insult. I ask to be provided with something of substance in support of an assertion and the response is an insult. I would of thought it was obvious by now that I refuse to be 'baited' by insults and respond with the same.


I have not mentioned Wei Dai in the above or the other thread you allude to.


Yes, be kind and be for (i.e. in favour of) giving, rather than dishing out illusory 'pay back'.

HS

The purpose of Bitcoin is to upset or turn banking upside down.

A disruptive technology.

The nature of it is decided by it's users.

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

It could free the world or enslave the world because it does not care.

It only desires that the mere idea infests as many hosts as it possibly can.

Then and only then can it be idolized so that it may rule over all.

Any other questions?

Currency comes in the form of $.

The update of it to appear as a BTC makes no difference.

Wealth and power remain in charge of the illusion that you allowed into your house.

The main purpose of bitcoins was not to abolish fiat, but to show the world that digital money is possible to rise. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a payment system. The system is peer-to-peer and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary. I beleive Bitcoins are created as a reward in a competition in which users offer their computing power to verify and record bitcoin transactions into the blockchain.

The question was in what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation. What does Bitcoin offer them that M-pesa doesn't? I've travelled extensively in both countries and I can assure you that they will want to know how Bitcoin helps them feed their children and stops them dying of malaria. What is the incentive for making the switch? The same question can be asked the world over. Look at what happened in 2008. We're still living with that, yet there has not been a mass transition from fiat to Bitcoin. Could it be that this mass transition has not happened (and will never happen) because Bitcoin has nothing to offer people in terms of real change?


I should have added, in the sense that bitcoin are created by the process of 'mining' bitcoin. In the Bitcoin universe, the process of bitcoin 'mining' is analogous to the function of central banks and private banks re: the creation of 'bank credit money'.


Of course, because Bitcoin is 'virtual' money. It is not merely a metaphor though, because Bitcoin 'miners' have to invest CPU cycles and electricity in order to find a random nonce and be rewarded with new bitcoin. They are in this sense 'prospecting' for bitcoin. So in what way is Bitcoin not a mining simulation?


I could say the same thing about the transactions that appear in my online bank account. If a fraudulent transaction appears then it appears because someone else has obtained my details, in the same way someone else can obtain a private key if it's not properly secured. So, do you think that 'trust' can only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger"? Can trust be established by decree or with a few lines of code? If I were to tell you that someone is trustworthy and present you with a few lines of code as 'proof of trust' then would you take my word for it? Or would you want to interact with that person and draw your own conclusion?


I wasn't asking if Bitcoin is flawless but whether Bitcoin replicates existing flaws. See my reply above re: M-pesa There are billions of people on this planet surviving on $10 per day or less - 71% of the world population according to one study. What is the 'purpose' of Bitcoin in relation to these people? Does it do anything whatsoever to address their situation? If not, then is Bitcoin any different than fiat?

HS

Digital money has existed for decades though. It has already 'risen'. Just take a look at your bank account or complete a credit or debit card transaction. They too are examples of digital money. The vast majority of 'money' currently in existence is digital money, not paper and coin. Bitcoin is an alternative form of digital money, but it is not a real alternative. In practical terms, it does not 'do' anything existing currencies don't already do. It does not actually address 'real-world' problems.

HS

This makes no difference though. OK, imagine you're a Tanzanian and, like most Tanzanians, you live in a small village and in all likelihood do not have your own electricity supply. You only have a battered old phone, which you charge at a central source such as the village shop, and you use the M-pesa system. Will you ever be able to afford to mine bitcoin? No. The only thing you can do is convert Tanzanian shillings into bitcoin. But why would you? What's the advantage? Will the process of converting shillings to bitcoin make you richer? Will it put food in your mouth? Will it help you pay for the anti-malaria drugs you can't afford? I was in Mombasa a few years ago and saw a man get kicked out into the street and left to die because he couldn't afford medical treatment. He literally died on the pavement. What difference would Bitcoin make?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country)


And yet the way Bitcoin operates means that bitcoin mining is just a dream to most people. Like existing monetary systems, it creates two classes: those who generate the currency and those who can do nothing more than use it as a medium of exchange. Ever heard of a bitcoin loan?

http://www.coindesk.com/judge-rules-in-peer-to-peer-bitcoin-lending-lawsuit/ (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-rules-in-peer-to-peer-bitcoin-lending-lawsuit/)

HS

Obviously, you know the answer to your own question. You know exactly how Bitcoin differs from M-pesa. You are implying that Bitcoin is no better. Whatever. It is different. Bitcoin doesn't cure malaria. That doesn't mean that it has no benefits.


Money creation is just a side-effect of mining, and every four years it becomes less significant than before.


The economics of Bitcoin mining are very different from the economics of mining of resources such and gold or oil or whatever.


You have a balance in an account at a bank, but you don't know if that balance actually exists or not. Bitcoin is verifiable by anyone. It is not the code that provide the proof. It is the data in the ledger


You are implying that Bitcoin is the same as fiat because it supposedly doesn't provide a solution to a particular group of people. I would like to see the logic behind that.

It was purposely developed by Satoshi for online transaction which had eradicated boring and long process of banking system and had made ease for online transaction. And for nature of bitcoin I would say that it is completely deficient form of money and it's probably first of its kind.

i think there is need for a basic course for anyone that wants to present Bitcoin to others. The question is not clear, but I know M-pesa it just  an exchange site where you can buy and sell your Bitcoin

you keep naming these third world places like Tanzanian,... but you forget that bitcoin is a new technology and like any other new technology it takes time for it to reach everywhere. specially third world countries. it is the same as electricity, cars, water in pipeline instead of taking it from the well each day :)


mining has nothing to do with using bitcoin. we are all using bitcoin and none of us are mining it and some of us doesn't even know what mining is or how it works.


a bank is holding your money
a bank can decide who they want to give services to and who they don't
a bank needs your identification to give those services to you.

a bitcoin miner is only seeing an anonymous txid and has no way of making sure where it came from. and as long as it is standard with right amount of fees it treats all txids the same way.


if you want to find out more about mining you can read so many available resources about it. just google it and you will find many good ones.


everything about you reminds of this: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/ :D

What is Bitcoin exactly is the question of regulation. In some countries who have regulated it's placed on.category of goods, property or means of payments.
The first idea was to create a free decentralized digital currency that isn't under influence of governments, central monetary system and banks. But it stil takes time to get full established.

The first major difference is that your M-pesa, though a mobile money transfer service, is tied to Tanzania and Kenya laws and the central banks of both countries can do and undo, but bitcoin is a global currency with no one government controlling it. If implemented, your people in  these two regions can through M-pesa buy bitcoin with the local currency or exchange bitcoin to same and that is if they believe in bitcoin in the first place. Some people are so attached to the ways their fore fathers were doing things and are unwilling to see even with their eyes open. We have to move on, some people have to catch up, someday when they finally wake up.

I would seriously study I would suggest some online web tutorial.

This is not an answer to my question though. What motivation is there for an M-pesa user to switch to Bitcoin? Please don't invent your own question and provide an answer to it - answer my question instead. Also, please note that M-pesa was introduced only two years before Bitcoin and currently has over 20 million registered users. I can assure you that people in these countries are aware of Bitcoin - so why aren't they making the switch?


The process of 'mining' bitcoin has everything to do with using bitcoin, because without it there would be no bitcoin. Who is this "none of us" you refer to? Is no one 'mining' bitcoin?


I mean in terms of their function within their respective 'universes'. A central bank creates fiat and banks create 'bank credit money'. Bitcoin 'miners' perform the same function within the Bitcoin 'universe'. Assume for a moment that people were to abandon fiat in droves overnight. Bitcoin would need to offer the same kind of services the existing system offers. People would want to 'borrow' bitcoin - some people already are. They would want 'bitcoin mortgages'. How would that work? Who would they borrow from if not bitcoin miners who come together as a collective to offer a lending service? See above for a link to a court case involving a bitcoin loan, with the identities of those involved aired in public for all to see. Yes, that took place outside of Bitcoin so to speak, but it's a prime example of what I'm talking about and what the future holds for Bitcoin if it were ever to gain mass acceptance.

Imagine you have $500,000 in bitcoin and decide to lend out the equivalent of $250,000 as a mortgage. Would you lend that amount to an anonymous entity? Would you lend it without knowing if that anonymous entity is actually capable of paying back the loan? I think not, and this suggests to me that Bitcoin is not a real alternative to existing monetary systems but merely the existing monetary system in another guise.

HS

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

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

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.

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

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.

@HS
Called it ,  :D
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1686288.msg16930063#msg16930063


@jbreher
http://rs725.pbsrc.com/albums/ww258/blevr9/vader_thumbs_up.jpg~c200
No matter how concise or how clear your answer, nothing seems to get thru to HS.
Experience that myself with him in another topic.

 8)

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

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

"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.

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.  :P
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.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/snidely-whiplash_6902.jpg


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

 8)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

 8)

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

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.


 8)

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

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

@HS



 8)

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

Actually i don't know what's the real purpose of bitcoin. Why they develop this? But one for sure, it is meant to be used in place of money to transfers which are based on account information rather an exchange of something, so bitcoin work more like cash that other digital money exchange systems.

Totally agree that it's an alternative medium of exchange and that some governments are very scared about the loss of control it represents. As for the reason Bitcoin hasn't taken off, I think the answer can be found in what people talk about when they talk about money. I mean, when people talk about the stuff they usually talk about how much everything costs and not having enough of it. They worry about being able to pay off the mortgage, car, taxes, put food on the table, and still have enough to save for the future. Millions of people are in this situation. Billions more are just worrying about being able to eat.

I think Bitcoin has shown us that money is a technology - and that's exactly what Bitcoin is, isn't it? Like any technology, it has to be assessed on how useful it is and what problems it solves. If a technology doesn't solve problems (or only solves problems for a minority) then what use is it? I mean, if the problem is that a minority have more money than they know what to do with (while everyone else worries about not having enough) then does decentralising money or making money more secure solve that problem?

HS

I believe bitcoin helps people to fall back on an alternative way of payment that is free from manipulation. It can save them from inflation eating into their savings. Yes bitcoin burns lots of energy just keep the block chain running and it is a price that someone has to pay for trust and security. Trust comes from believe the idea or concept. It takes time to build and It is a part of human emotion. People trust in US dollar because they believe in the US Government. In the same way people who believe in block chain and the bitcoin algorithm will use bitcoin.

Take a look at this: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/11/22/self-driving-car-test-its-skills-boston-fleet-cars-slated-grow-beyond-singapore (http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/11/22/self-driving-car-test-its-skills-boston-fleet-cars-slated-grow-beyond-singapore)

And this: http://www.pymnts.com/chatbot-tracker/2016/chatbot-tracker-shipping-gifts-and-customer-return-rate/ (http://www.pymnts.com/chatbot-tracker/2016/chatbot-tracker-shipping-gifts-and-customer-return-rate/)

Imagine the above applied to the millions of driving and customer service jobs out there. It's coming, isn't it? It's going to happen. Technology reduces the need for human labour, and therein lies the problem. The way we look at money amounts to "It has to be earned because it represents a 'debt' you have to 'pay off' and if you want to live then you have to work", but the logic of technological development reduces the availability of work. There are already millions of people having to work two or even three part-time jobs just to make ends meet. Millions more are under-employed and rely on state handouts.

What is the purpose and nature of Bitcoin in relation to this? We're in the early stages of a technological revolution and we're still trying to address the problems it is creating by using technologies and methods from an earlier era. This is why I suggested elsewhere that Bitcoin has reinvented the wheel, i.e. it has reinvented the coin in digital form. But has reinventing the coin actually solved anything?

HS

But Bitcoin does solve problems. Just because the masses are not yet aware of these solutions, does not invalidate them. The masses are ignorant of orbital spin angular momentum, but application of this subatomic phenomenon is already solving a myriad of everyday problems for everyday people.

Two specific attributes that Bitcoin possesses, which our fiat money system does not include:

1) Known low rate of inflation (money creation)

Bitcoin's inflation rate ratchets downward every ~4 years, with smaller exponential decreases throughout the intervening years. This is a fixed known attribute of the system, encoded within its protocol. Less than a decade into the project, this inflation rate at less than 6% (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51882.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51882.0)), is already lower than the rate that central banks such as FED are foisting upon us (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2)) (13161-1224)/12244 = ~7.4%.

You might reply 'so what'. What the masses largely don't recognize (as of yet) is that every new unit of currency created obtains its value by stealing it from the value of every unit of currency already in circulation. As such, this inflation is a hidden tax that continually and inevitably steals wealth from the populace at large. Worse yet, the beneficiaries of this wealth-stealing are the insiders to the system, who obtain the value at the front end.

You might want to find a member of Occupy Wall Street who understands this partial reserve scam, and ask him if a money free from these ravages (OK, actually with an algorithmic shrinking of these ravages) might be something he/she might be interested in.

Further, given sufficient time, all fiat monies tend toward inflationary collapse due to this disbasement.

You may want to ask a Zimbabwean or a Venezuelan if a money with a low fixed algorithmic inflation rate might be something he/she might be interested in.

2) No central party of control.

I've said this above, and you seem to acknowledge the point. Unlike fiat money, your bitcoin is yours to use as you wish. There is no other party in control of how you may spend it. Or even if you have access to it at all. This means that you can send value to unfavored groups (e.g., Wikileaks). This also means that it cannot be confiscated by the violence of the state.

While you may have been looking in another direction, 'Bail Ins' is now the default plan for central banks for dealing with member bank collapse. In a Bail In, losses incurred by a banking institution deemed 'too big (i.e., connected) to fail' will be made up by stealing the account balances of depositors, converting them by decree to shares of the banking company. So far, this has been applied sparingly (Cyprus, anyone?). However, it appears that the world's oldest bank (Monte dei Paschi di Siena of Italy) is nearing collapse, and Deutsche Bank is looking as if it may trend to the same fate. Net: millions of depositors could have 'their' money stolen to make up losses. (Actually, ugly fact: money on deposit with a bank does not legally belong to the depositor - it belongs to the bank, and the depositor just owns a liability of the bank).

You might want to ask a Cypriot if an unconfiscatable money might be of some interest. Or, for a more recent example, an Indian, who in a land where cash transactions are the overwhelming majority of commerce, has just had its two most prominent monetary notes decreed to be no longer valid.


You seem to be laboring under the misconception that any given thing must slice, dice, and even make julienne fries in order to be successful. No technology needs to be everything to everybody in order to take off. Especially at start.

Frankly, it seems obvious to me that Bitcoin solves the specific above named problems - for essentially everybody that uses it. The fact that the masses are absolutely ignorant of the underlying nature of the partial reserve fiat money system (probably at least partially due to indoctrination (purposeful miseducation) in schools run by the very benefactors of this insidious system) just makes it take longer before the inevitable mass adoption. These attributes are obvious benefits to anyone who thinks about them. Or do you not see that?

Yes I also agree with you, bitcoin is mainly created for online transaction trading and investment purposes, it is not created to demolish fiat, fiat is the basic currency of every country, and bitcoin is not going to disturb their status.

First of all - thanks for your reply and for taking the time and trouble to go into detail. I'm not saying that Bitcoin doesn't solve problems, only that the problems it does solve are not necessarily the same problems that people see in money.


Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. I know how inflation works, and with respect to you I wasn't asking for an explanation of how it works. Not having a dig, just saying.


I've referred to both countries on another thread and I'm still scratching my head. Under the circumstances, you would think that citizens of these countries would be desperately searching for alternatives - anything to avoid the need to exchange a wheelbarrow full of worthless fiat in return for a loaf of bread. It's not happening though, is it?


I've never disagreed with this. However, people will not see this as a 'benefit' per se unless they have already experienced this violence first hand. In other words, I don't think this is right at the top of people's priority list when they think about money. To offer an analogy, it's a bit like asking people if preparing for the possibility of inter-racial violence is top of their list of concerns in relation to how they interact with people. If you're Jewish or a citizen of Rwanda then you might conceivably answer 'yes' to this, but it falls outside the boundaries of most people's experience - and therefore their concerns. To be absolutely clear - I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to look at it from the perspective of the man or woman on the street with no personal experience of state confiscation.


Again, I don't disagree with you. People need an alternative. Let me put it this way though. Say you're a middle-aged Cypriot taxi driver and the entire nation suddenly switches to Bitcoin. Now imagine you're the same Cypriot taxi driver and, six months later, Uber suddenly introduces a fleet of driver-less taxis and you're suddenly in the impossible position of competing with a machine. You find yourself unemployed. Maybe you can drive a bus instead? Except they've gone driver-less too. Maybe you can work in one of the Bitcoin-related financial services organisations that will have sprung up to replace the banking industry? Chances are they'll be online/virtual too so probably not. You're just an 'ordinary' bloke so what do you do?

I mentioned a technological revolution. Just what do we do in the light of this? Create a bunch of fictional jobs out of thin air and have them suck resources out of businesses? Maybe the state can invent these jobs and suck resources out of taxpayers instead? What exactly do we do and how does Bitcoin address these kind of issues? To repeat - I'm not saying that Bitcoin has no benefits, only that it doesn't tackle the issues I'm talking about. Specifically:

1. More and more people fighting for fewer and fewer full-time and/or permanent jobs
2. More and more people working two or three low paid jobs just to make ends meet
2. Better standards of healthcare and greater longevity
3. A massive pensions and savings hole with nothing to fill the gap


No, I'm just asking the questions that everyone else seems to be avoiding.

HS

the main porpose is not changed it is also a mode of payments and people can only transfer their money from one place to another its just same in all those other money system too but i chose bitcoin because it do it in very very djffrent way than those. bitcoin has its own network of payment and anyone can see anyone's transaction. anyone is free to participate in the network and send/recive money to anyone with the maximum security

Yes! I agree with them! It was a digital currency that use by most of the peoole who's dealing with the virtual world, the nature of bitcoins was also like a real money although in digital form, bitcoins are created to use for online investment, online transactions. Bitcoins are chosen to be use by many people on thier online transaction because it was really fast and secure.

Great. You asked 'What does Bitcoin provide that fiat does not?', I answered several aspects where Bitcoin has unique benefits over fiat, and you agree. So we can put that aside, right? You concede that Bitcoin provides at least some concrete benefits over fiat?


Bitcoin has no impact upon this example job displacement one way or the other. At least I don't see how it does.

We should not be conflating general Luddite concerns (in the original sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)) with Bitcoin. The overarching question of whether or not increasing technology will render some job loss is not Bitcoin's to solve.

If you wanted to conflate the two completely dissociated issues, you might have done well to use the exemplar of a banker or other pinstriped bandit from the financial services industry. At least these jobs might be directly affected by Bitcoin. Here is an industry that is completely parasitical in nature, that has through covert capture, come to control about 8% of the resources of modern economies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization)), with a coalescence of wealth far exceeding that operational share. If Cryptocurrencies truly disintermidiate finance, that would lead to one in twelve jobs being at risk.

But so what? Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe they can find more honorable employment as a street sweeper (OK, bad analogy given the obvious technological applications here), or mentoring underachieving youth.


Why would the Cypriot ex-taxi driver be barred from an online job? To the contrary, online jobs open up employment to anyone anywhere in the world. One no longer needs to have the accident of geography of birth in order to work in the affected industries.


In a central planning sense? We do nothing. The Luddites had well-reasoned arguments as to why the industrial revolution would lead to widescale poverty. Looking back, we can see that all their reasoning amounted to nothing, as instead of widespread despair, the industrial revolution brought previously-unimaginable improvements in the standard of living across the entire world.

Turning the question around, if production is at a high enough level to meet the needs of the populace, then freeing up excess labor is a net benefit. If it does not take 2000 hours per year out of the life of each fit adult to sustain a good standard of living for all, why is this a bad thing?

Rereading your response, I see I missed this point. Sorry.


I guess I have not discerned what you believe are 'the problems that people see in money'. Can you elucidate?

Yeah. It is hard to be hacked because it has a strong connection. Transaction fee as well is small compared to other way on transferring money. The one thing i hate bitcoin, it is not reversible even if it is atill unconfirmed.

Bitcoin just like any other kinds of currency is used to buy stuff, the only thing different is that Bitcoin adapted to our generation of tech people. Compared to any Fiat money it doesn't have any features unique to Bitcoin which is security and portability. But for me Bitcoin also has a down side and the biggest down side I see is that it is a limited currency in which it will not be enough to become the global currency.

No worries. Just to note, I'm definitely pro-technology.



The short version is that the average person's problem with money is not having enough of it. That's their primary concern. They don't really care whether their money is held by a central source or in a decentralised ledger, because they're too busy struggling to pay bills and worrying about the future. Not just the immediate future but whether they'll have enough to retire on, or even if they'll ever be able to retire. That's the point we're at right now.

I do not think people understand the impact the latest batch of smart technology is about to have. I mentioned the driver-less car above. I was a teenager in the 1980s and used to watch Knight Rider. The idea of a car that could talk and drive itself seemed like science-fiction, yet thirty years later it's about to become reality. I remember watching an episode of The Simpsons about self-driving trucks. That too is about to become a reality. Millions of people are going to lose their livelihoods. OK, we can say that more tech jobs will be created as a result, but nowhere near enough to replace the jobs lost. And people are different, aren't they? Not everyone has the aptitude to become a programmer or an engineer.

The problem as I see it is that technological development eliminates the need for human labour, yet we conceptualise money as a 'debt' and tell people it has to be 'earned' by human labour. What happens when our level of technological development reaches the point where entire sectors of the employment market are made redundant overnight? Will we become Luddites and fight for our right to perform tedious, mind-numbing jobs in order to put food in our belly and a roof over our head?

Bitcoin has made it self-evident that money is a technology. Unlike other technologies, money hasn't adapted to changing circumstances and human needs. What really interests me about Bitcoin is that, in effect, computers are making money. There's nothing particularly new about that (banks and stock markets have been doing it for ages) but Bitcoin demonstrates that, in theory, the process of money creation itself can be decentralised. For me, the obvious question to ask is how far can we take that decentralisation? Personally, not only do I think we have to totally reconceptualise what money is, I think the logic of technological development is going to take us down that road whether we like it or not. I mean, if people don't earn then they don't eat, so what happens when they can't earn because jobs are no longer available?

HS

Bravo... finally getting to the endgame. Bitcoin is accelerating these trends, every industry on the planet can be automated and this is what Bitcoin is showing us.

The way we have been thinking about things may be all wrong; We have been deluding ourselves by simply imitating the generations that came before without thinking clearly about our situation.

What is the Purpose and Nature of Bitcoin you ask?

It is a foundation for change. In simplest of terms it is nothing more than a ledger, a database, synchronized and co-ordinated across all it's users, assembled in such a fashion that it will support and enable it's users to live.

Everything about it is automated, yet designed in such a way that it allows a machine to do all the work, compensating it's users with value.

Hopefully everyone will realize this, that it is a good example for the automation that is yet to come... otherwise... our leaders may let us starve to death as has been the example in so many poor nations. I'm not sure, a slow die off is an adequate endgame.

All of us have been brought together to build upon this foundation of Bitcoin and The Blockchain to synchronize our efforts, to evolve it, for the benefit of ourselves and others.

I hope, we the smartest, can develop the will to build a better future, but we have to act now. It is not necessary that the rest of humanity understand every minutia about the Blockchain or Bitcoin, only that it provides measurable benefits to everyone; It synchronizes our efforts, accelerates our pace, and allows us the opportunity to grow our vision along side it.

Mpesa was only a prototype... a constant with which to measure a system that is chained properly to the old system, Bitcoin is the variable.

I think they initially wanted privacy with their monetary exchanges

Since it started in Darknet stuff thats what I thought

I'm not going to tackle the entire rant because I believe the answer to the following will suffice:

"....'Bitcoin merely replicates the defects of existing monetary systems in pseudo-decentralised form'. (sic)Do you agree with this statement? If not, why?"

I don't agree with this statement because existing monetary systems are based upon a fractional reserve banking system which allows some people to profit off of other people's money by encouraging a debt based economy which produces a false sense of ownership.....The block chain ledgers establish "true" ownership....not the contrived ownership which our current banking systems are based upon.  Simply put, fractional reserve banking is the problem, and cryptographically decentralized digital currencies are the solution.

Actually it is the need of the time, as we can see that the new generation are giving important to online jobs, business even shopping, therefore bitcoin is a good option for them as they do not need to change it  in to any other currency and they can use it for online trading or shopping directly therefore we can say that bitcoin is used for online purpose.

As I read the discussion above it was very informative actually regarding nature of bitcoins. I agreed that bitcoin is been created to demolish or something to abolish or what, It very basic and simple which is no need to argue to anyone but it is use for PAYMENT SYSTEM that's why its called peer to peer currency.

Totally agree. It's not fantasy but perfectly realisable. Ironically, money has brought us to this point, yet money is also holding us back and preventing full exploitation of existing technologies and more rapid development of new technologies.


In terms of theory, economists still quote Adam Smith and we still talk about economic 'rules' and 'laws' as if they are fixed and unchangeable when they are not. If the creation of money can be decentralised at the level of the individual and made available to all (not just those who can afford to invest in mining rigs) then everything changes. If the foundation of monetary systems and economic theory is the belief that money is 'scarce', must be issued as 'debt', and must be 'earned' by human labour then true decentralisation will undermine this foundation and bring the whole edifice crashing down. It represents a paradigm shift no less significant than the shift from Newton to Einstein and the rise of quantum physics.

Here's the thing though: "God does not play dice" --Albert Einstein

Einstein allowed beliefs based on an obsolete paradigm to cloud his perception of the new paradigm. A new paradigm requires a fresh set of eyes and a new way of thinking. I think there are many people on this board who are making Einstein's mistake. They want to sift through the detritus of the old system and retain concepts such as 'inflation' and 'scarcity', not realising that these concepts are no longer relevant. There is nothing 'scarce' about a 'digital coin' and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. We really do need to think outside the box and acknowledge that a new paradigm challenges us to adopt new ways of thinking.

HS

So you're really not asking about the nature of Bitcoin, you are asking Big Questions. I think I grasp what you are seeking. I think you want a new economic model in which all are able to create their own abundance.

Frankly, this is a question in which I have no interest. Not because it is not important. But because I believe it is insoluble.

Here is the central nugget upon which I think you must chew: Money 'must be' scarce, because the things that it purchases are scarce.

There are quite a few corollaries that flow from that seemingly simple statement. But I'll merely outline a couple aspects to ponder.

Society enjoys what limited abundance it has due to the fact that laboring for a wage is what leads to production of goods and services (i.e., wealth). If each person is free to create money (presumably in unlimited quantity?), for what reason will anyone labor? But no labor, no stuff. Problem.

If unbounded money is chasing after a certain item, whose money will be accepted for that item? Why does that person get the item, while everyone else is left grasping air?

On that note, I'm out. If you solve it, you're a better man/woman than Satoshi - whom I think gave mankind perhaps the second most important invention within my lifetime. May whatever god you ascribe to be with you.

Millions of people already donate their time without charge for all sorts of reasons. It's called volunteering. People volunteer for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because they believe in something or someone and enjoy being helpful and creative. You've heard of the Open-source movement? Lawyers working pro bono? So by definition, "labouring for a wage" is not the only means by which goods are produced and services offered. In my view, people are inherently restless and creative and like to find outlets for their creativity.

Some things are more scarce than others. Generally speaking, food isn't scarce - yet millions are malnourished and under-nourished. Water isn't scarce either, yet millions don't have access to clean drinking water. In my view, there's genuine scarcity and then there's the perception of scarcity fostered by the existing system. Where scarcity does exist, is it unsolvable? Many of these 'scarcity' issues could be solved (and solved intelligently, with a focus on minimising damage to the environment and maximising recycling potential) if only sufficient financial resources were available to solve them.


See above. Let me rephrase your statement as follows: money must not be scarce, else the problem of scarcity will never be solved.

I will also repeat what I said earlier: if the logic of technological development reduces the need for human labour then we have a problem, don't we? Your solution is to throw your hands in the air in despair and do nothing at all. That is no solution.


OK, it's Black Friday and the media will no doubt kick up a fuss about the pushing and pulling and fighting a very small number of people are willing to engage in just to get something they want. The vast majority of people are not like that. Ever been to a supermarket in the middle of a massive snowstorm? I have several times and most of the stuff I needed was already gone. I didn't fight anyone for what was left though. I didn't see anyone else fighting over what was left either. Nor did I read anything in the media about people fighting over what was left. Fact of the matter is, you're looking in the wrong direction. You're very specifically and deliberately looking at theoretical negatives while ignoring all the potential positives.

HS

I have been thinking about your original post... and I feel an explanation is needed.

There is an original Bitcoin, that went along with an original white paper; From this came the principles that came to be what we know today.

I've been researching Bitcoin for many years, delving into it's lore as best as I can, trying to piece the puzzle together.
What comes next is opinion gathered from snippets, bits and pieces said from people who were there at the beginning.

The True original Bitcoin White Paper is unfortunately lost to the sands of time, as is the code for the first iteration of the network, but there are people here on this forum who received pieces, snippets of the code. From what I have read it was far different than what we know.

The First White Paper, one forum member described it as being far more interesting, I tend to believe them; Though I have never read it. If I could read that paper I would be shocked at the difference, what we received was a toned down, generic, sterilized White Paper.

The First Bitcoin Core, which was programmed by Satoshi Nakamoto was distributed in two pieces to the people who started the network. All they had to do was put the two halves together to have a compilable version of the Original Bitcoin Core. They proofed the network, the concept and many of the ideas... but The Idea behind Bitcoin was bigger than that. From what I have read it was way more advanced than the first iteration that was released to the public. So somewhere out there there is a even more powerful version of Bitcoin.

Why was this done? It was a token to the idea of Bitcoin, that it was,"For the Community, By the Community". The first person willing to code this new core, with the finalized principles of the ideas was... I believe Cirrus? They were given specifications and when they completed the coding of a viable working core it was released to the public. This version was primitive compared to what the original code could do, it didn't even have a GUI, but it got the job done.

This is the first principle: Each person has the right to learn, to explore, to create something new, to participate.

So what was the purpose of the First Bitcoin Core?

It was to solve the Double Spend problem, but a centralized solution could not work, you'd have to trust them to carry out the work properly. Anything that gives another party power over you is not a solution at all, it was posited, it must not rely on Trust. But how do you proof that it is a True Solution? The Solution: Let everyone know what is going on.

So many times we are prevented from knowing the Truth, by our governments, corporations, and establishments. They hide behind a system filled with fallacies, inefficiencies, and incompetence, using the guise of bureaucracy to hide Human short comings. The Blockchain solved this, "If everyone knows the Truth, they cannot be fooled."  This solution's realization was bigger than the problem it solved, information could no longer be duplicated on the internet... the Truth would no longer compete with hyperbole, lies and misinformation.

The statistics of what is truly going on could be known by everyone, without occlusion.

The short Answer to your Question, what does Bitcoin do that other Monetary systems can't? It can spread an idea, "that we do not have to be at the whim of those we elect to carry out the Rights and Services necessary for the Health and Well-being of the People."

We can know the principles by which we choose to abide, these principles are bare for all to see within the code that we choose to follow, and no one or group can prevent us or delay us from knowing what principles are being followed at any one time.


Many in this community know the answer: Bitcoin is an agent above morality, it carries out it's monetary principles without judgement, letting it's users decide if they wish to build a New World or Watch The World Burn.

... And yet it is greater than this... far greater...

What is the purpose of bitcoin ? i understood your question like that and i m answering with this question to you , What is the purpose of dollars or other  currencies ? this question's answer is so easy think , why we use currencies ? we use them for to make our life easier and we use them for to buy someting or for to pay some bills  ..., bitcoin is like that too  and bitcoin is advanced currency in our term .

Have you seen the fiat currencies of the world?

They are mostly all digital.

They rise and fall every day just like Bitcoin and its derivatives.

They have value because people said they do.

They are not trying to attract liquidity so they can cash out.

They are in for the long haul.

the purpose of bitcoins to make the whole country united by its decentralized system .its main aim is to make the whole world united rather than by its changing its value into their country s currency .it sounds wierd but it happens .and u gotta accept it .

Lest I'm misunderstood, I don't disagree with what you say or your synopsis of the development of Bitcoin.


The internet itself can spread the idea. Bitcoin is an idea, the internet is the tool used to disseminate it.


My questions are intended to get people thinking about whether Bitcoin itself is the answer. Let me put it this way. The UK (and the US I believe) is currently running the second series of a TV programme called "Humans". It depicts an alternate present in which most human labour is performed by synthetics. It's a play on the scenario we can expect to see once smart technology really starts to have an impact beyond the so-called 'smart TV'. The strange thing about the series is that the people in it still use fiat: money issued as debt that has to be earned. Who's earning it though? It could be argued that people are sending their synthetics out into the workplace to 'earn' money for them, but can you think of a more ridiculous and surreal scenario than 'employing' a computer to 'earn' on your behalf? At this level of abstraction, the process of earning money becomes nothing more than a simulation.

What I mean by this is that we have created an artificial link in our heads between performing a function in society and earning money. As mentioned above, millions of people create goods and offer services just because they can. There is no fixed link between working and earning. So why would we need (or indeed want) to run a simulation predicated on computers earning money for us? Imagine you're a fisherman with a 'smart boat' that can go out to sea all by itself and bring in nets full of fish. Imagine that most other industries operate on a similar basis. What would you 'charge' people for your fish? Does it make any sense whatsoever to conceptualise your 'customer' as a 'debtor' who 'owes you' for your fish? If they had no money then would you tell your customers to 'employ' their own 'smart' machine to 'earn' money on their behalf so that they can 'pay you back'?

This is why I say we need to reconceptualise what money is. The logic of all existing monetary systems breaks down under these scenarios. The illusion can only be maintained by creating another even more ridiculous illusion, whereby computers are 'employed' to 'earn' on our behalf. The series I refer to above isn't science-fiction. It doesn't present us with a theoretical vision future of the future - it actually depicts the present. The 'future' is already here, but people do not see it because people do not think about and comprehend the time we're living in. Conceptually, people's heads are still somewhere in the 1970s and they address the digital revolution using terms, methods, and frames of reference that belong to the old analogue age. Some people are so far behind they even think electronic cash is a new idea.

"The first widely used service for wire transfers was launched by Western Union in 1872 on its existing telegraph network. Using passwords and code books, a telegraph operator in one office could "wire" money that had been paid to that office by the sending customer to another telegraph office to be paid out to the receiving customer. By 1877 the service was used to transfer almost $2.5 million each year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer#History)

HS

 The problem that you are describing is at the core of the creation of Bitcoin, it was thought of as a compelling force to develop the Blockchain concept.

 I have limited time to explain, and this is why I can't write everything at once, but I will try to write what I can.

 What is Money? In my opinion it is a Resource Allocation System, much like Hadoop Yarn, or Google Omega/Borg, MapReduce, etc...
It is a Dynamic Signaling System composed of all the elements that are required for evaluating any one object, it's construction, distribution and marketing. The price of any given object is given an arbitrary value that reflects it's perceived usefulness in comparison to every variable that it is related too: Materials used, distribution effort, time to market, demand,  etc...

 The Bitcoin experiment required that every user dynamically link their own values to the system, and hence every contribution and evolution of the Blockchain by everyone has contributed to the whole development of an answer to this question: What is the correct monetary system that will meet our needs at the moment?

 I thank everyone who contributed to this project, every opportunity we as a community took to learn, to explore, to develop and create has given a measurable answer, not a definitive answer, but a good baseline... we rebooted money and cataloged with scientific precision it's development and in the process tested human nature as well... because well, Human Nature is a vital aspect to this endeavor.

 Now to the problem of Automation... Karl Marx knew what he was talking about, The machines will reach infinite productivity over time, what happens when all the money is accumulated into a few hands? The system breaks down, a single individual simply cannot allocate effectively all the resources available, entire communities fail when money begins to develop scarcity. Production is there, the will is there, but there is no demand signal being received! Even worse, what happens when there is no emergency stop button? Endless production of unallocatable resources?

 Money is our power of choice! It is a way for an individual to state their demands, needs, dreams and hopes without these money is useless! and even more it is a marker that tells us we must stop and move on to other things. It gives us the appropriate signals to know what is of most value. The machines we are making will require this and hence, we need to rethink what variables need to be considered in the system.

 Is the work that a person can do more valuable than their ability to think and reason? The Answer: No, thinking and reasoning are more valuable than the work a single person can carry out. Machines have been able to out work us for centuries... and yet we somehow fear the masses of Humanity... Those that control the system fear their ability to Think and Reason because of the Cult of Ignorance that has perpetuated among the masses, so they keep them busy, forcing them to maintain their minds, bodies and hopes lest they succumb to further ignorance, perversion and self-destruction. We have Sigmund Freud to thank for this belief. This Belief can no longer be maintained, the machines can not only out work us, they can out think us now and it is blatantly apparent... it's enough to drive anyone into an alcoholic depression.

 We have effectively outsourced our pride and belief in ourselves to machines. What happens now?

 Is our ability to think and reason more valuable than our capacity to dream of new horizons? No, it is not. our dreams are more valuable than the work of our hands and the reasoning our minds can produce. The cultures we can produce, the civilizations that we can create are ours, this is the measure of ourselves.

 So, should we evaluate the needs of the individual into our calculations of value... should we force people to produce for no other reason than to keep them busy? No, we should not. Should we force people to think and participate in the well being of themselves and their society? Yes, yes we should. Machines can produce for us, we must simply decide what they should produce. No individual should starve or go thirsty or be homeless in our society, their dreams for themselves and others are more valuable than anything they could produce or create.

There are some resources that must be considered apriori, Human life is one of those.

The Blockchain will allocate the resources necessary once everything is built and connected, for this reason it was designed to be usable by Artificial Intelligence Systems.

 Well, I was waiting for someone else to say something else... since there is no one else... I'll speak my last bit.

 Money can be extremely malleable it can be modified in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.
Think of the value transition that occurs in currency exchange, what if that occurred at a smaller scale.
Say you received instant discounts or penalties depending on where you were, who you did business with automatically?
Your money evaluated differently by a myriad of factors.

 about your question is Bitcoin a mining simulator? Yes, yes it is.

 Every parameter in bitcoin is meant to have malleability, to change as necessary, to adapt.
What happens in the real world when a few individuals begin to accumulate more power than others?
So far it hasn't done much, these miners are running a service for us, if they stop delivering a bang on service... there are others in the wings to take their place.

 Everyone that chose to use Bitcoin had a choice in the mining, they could mine for themselves, they could become part of a mining pool... and they could have gone for the 100% solution if they wanted too. A few small changes to the code and every node would be linked across the network, delivering a reward to all participants for their time, efforts and access to resources. More and more the abstraction you speak of is happening, everyone works for themselves, but more and more that necessary work is being, centralized, delegated to automation, forfeiting that reward, is this right?

 But is this the choice that The People want?

 Everyone was given the choice from the beginning, Bitcoin was founded on innovation, that is why it is Opensource, so anyone can change the code and make it their own, and if it is a better solution then it will be successful.
 People have been doing amazing things for Bitcoin from the beginning; Modifying the mining algorithms, the development of ASICs, the businesses... People built this, and there were a few cynical rotten apples in the beginning, but we are learning, adapting, changing with Bitcoin with every change everyone makes.
 People can choose to advance the ideas we are developing, change the transaction cap 2mb, 8mb, 32mb? sure; Develop better Cryptography instead? Why not? Use better compression algorithms? yeah. Nothing is supposed to be set in stone, but that still has to be tempered with the fact that this is our value system, is it perfect?

 Can Bitcoin help people in Sub-Saharan Africa? Yes it can, it gives people the opportunity to invest in them to bring them into the fold, those are our customers! why should we not setup infrastructure for them so they can participate? Why can't we go to off chain transactions? develop that too. Paper wallets? Bitcoin intermediaries? yeah, anyone could have just started a over the phone system with Bitcoin and act as an escrow... that's all that Mpesa is... it's Bitcoin, but with a phone layer added on top.

 The solutions that have been created are amazing, why hasn't someone just used OpenTransactions to mediate off-chain transactions with people who only have access to a smart phone? they can be bought for only $25 at any outlet in the developing world. Sub-Saharan Africa?   no access to electricity? Pre-denominated paper and instantly verifiable notes and objects to be exchanged cash style, this could have been done ages ago with a 3d printer, encoding the data into an intricate design, that will always belong to that object, when it is gone, it will effectively have been burned forever off the blockchain. there are  2.1 quadrillion coins... it can be done, I can imagine one day people will find these objects and realize their unfathomable value, what is 60k Satoshis, could be worth millions tomorrow.

 So how can we help these people?

 How can we modify the concept of money to suit our needs? Are there value transformations that should be done in currency?

 What information should we pin to the blockchain?

 How should we best program automated programs to interact with the Blockchain?

 Should we go for the 100% solution and make sure that every active user received a dividend for the over all activity of Bitcoin?

 We could go crazy on the modifications... automate money even more! Only have a certain income? your value is doubled automatically.
Sending small amounts? free transactions. Doing a lot of Business? here's a bonus. There is a lot we can do... I want to hear your suggestions Hugo... Where do we start?

Here is the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/05/mark-carney-isolation-globalisation-bank-of-england (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/05/mark-carney-isolation-globalisation-bank-of-england)
And again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003756/Robots-steal-15m-jobs-says-bank-chief-Doom-laden-Carney-warns-middle-classes-hollowed-new-technology.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003756/Robots-steal-15m-jobs-says-bank-chief-Doom-laden-Carney-warns-middle-classes-hollowed-new-technology.html)

From the DM article: "Mr Carney claimed that 'up to 15million of the current jobs in Britain' – almost half of the 31.8million workforce – could be replaced by robots over the coming years as livelihoods were 'mercilessly destroyed' by the technological revolution."

That's coming from the Governor of the Bank of England of all people. I've said this before and I will say it again: the social consequences of the coming revolution will not be solved by the blockchain or cryptography or by decentralising monetary systems. The 'smart' revolution challenges the very concept of money itself, i.e. as something that needs to be 'earned' in any conventional sense of the term. Who will pay for the millions that will be made jobless over the next couple of decades? How will they live? It is a social problem, not a technological one.

What we need is a new sociology of money. Once we accept that the 'smart' revolution is the revolution (i.e. that the jobs it eliminates will not be replaced and in fact do not need to be replaced) then we have to look for a monetary solution that is equally radical. A revolution of this magnitude requires a completely new economic paradigm. We need to abandon everything we think we know and acknowledge that existing concepts (based on economic theories that are centuries old) have zero utility in a scenario where people simply can't earn because jobs are no longer available.

We have to change the 'polarity' of money, from a negative charge to a positive charge. It is pointless to pretend that money needs to be earned through labour or that computers need to 'earn' money for us. I'm currently working on my own solution (different from the white paper I posted elsewhere on this board) but it's not based on the blockchain and I'm not prepared to make it public. What I will say is this:

1. A new currency requires an internal market to get started. M-Pesa is a success because it is built on an existing internal market (for mobile phone services) within existing internal markets (the Kenyan and Tanzanian economies). Consider loyalty cards for example, the kind operated by major supermarkets. They're basically closed-loop credit cards, and if you build up enough points then you can pay for a trolley full of goods in 'points' rather than money. They work because they have an internal market, i.e. the supermarket itself. I used to design these systems, and in the UK some of the biggest schemes have five times more subscribers than Bitcoin is estimated to have worldwide. The closest thing Bitcoin has to an internal market is the dark web.

2. Having an internal market removes all obstacles to the acceptance of a new currency in the early stages, i.e. everyone entering into the market does so freely, knowing that there is a single accepted unit of currency. This means there is no one to break the chain so to speak. No one can refuse to accept the currency or deny that it has 'value' without leaving the market itself.

3. Once an internal market has reached a certain size it is far more likely that an attempt to extend the currency's use beyond its own boundaries will be successful.

Ultimately though, the solution is for the human race to grow up and to stop dashing around after bits of paper and electromagnetic charges. This may sound like madness to some right now, but it will become increasingly easier to accept once jobs begin to disappear and it becomes harder and harder to actually dash around after bits of paper and electromagnetic charges.

HS

Bitcoin is a crypto-currency. It’s a digital currency. Bitcoin is cash for the Internet. Bitcoin is Decentralized, peer-to-peer, and it is limited to only 21 million Bitcoins that will ever exist, unlike fiat currency. Due to the limit it’s a deflationary currency.The number of Bitcoins creates in a day is actually a fixed number. It’s controlled by the network itself. So, what we actually have is the value of Bitcoin increases as more people get involved. So, it’s not printing money to decrease the value. It’s actually getting more people involved and increasing the value of Bitcoin.  It is a benefit for anyone who’s willing to invest in a Bitcoin.

Bitcoin in the beginning existed as a token for value transaction which eventually with its potential grew as a payment processor. When more and more started using it, eventually it got accepted as an alternative for banking system. Further due to its decentralized nature got to be used in for anonymous and illegal transactions. Now users had started to give preference as a investment as the price variation towards increasing side happens often.

In contrast to the apocalyptic predictions of the Luddites 200 years ago, we are all much better off now.

Okay, maybe mining is not the best solution for them. But are there really so many people without access to the Internet? Anyway, bitcoin is useful for people from poor countries but in which there is internet nearly everywhere.
Well, a bank is not usually producing the money itself. Secondly, you need to be indentified in a bank but can mine btc without many people being aware of that.
Because thus, creating a simulacrum we can become independent from the government in real life and turn btc into the real goods.

It appears you need to study more on the topic of partial reserve banking. While there are boundaries and conditions, banks do indeed create money out of nothing. It happens (almost) every time they make a loan.

To my mind purpose of bitcoin is to make transactions anonymous that means protecting our privacy.
And now, the nature of bitcoin is similar of real money but in a different and opposite way. We can't print money but we can mine bitcoin, this both are same situation as you see in a different way. Mining of bitcoin is available for every people. Also banks can't controll us if we are using offline wallets.

The transactions are decently anonymized, but there are ways to track you if someone really wants to go and find out what you do and potentially who you are. It just requires them to own a store that you shopped at and put any sort of personal information into.

The good news is, something like that is almost bound to never happen, unless you go shopping at the wrong places.

to me ti think the only purpose of bitcoin is to make a decentralize currency of the world. which will be using as a single currency of the world without changing it into any other currency.

The bitcoin payment system is a virtual currency system that was first created to make exchanging money on the internet much easier and much safer than using real money that can get your money stolen by hackers and compromising your personal data, but from that idea bitcoin has grown and became the cryptocurrency that we all use and its price went higher and higher by the time.

but to me i think the only reason is to use bitcoin for online system and facilitate the online traders and those who give preference to online shopping, but as people have still no such awareness about bitcoin therefore they are using it as investment.