For example, several people have no money, but want to play a few games of mahjong, and then make an appointment for a card of poker to represent one dollar. Poker then generates a dollar value. The value it carries at the moment is the mutual promise of several people, and its function is to calculate the quantity.
In today's digital age, the immutable properties of the Bitcoin database accurately carry the mutual promises of Bitcoin holders, which can quickly calculate the quantity and transfer each other.
As a final note, Bitcoin is hard to come by, and if 21 million people buy one each, they will never be able to buy it again.

It's true. I've been buying numbers my whole life from various nameless purported people and entities, with various morals and various agendas. I've probably paid for or enslaved myself to at least 20 different governments in my short life, in return for numbers, sometimes with a semblance of effort (paper) sometimes literally just made up numbers on an account they just change the numbers in arbitrarily.

They didn't even have to go through the trouble of capping the number, it's factually unlimited, they didn't even have to provide me or themselves a way to see exactly how much numbers it is they've put out or who has them.

Last year, one such government decided to print trillions more in paper to throw around. And people lapped it up, magic numbers magically made up and we all lapped in up.

Welcome to the craziness.

You are quite wrong and saying things non-sense non-stop.
What you miss is that the paradigm changed. You say there are no economic resources but you mean that you can't find the same economic resources in Bitcoin as the ones you find in gold. Well, you're completely wrong. Bitcoin has the same and even more, but in a digital way. This is the bit that makes all the difference and you just blindly chose not to acknowledge it.
For people like you, the old saying fits like a glove: HFSP.

Yet let's compare some of those properties that makes money, a sound money, using the most common examples, gold and Bitcoin:

Both are quite hard to increase supply (which is good)
Both lasts (theoretically) for ever (which is good)
These are only 2 examples of properties they share. There are others like portability, divisibility that only Bitcoin excels at, and others like sovereignty, privacy, anonymity, decentralisation, etc that are required so that a sound money can be seen as such.

All your messages also fail to enlighten us about what you defend after all. Is that the fiat system? Centralised bullshit that you blindly eat without any contestation whatsoever? If so, you're even worse than what I initially thought!

The fact that there is nothing to confiscate with Bitcoin is rather good. Improves your sovereignty and protects your intellectual and private property, however you seem to completely discard this. You seem to like to be controlled in every aspect of your live as a human being. Sad!

Tell us what the hell you defend so that we can also judge it and do differently than you do which is to make up things to get some attention, post count and eventually merit points! Keep up!

I feel like joining this discussion is pointless, but I'll give it ago anyway...


I think this person might mean that fiat currencies are based on belief systems, at least since the 70s when they were no longer backed by anything. Which is sort of true, but not entirely.

Try cashing in a bank note to your national bank, they won't have anything of value to offer you. This much is true. They owe you X worth of Y, but since de-pegging from Gold, that X is no longer worth Gold (or anything) in comparison, there is no resource anymore. But I imagine someone already pointed this out to you. Of course proponents of fiat currencies will point out that these monies are backed by the Government itself, so is even better than being redeemable for Gold, but with this they simply mean that same Government can print more money (inflate the currency) to stabilise a weak economy, and most importantly will commit to doing so, as opposed to allowing the currency, and therefore economy, to fail. So in this sense, by your own definition, this money as an economic resource is worth something because the Government says it's worth something, and they'll make sure it continues to be worth something. Or at least they will try their best.  Some succeed, others fail. There's a good reason why Gold in the 70s increased from $35 to $800 since the de-pegging event, because many realised that fiat currencies were no longer backed by a popular resource, backed only by those who produce it, which set a dangerous precedent.

Your argument should therefore really be based not on the idea that a medium of exchange like Bitcoin isn't money, but that like other monies (hyper-inflationary failing economies), that it's worthless or otherwise unnecessary. But the issue here is you have to rule out some utility as being useful, namely unrestricted international payments and ability to open an account without needing authorisation or access from a central party. In countries with stable currencies it's easy to consider this as worthless or unnecessary for sure, but in countries that lack reliable monetary policies, a lot more difficult. Try telling someone who has a hyper-inflationary currency, and doesn't have access to dollars, that Bitcoin is fundamentally useless. Of course you could argue that Bitcoin isn't a good investment, due to the current volatility, but not that the most reliable or accessible medium of exchange for someone is useless. I'll ignore the inflationary properties and ownership abilities because these are monetary policies, as opposed to utilities.

So the real question becomes, does there need to be an international currency that is accessible to everyone regardless of geography, status, income, etc? Should countries have the ability to reduce or remove their dependency on political forms of monies such as the dollar or the euro that only leads to power being more centralised to certain nations? Obviously the Western world would generally argue no, and would rather have hyper-dependency on their own currencies, but others that live in countries that are dependant on the dollar, the euro, the pound or the rubble, but don't always have access to it (or limited access), would no doubt argue differently, as they don't have much of a choice in the matter.

To argue Bitcoin has no utility is therefore simply just baseless and no doubt comes from a position of privilege and ignorance - that of having access to a stable currency. You're better off arguing that as a utility, it's not worth $300 billion, or $1 trillion, etc, despite global debt curently being $300 trillion, or Gold being worth $11 trillion. The fact that fiat currencies have developed into a failed experiment since the 1970s, because it became dependant on humans to determine their value, is somewhat beside the point.

Bitcoin's immutable monetary policy simply rules out previous failures in developing reliable currencies. The only similarity is that adoption for new forms of currencies is slow, many remain skeptical, others simply consider them fraudulent until proven otherwise, such as when bank notes were introduced in the 17th century. Not many wanted "IOUs" back then, they wanted actual Gold or Silver, not a promise of it, but after realising they could redeem their bank note for Gold the "proof of concept" became clear, bank notes became more broadly adopted, even traded between different parties thereafter as we see today.

I was also a complete skeptic to begin with. The first thing I did when I bought Bitcoin was to purchase something online, in order to confirm it as a medium of exchange. Just like 17th century traders, I wasn't going to simply "take someone's word for it" that this new form of money was a medium of exchange unless I tested the theory out myself. So I exchanged it with another economic resource  

Money is what people collectively choose to believe in. It happens that bitcoin is the best type of money ever invented.

What the heck? How such thread has like 30 pages? I think the OP is actually getting what he was asking for... Attention. Come on peeps... Ignore these kind of posts and let him be alone in his little world.

I have to admit that the original post is actually one of the best rhetoric twisted narratives I have ever seen. This looks like "Pudding" (my alias for Putin) trying to make us believe that a mall is actually an ammo depot or that a paediatric hospital was a command center or another ammo depot!

This guy must have learn from Pudding because despite the fact the Pudding was in FSB and is supposedly very good at lying and deceiving, they are both terrible with their narratives! And I end up also contributing. lol
What a mess!

This thread is crazy and I still that know why op will have to drop this here. Is there anyone that is interested in arguing with this thread when op is not the actually the original authur of this post. Any person can choose to write whatsoever they like and that is welcome. Bitcoin is an asset in as much as it is making person make wealth. Everything is timing and nothing more. Bitcoin is down now and will soon go bullish letter just like the price had been fluctuating.

Currently bitcoin is trusted by the big whale with the news you share will not change anything, now bitcoin has been legalized in the country that is elsavador so if there is fud news maybe bitcoin will only go down temporarily and will rise again over time just need patience to hold bitcoin and You will be a successful person in the future.

K im out. You obviously have some sort of cognitive dissonance to work on first, before you can understand more challenging things.

How? You can’t even separate between someone who is discussing with arguments, and someone who wants to scam you out of your money. Idc what you invest in, or how you handle your money, you should decide it yourself anyways. You assume everyone who doesn’t fit your own reasoning is a scammer, which makes you incapable of intellectual debate. This world is too complex to understand for you, so you gotta assume everyone is nefarious, to not get overwhelmed, a big sign of weakness. It’s just laughable, when people that are way older than the younger generation, aren’t even capable to engage in debate, when they’re supposed to be the ones who teach us.

Like i said its not an economic resource, just stop trying. The lack of fungibility is a real problem, wanna see it in action?
Here:
https://www.emk.com/en-us/gold/#navigation:q=&attrib%5Bcat_url%5D%5B0%5D=%2Fgold&order=shopsort+desc&first=0

Which one of these would you accept over another? Which one do you choose to best store your money? The answer will always be an subjective decision, but if we wanna enable universal trade this becomes a problem. This problem doesn’t exist with Bitcoin, because each unit is the same. Im not using abstract semantics, this actually relates to the real world. It actually influences how well something can be used as money, not everyone will want your jewellery, not everyone will want ur gold coin the same, because there’s too many differences. The same problem exists in fiat, who will accept your yen, who will accept your euros, who will accept a 500€ bill? The desirability varies if fungibility isnt good enough.

I don’t even want you to invest in it, even if you start to understand it. Im discussing with you because you’re working with wrong assumptions and bending concepts to fit ur needs, instead of staying objective. Scepticism towards something new, against any rational argument is a repeating pattern in society, people are just too hesitant to leave their conformity bubbles.

Because it wouldn’t be.

Because money is not an economic resource and not supposed to be an productive asset. Your gold that gets used on computers or as jewellery becomes useless as money. Gold holders will never convert their gold into anything different, they will even make sure no bare hand touches their bar or coin, because it hurts the fungibility of it. You can’t just use it for various things and then sell it as before, this is a myth beginners don’t get.

But there’s different reasons for it, someone who buys gold bars or coins doesn’t think about, if it satisfies different needs they won’t be using it for. They will use a similar evaluation model that i outlined above, its completely different from jewellery buyers or makers. Gold isn’t valuable, because it’s used for different things. Different things use gold, because it’s valuable.

I think you’re almost there to understand Bitcoin, if you can start to separate between money and economic resources. In economics a clear distinction between the two is made, and money is explicitly excluded to be counted as an economic resource. If you get this concept we’re there and it will make sense to you.

Money is what allows the trade of economic resources without doing barter(more efficient). It is not an economic resource itself and it’s not its job to become a product, it should just allow us to trade more efficiently. Some forms of money can be used as an productive asset, but then loose their purpose in return(it’s not money anymore then, or becomes a worse form of money).

Bitcoin is just the purest form of money there is at the moment, and so it might seem weird that it can’t be used for anything else, but exactly this is what money is supposed to be. It’s cool that gold can be used for many things, but it hurts its monetary properties when used for something else.

I refuted the definition, because you weren’t articulating yourself clearly, you didn’t even mention the word intrinsic value once till now(intrinsic value ≠ value). And nah i didnt fantasise about anything, this definition is still bad af for more serious use cases, even if you wanna use it for intrinsic value, but i won’t discuss this now, because it doesn’t matter.

If you wanna talk about intrinsic value, then it’s a different discussion. But finally you’re starting to articulate yourself more clearly, we can call this progress.

The problem is you’re trying to suggest something with this. Sure there’s forms of money like gold than can be used to produce goods. But for people who used gold as money, this is not the primary function.

Also like i said above, fungibility is important for any kind of money, small differences can already affect its desirability. So maybe it’s better in the first place, to not be able to make different things out of it, because amateurs won’t understand it and then shoot themselves in the foot. This is also be a point that could be made against nfts and tokens on a main layer.

K let’s remember the state of the world in the last years, now let’s check out what Bitcoin did:

• Uniting a group of anti authoritarians worldwide(which is hard, because they’re usually individualists and completely different from each other).
• Challenging people to get deeper into computer science, economics, game theory and psychology.
• No need to trust a central authority.
• Self custody over money.
• Censorship resistance.
• Transaction finality.
• Sane monetary policy that won’t change in our lifetime.
• Hardest asset to confiscate.
• Tearing down economic gatekeeping(you can transact worldwide, or borderlessly recover your money, if you can remember 12/24 words(optionally a passphrase on top) or keep them safe).
• No need for permissions.
• Best long term perfoming asset in the last decade.
• Triggering morally bankrupt and emotional people.

The list goes on.

Im sure no human can get a benefit out of this, because making jewelry out of money is more important for the world right now.

There’s an argument to be made, about how debt based money creation affects its durability. Because with each time you’re taking or giving a loan, you’re essentially making everyone else’s purchasing power go lower, on the big scale this is huge.

How durable is it to gain some additional economic capabilities individually in the short term, but then making the entire working population fall into the cantillon effect(more and more extreme concentration of wealth at the top).

So repeated use of Fiat actually affects it’s durability to be used as a store value, no matter how someone will phrase it, which makes it a weak form of money long term.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

And now to put it simply, stop mixing economic resources and money, because it will do you more harm than good and just create confusion to yourself. In most cases money isn’t supposed to be used as an economic resource(to produce goods or services). It should facilitate trade, but not be an productive resource itself. The purest form of money isn’t to be used for anything else, like i outlined above, using money for different things can be counterproductive.

This definition is wrong tho and wouldn’t be accepted anywhere. You can use it for yourself it’s fine, but in a debate it’s ridiculous. If you’re so sure about it, then go ahead and write an academic paper about it and see it being eaten alive by peer review.

You are correct, but this is so wrong audience. These people don´t want to hear it. This forum is the place where BTC white paper was released. Their Bible.

Some of them don´t want to listen to this. They want you to show how there is still a hope that they get their hard-earned FIAT back.

But, most of them... already know all of this. This is where they produce legends, news, and "information" about BTC. They know very well, that their money comes from simple-minded and they are OK with it. And you will see, that the vast majority will get away with no penalty from this scam. I´d say, it's the most ingenious scheme of all time.

Explain this cuz it doesn’t make sense. What value is transferred or stored into gold? I already explained you what properties a store of value must have. You don’t understand how the world works. Gold is not a bank account that stores usd, and neither is bitcoin. They’re things in itself with fluctuating supply and demands from the outside. Their properties influence how much value the market assigns to it.

So value is transferred and stored, your personal emotions towards something you don’t value, don’t determine free market exchange rates. Ik it’s hard to make emotional people accept this.

Nah, Bitcoin itself is the valuable thing, that people are exchanging other things for (money, services, goods etc.). Supply and demand vary for an asset with low degree of adoption, it’s something expected. The Bitcoins you hold yourself don’t fluctuate, just the price people are willing to pay, at this particular moment in time, aka exchange rate.

If there’s no demand for something(no matter if gold, fiat or bitcoin) then the exchange rate will be low in a free market. Let’s see if you’re mentally capable to understand this. Then explain why Bitcoin would reach a state of 0 demand, waiting.

Bitcoin won’t collapse if no new people come in, it can be used as a unit of account already. I could do trades without ever needing an exchange rate. If me and jay for example wanted to set up a trade, we would never need to touch a dollar, if we so choose to. We can determine the trade individually or let the market decide. It is not a ponzi that collapses without new investors. The only thing that happens without new investors is that maybe some individual expectations get crushed, because it won’t rise forever. But it still works as money, regardless of the exchange rate or new investors.

The better question you should ask yourself is, how money comes into existence organically, and once you understand this, it makes your ponzi assumptions look ridiculous.

Prime example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

We may get something out of this thread.. because certainly Snowshow is not providing any value.. beyond perhaps a wee bit of comedy relief here and there...

This is a great text, mate! At first I couldn't believe it wasn't plagiarised, so I checked it, and it's 100% unique!



Well, I'll say it agian, imo it's an amazing text. It's simple and yet informative. I can't imagine a better way to explain someone that BTC is not only money, but it is better money than fiat and gold.

Thank you for taking effort to write it.

Why? No! Why do you say so? I read the OP, and I even read the replies and your replies to those replies, not all of them, but a fair part. It's just, there is nothing new in the OP for many of us on this forum. You can't imagine how many times we've read that Bitcoin's a scam, a financial pyramid etc, especially in the times like this, during a bear market. But they are always flawed, those theories. For example, you are saying, "People are able to benefit from it(BTC) only by selling its units to new investors." This is not true. Take crypto gambling sites, a part of a multi billion gambling industry. Do the owners benefit only from selling Bitcoin to new investors? Or, when people use BTC for international payments with low fees, doesn't it run counter to your statement that "bitcoin ssystem ... provides zero services" ?

When the tulip bubble popped it went to $0 pretty quick. Experts had been warning this crypto stuff was all hype / BS. I don't see $0 but I see $1000 or so in a few more months. Start investing again when that happens.