Resources or assets have value. And assets either exist or they don't. Debt behind fiat currencies factually exists - every unit of fiat currency is issued as loan or bond. There's no evidence to confirm the existence of this debt. Consider the scenario where a government arbitrarily prints a trillion dollars without any underlying assets or value creation. This action merely steals purchasing power from the general populace. It does not create value. So, faith has nothing to do with assets. Indeed, it does have. The authority over currency issuance lies with the government. Therefore, regarding fiat currency as a reliable asset is essentially based on faith, as the government retains the power to render it valueless at its discretion, with or without existing debt. Wait, what? There's no evidence? It is a common knowledge that units of fiat currencies are created by commercial banks issuing loans and by central banks purchasing government bonds. Did you live under a rock all the time? |
|
|
|
Is this person still engaged and steadfast in their belief that Bitcoin holds no value? Seriously? You must name what actual resource is held by a unit. Says who? Who is the sole arbitrator of the term "asset"? For instance: unit of gold, unit of debt(fiat money) Unit of debt is fiat currency, and unit of fiat currency is what? Debt?  No actual asset, commodity or money exists under the name ABC. There is no tangible asset, commodity, or physical currency known as the "US dollar". Its value relies solely on faith. Nevertheless, it holds a certain value, albeit one that may go unnoticed by many.  Resources or assets have value. And assets either exist or they don't. Debt behind fiat currencies factually exists - every unit of fiat currency is issued as loan or bond. Debt is both liability and asset because the fulfilment of liability by one side is benefit to the other. So, faith has nothing to do with assets. In the Bitcoin system there's no resource or asset so there's nothing to assign value to. It is indeed like play money for kids. You create units by declaration, represent them with numbers on a medium and then exchange. The same is with monopoly money. Spending enormous amounts of energy on this is crazy. Paying $70K for such a unit is even crazier. You're giving up 70 thousand asset units in order to hold 1 non-asset or monopoly-money-like unit. If that's not crazy then nothing is crazy. |
|
|
|
Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.
That's not crazy, but rather funny because I myself have never made a comparison between physical assets and crypto assets, nor the way of sending physical objects or goods with sending assets in crypto. Because these two things are definitely different, although sometimes there are people who make examples of physical goods when they want to give a few examples to people who are learning about crypto. So the funny thing is when someone makes a comparison between digital transactions and goods transactions that have a physical element. You don't get it do you? When you just say "asset" you're saying nothing. Asset is generic term. You must name what actual resource is held by a unit. For instance: unit of gold, unit of debt(fiat money), unit of a company (share), units of oil, wheat, etc. If I were to ask you: "unit of WHAT is BTC", you wouldn't be able to provide an answer because BTC is an empty unit. It's literally like taking a piece of paper and write down that: "Alice owns 5 units of ABC". Then I ask: what exactly is ABC, and you say "an asset" or "a commodity", or money. You're forced to use generic terms because ABC is mere declaration. No actual asset, commodity or money exists under the name ABC. The number 5 represents empty units. Units that hold nothing. That's Bitcoin in a nutshell. It's basically like play money for kids, or monopoly money. You have monetary units that are exchanged for playing purposes but they are empty. They hold no resource or asset. |
|
|
|
You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!
Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.
Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.
All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?
So basically, your argument is that an empty box that someone sold you for $70K is not actually empty. The trading act magically make a valuable product, an asset to appear in it? Yes, the moment the box was assigned value and liquidity makes it stopped being empty. When you open it in the blockchain now, you will know what you called empty is no longer empty anymore as block values are constantly being assigned. Bitcoin is a complete system that will do all that fiats can do (if allowed) with no exception. This is possible because it is an asset, a digital one for that matter. But this digital/virtual denotation is where you are missing it, or perhaps you just do not want to accept it. Whether you like it or not, there are classes of assets, and the digital asset is one of them, which will not do less of any asset if you operate it through the right channel. Bitcoin was empty, it is not empty anymore if that will suit you in the plain term and at this point I urge you not to rely on your understanding of this alone. For it to be digital/virtual doesn't make it less of an asset, it is indeed an asset, not until you see an asset physically before it can be valuable or be used for particular physical projects like what Gold, Diamond, Oil, etc are being used for. Once they can still purchase those physical assets (Gold, Diamond, Oil etc) that you mentioned, they are not less valuable regardless of the form they are. Although when you open it you see with your own eyes it is still empty. You know how this is called? Being naive, gullible and delusional.
Nothing is empty in Bitcoin anymore, values and purposes are being signed regularly, you should go and learn how the blockchain works even if we try to neglect the trading aspect that proves it valuable. And this is a reality, my friend, it is never delusional. Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health. |
|
|
|
You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!
Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.
Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.
All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?
So basically, your argument is that an empty box that someone sold you for $70K is not actually empty. The trading act magically make a valuable product, an asset to appear in it? Although when you open it you see with your own eyes it is still empty. You know how this is called? Being naive, gullible and delusional. |
|
|
|
<snip>
You say Bitcoin units hold nothing, like empty boxes. But aren't empty boxes valuable too? Collectors pay a fortune for limited edition shoeboxes! Maybe Bitcoin is the ultimate limited-edition digital box. Who knows, maybe someday people will be fighting over empty Bitcoin wallets at museums! As for the whole "non-existent asset" thing, tell that to the folks using Bitcoin for everyday transactions or those holding it as a hedge against inflation. Maybe it's not the Mona Lisa, but scarcity and utility do hold value. You don't have to admit it, but it's a fact. Meaby Bitcoin is Almighty God, who knows. Let's be serious. Collectible boxes are something that people can see and touch. When they buy them they can explore them with their senses. When you buy Bitcoin the system just tells you that you have xx units. And that's it. Then someone givs you money and the system tells them the same thing - they have xx units. There's nothing collectable in this. It's a simple unit-based pyramid scheme. It's literally crazy how vehemently you people try to portray this scheme as something valuable and revolutionary when in reality it's the good old investment model that utilizes new investors' funds to pay earlier participants. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.
If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly. For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC. How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves. Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency. But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context. That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD. Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic! But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset. -snip- I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone. Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset? For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact. This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism. I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up. Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them. I know that you people need Freudian rationalizations, you need to play dumb to justify your purchases of empty units. But these rationalizations look pretty hilarious in the context of the OP. The distinction between a unit that holds an asset and a unit that holds nothing is obvious. If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil? You couldn't say any of that because BTC units hold neither intangible (digital or whatever) nor tangible asset. They are literally like empty envelopes or boxes. They are containers that hold nothing. That's why you are forced to use Freudian rationalizations like the above. Just imagine the stupidity: a guy wrote a protocol to tell that you hold a non-existent asset, you paid a lot of money for that and now you comfort yourself that this is like buying Mona Lisa. Crazy. It's no wonder people view you as a cult. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.
If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly. For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC. How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves. Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency. But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context. That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD. Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic! But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset. -snip- I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone. Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset? For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact. This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.
If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly. For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC. How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves. Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency. But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context. That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD. Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic! But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset. Bitcoin is an empty unit, a box or a container that holds nothing. Since it is a container, this creates the illusion that it holds an asset. All assets are transferred via some kind of a container. So when Satoshi created a container this created the illusion that it holds an asset. And sure, Bitcoin protocol could have been set up to issue new units via loans. Then it would be a container that holds an asset in the form of debt, like fiat. But it is not. It is set up to issue, store and transfer empty units. Which is nonsensical, just as that hypothetical crypto-post would be. |
|
|
|
Regarding the last. I didn't say that Bitcoin is useless, but dumb. Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme, some kind of unit-based pyramid scheme. But as a concept it is dumb. It spends energy on managing empty units. If you wanna buy an empty box for $70K because you think someone else will buy it for $100K that's the scheme. But if someone spends enormous amounts of energy to run such a scheme that's dumb. Of course, calling that empty box a valuable asset, comparing it to gold, or suggesting it is the future of postal services is dumb as well.
We let you be with your thoughts and ideas and we will have our own. We can't and don't want to convince you that Bitcoin is something useful and worthy and you shouldn't try and do that with us because we feel your arguments are dumb and not Bitcoin or the fact that energy is being used to run it. A lot of energy is used to produce a lot of products in the world, are all those products useless or is it dumb for the companies to be using so much energy only to create a materialistic thing such as a doll or anything in general which doesn't serve much purpose but is created because it is sold and they earn money for it. So your arguments don't really make much sense. The key word here is "products". Yes, a lot of energy is spend on products, on something that people need. Not on empty boxes that will never hold a product and whose only purpose is to enable a pyramid scheme where people buy them for tens of thousands of dollars with expectation of selling them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. |
|
|
|
What are you trying to achieve?
Let me ask the same question to you. What are you trying to achieve exactly? What are your arguments about if you don't hate Bitcoin or think it is useless? Let's say you don't hate Bitcoin but you just think it is something not worth giving this much hype or importance or it is something completely useless, in either way, you are not going to gain anything by sitting in the forum created by the creator of Bitcoin and try and convince people about what your beliefs are because that is not going to work. So it's dumb of you to be trying to achieve that here. You can go preach what you are trying to prove here on some busy street and you might find a few people standing with you among the crowd but that is barely going to happen here, my friend. Besides, if you think Bitcoin is useless or whatever, do you believe that companies and firms such as MicroStrategy, Grayscale, Blackrock, Microsoft, Tesla, and many more along with their owners and management are a bunch of fools being interested in something useless? In a discussion, the goal to achieve is to have valid arguments for the thesis you defend. What you people do is trolling. You engage in ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, and idiotic accusation about hate. In the same time you completely ignore the thesis at hand. Regarding the last. I didn't say that Bitcoin is useless, but dumb. Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme, some kind of unit-based pyramid schemes. But as a concept it is dumb. It spends energy on managing empty units. If you wanna buy an empty box for $70K because you think someone else will buy it for $100K that's the scheme. But if someone spends enormous amounts of energy to run such a scheme that's dumb. Of course, calling that empty box a valuable asset, comparing it to gold, or suggesting it is the future of postal service is dumb as well. Expect receiving a lot of hate and call you for something you don't like since they don't like what they see since it sounds like you hate bitcoin then came here just to spread hate. So try to understand where they came from and open yourself for criticism since you brought up some discussion about bitcoin so expect some words that you don't like to here will come up. But I don't really think that bitcoin is easy rich scheme since there are so many struggles to face before we can earn this. Maybe there are some people spread some wrong information about it that's why those newbies think about bitcoin is get-rich-quick-scheme but in reality there's nothing like that exist in real world. And again. 'Spreading hate', another idiotic accusation. Spreading hate means communication of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Saying that spending enormous amounts of energy on managing empty units is dumb is not spreading hate. It's factually describing a behavior. |
|
|
|
What are you trying to achieve?
Let me ask the same question to you. What are you trying to achieve exactly? What are your arguments about if you don't hate Bitcoin or think it is useless? Let's say you don't hate Bitcoin but you just think it is something not worth giving this much hype or importance or it is something completely useless, in either way, you are not going to gain anything by sitting in the forum created by the creator of Bitcoin and try and convince people about what your beliefs are because that is not going to work. So it's dumb of you to be trying to achieve that here. You can go preach what you are trying to prove here on some busy street and you might find a few people standing with you among the crowd but that is barely going to happen here, my friend. Besides, if you think Bitcoin is useless or whatever, do you believe that companies and firms such as MicroStrategy, Grayscale, Blackrock, Microsoft, Tesla, and many more along with their owners and management are a bunch of fools being interested in something useless? In a discussion, the goal to achieve is to have valid arguments for the thesis you defend. What you people do is trolling. You engage in ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, and idiotic accusation about hate. In the same time you completely ignore the thesis at hand. Regarding the last. I didn't say that Bitcoin is useless, but dumb. Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme, some kind of unit-based pyramid scheme. But as a concept it is dumb. It spends energy on managing empty units. If you wanna buy an empty box for $70K because you think someone else will buy it for $100K that's the scheme. But if someone spends enormous amounts of energy to run such a scheme that's dumb. Of course, calling that empty box a valuable asset, comparing it to gold, or suggesting it is the future of postal services is dumb as well. |
|
|
|
If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.
Probably to earn the anger and violent reactions of the people that are in this forum, that's what most trolls do, they see something that a lot of people enjoy and then they try their best to spoil the fun by making fun of the thing that everyone's enjoying it by crafting some elaborate bullshit It is not everybody that likes Bitcoin, there even people who hate Bitcoin outside the forum and you can no hold back the opinion of those people towards Bitcoin, the OP have just drop his own opinion which is an opinion that is as dumb as his topic, I can't understand what he is explaining on the other comments he has written on this topic. Every of the reasons drop is not even sensible enough to justify the title. Why do you people always repeat that idiotic "you hate Bitcoin" accusation? What are you trying to achieve? Do I hate envelopes and boxes if I say that a postal service that transfers them empty is dumb, nonsensical or whatever? Really, what's the catch with that "hate" accusation? |
|
|
|
You really made a topic just to say that thing about bitcoin. Since you said that, you shouldn't be here on this forum if that's how you feel about Bitcoin. Because most communities on this platform are Bitcoin believers.
So does that mean all Bitcoin investors are dumb investors if that's the case for you, OP? Is that right? although I still understand you somehow because that's your opinion.
Majority of Bitcoin investors don't have a clue what Bitcoin is, that is, how dumb the whole thing is. They saw the rising price and just want to jump on the bandwagon. Majority of Bitcoin miners don't care if Bitcoin is dumb. They see that they can sell the units to the greater fools so they spend energy. When the pool of greater fools dries up then people will realize how stupid it was to follow the Nakamoto protocol. I don't think they are that many because that is risky and many of us don't want to lose our hard-earned money. And just because a few are dumb, it does not mean that the whole are also like that. There is nothing wrong with investing when the price is rising. Just take a look at those who do a DCA and once they are in, I'm sure that they will still take time to do a research about it while waiting for good things to happen and this makes them know what to expect and they will now know what to do in case those events occur. BTC itself is not dumb but it's genius because of how it works and what its properties. @bettercrypto BTC haters are here because they want to annoy us more. There's nothing genius in managing empty envelopes, boxes or units. It is dumb. And spending huge amounts of energy on such managing is extremely dumb. |
|
|
|
It's pretty evident that you are a troll who gets off on rubbing people the wrong way thanks to your trust ratings which say everything about you op. I find it cute that you are trying so hard to convince forum members that Bitcoin sucks.
You should rename this thread as 'Why am I dumb?' instead op since it's a more accurate representation of what you are trying to convey here.
No, a troll is someone who completely ignores the topic at hand and just talks about the person who created the topic. |
|
|
|
Even smart people can have dumb ideas. Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a dumb idea. People feel for it because they saw it as a get-rich-quick scheme. Sure, you hava a distributed database. But empty units that are stored in it are not coins, money, currency or an asset. Proposing something like that was the dumbest thing ever.
Well... as long as it works, right? What intrigues me, though, is if you think Bitcoin is dumb, why are you still here? You've been doing this for quite some time now – how long has it been? So by your argument, you are at least as dumb as some of us here. Maybe even more, because some of us have actually made some profit investing in Bitcoin over the years. Have you?  I like to debunk popular myths. It's my hobby. Most of the people that I know don't care about Bitcoin nor they want to discuss it. Only in places like this it make sense to post critically or otherwise about it. So... |
|
|
|
You really made a topic just to say that thing about bitcoin. Since you said that, you shouldn't be here on this forum if that's how you feel about Bitcoin. Because most communities on this platform are Bitcoin believers.
So does that mean all Bitcoin investors are dumb investors if that's the case for you, OP? Is that right? although I still understand you somehow because that's your opinion.
Majority of Bitcoin investors don't have a clue what Bitcoin is, that is, how dumb the whole thing is. They saw the rising price and just want to jump on the bandwagon. Majority of Bitcoin miners don't care if Bitcoin is dumb. They see that they can sell the units to the greater fools so they spend energy. When the pool of greater fools dries up then people will realize how stupid it was to follow the Nakamoto protocol. So then it's some of the Bitcoin enthusiasts who are dumb and not Bitcoin. You know people have the habit of jumping into things due to hypes and FOMO. Without really understanding how it works they jump on the moving train with high hopes of profitability, and these are the same people who would turn around to call bitcoin dumb and scam because the market failed to go the way they imagined it. Even smart people can have dumb ideas. Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a dumb idea. People feel for it because they saw it as a get-rich-quick scheme. Sure, you hava a distributed database. But empty units that are stored in it are not coins, money, currency or an asset. Proposing something like that was the dumbest thing ever. |
|
|
|
You really made a topic just to say that thing about bitcoin. Since you said that, you shouldn't be here on this forum if that's how you feel about Bitcoin. Because most communities on this platform are Bitcoin believers.
So does that mean all Bitcoin investors are dumb investors if that's the case for you, OP? Is that right? although I still understand you somehow because that's your opinion.
Majority of Bitcoin investors don't have a clue what Bitcoin is, that is, how dumb the whole thing is. They saw the rising price and just want to jump on the bandwagon. Majority of Bitcoin miners don't care if Bitcoin is dumb. They see that they can sell the units to the greater fools so they spend energy. When the pool of greater fools dries up then people will realize how stupid it was to follow the Nakamoto protocol. |
|
|
|
value is where there has been a cost in somethings creation and someone desires whats been created
creating a mortgage agreement costs nothing.
money creation has no value.
money creation gains value later on once in circulation/in the system
bitcoin however has a cost in its creation.. the mining cost. so has a value upfront at its creation.
yes the value is less than the market rate but thats how value works wholesale value is always under retail price
the difference between wholesale and retail is the speculation based on demand and supply
learn some economics before you disappear for a year and come back with a new name. and lets hope next time you come back with new arguments instead of repeating the same flat and debunked crap you have done previously and currently
Even if the theory that value comes from the costs of production were true, Bitcoin has no cost of production. BTC units are produced by the rules of the protocol, out of thin air. What has costs is finding a number that solves a hash combination. The theory is of course not true. I can set this protocol, that is, a joke: " find a plate with my name and surname that I have hidden somewhere in the New York. As a reward for finding it you will get that plate".
You spend years and a lot of money to find it, you finally find it and then conclude that this plate is very very valuable because of your search. People would say that you're dumb because you spend so much resources on finding something worthless, because you took my joke seriously. So, the fact that energy is spent on a task specified by the Nakamoto protocol does not mean that the reward for solving it is valuable. It just means that people behave stupidly because they follow the protocol. |
|
|
|
you talk about turds knowing your body can create your turd from your body at low cost after the utility is finished and its time to reject the waste product and relieve it/release it from the body. to then dispose of it and forget about it. which makes turds useless and of no value
but you dont realise specific units locked within a body and move/transfer within a system and produced in that system to do a function is not a turd it is instead a nutrient the body uses. it doesnt/cant leave the system and is useful within the system.. so within that system you need to understand the cost of that nutrient production, for the need, use, desire and intent of the nutrient has a cost
not the waste junk that gets pushed out and rejected and relieved from the system to decay/waste away
 ?? Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created as debt, nobody needs them, and thus, they contain no value. They are empty. Often, people say that Bitcoin is simple and thus better than a complex banking system that manages fiat currencies. But of course Bitcoin is simple given that it manages empty units. Fiat currency units represent debt and managing debt is complex. It includes credit assessments, collaterals, foreclosures, repossessions, etc. And this requires resources, both material and human. With Bitcoin, a guy just wrote a protocol that tells people: "You have 10 BTC units", "you have 0.5 BTC units", "you have 50 BTC units", etc. But units of what? Units of a company ownership? No. Units of something tangible like a precious metal? No. Units of something intangible like patents, copyrights or software licences? No. In the Bitcoin system people have units of nothing. Units that are empty. That is why it is so simple. Managing empty units is simple. Just like it would be managing empty envelopes and packages in our hypothetical crypto-post. Spending huge amounts of energy on such a system is extremely dumb. Paying huge amounts of money just to hold empty units of that system is extremely dumb as well. That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented. So you think that debt creates value? Congratulations, you have created an entirely new theory of economy and finance. So fiat money represent debt and that's why they have value? What kind of debt? Do you think that you could go to a commercial bank(or central bank) and exchange your precious fiat money for gold? Good luck with this. Fiat money aren't backed by anything. Bitcoin/crypto isn't backed by specific assets as well, but the difference is that Bitcoin is deflationary by design and fiat money are designed to lose value(because of the money printing, that is being done by the central banks). Nobody is forcing you to use BTC, but your government is forcing you to use fiat money as the legal tender. I don't think that debt creates value. This is factually so. If you have for instance $500K while you friend has a $500K dollar loan with a mortgage on his house you have something that he needs to get rid of the mortgage. $500K is worth the same as his house. If an item is needed by people it has value. Just like food. People need food and that is why food is valuable. The fact that fiat currency units are created as debt means debtors will always need them. On the other hand, nobody needs units in the Bitcoin system. People buy those just for speculative reasons, because they believe in the greater fool theory. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
