You don't get it, do you? Transferring empty units is not a solution to anything. What problem of a postal service would be solved if people would send empty envelopes to each other? Someone sends you 5 empty envelopes. You pay them $100,000. Then you keep them for a month. After that you send them to someone else. The recipient pays $200,000 for them, keeps them for a few days and then sends them to someone else for a certain amount. And so they go round and round. Empty envelopes go from person to person. Is this a solution to something? No, this is stupidity. A simple pyramid scheme. The same is true for those empty BTC units that you people send to each other.

So it is true what they say about you? You're like a cult. Only cultists don't tolerate criticism.

Regarding the rest. I don't think that Bitcoin is dumb. I literally proved it's dumb. You're mining, storing and transferring units of ownership in nothing. The system doesn't manage units in a company like the ones that deal with stocks or units in debt like the ones that deal with bonds and fiat currencies. It manages no tangible value such as gold. It manages no intangible value such as computer software, parents or copyrights. It manages empty units. Literally like that hypothetical crypto-post that manages empty envelopes and packages. This is dumb.

Suppose that someone invented a crypto postal service. Or in short a cryptopost. Its purpose is the reliable and decentralized transfer of envelopes and packages. However, there is a catch. The envelopes and packages are empty. They contain nothing. From the outside, the cryptopost would look similar to a traditional post. Because obviously, traditional post transfers envelopes and packages. And that cryptopost transfers them as well. But in reality, it would be the dumbest thing ever invented given that the purpose of a postal service is to transfer letters, documents and products, not empty containers.

The so-called cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are exactly like our hypothetical cryptopost. From the outside, Bitcoin looks similar to traditional currencies. It is a system that has units transferred between people. If you have a bank account or a banknote, what you have is some name such as USD, EUR, or GBP, and a number that represents units in a banking system. If you have a Bitcoin account you also have a name - BTC and a number that represents units in the Bitcoin system. But the catch is that the units in the Bitcoin system are empty. They are like envelopes and packages in our cryptopost. They are containers that contain nothing.

On the other hand, units in the banking systems are containers that contain something. They contain debt. Namely, these units come into existence when central banks purchase government bonds or when commercial banks issue loans. That means they are the units of debt. So if you have for example dollars, you have a resource needed by the US government and masses of individuals and companies for paying off debt owed to the US banking system. If your neighbor has a dollar loan with a mortgage on his house, while you have dollars, you have what they necessarily need to get rid of the mortgage. Just like food is necessarily needed to get rid of hunger. If you have what satisfies people's needs, then you have a valuable resource.

But if we were now to ask: "Unit of what resource is BTC and what needs does that resource satisfy?" Bitcoin supporters wouldn't be able to name something actual. Instead, they would offer only generic answers: "BTC is a coin, a digital asset, a currency, a store of value, a token, or money." Money, for example, has always been something actual - livestock, tobacco, metal, and, currently, debt. Because to determine value and be able to trade rationally we need to have something. Even casino or gaming tokens are units of something actual - the liability of their issuers to redeem them for a specific amount of money or in-game items. With their value depending on the size of that liability.

However, Bitcoin supporters can never name something actual. When they talk about BTC units they always use generic terms. This is like if a guy would store this in a spreadsheet: 'Bob - 10 ABC', suggesting that Bob has 10 units of an item called ABC. Then we ask: "What is ABC?" As a response, the guy offers this generic answer: "ABC is a digital asset". Then we ask: "What exactly is that digital asset? Explain what Bob actually has. There are a lot of digital things: songs, pictures, computer programs, movies, documents, etc. Tell us what ABC is so we can determine its value." But the guy continues with the generic talk: "ABC is a precious item, a revolution, a future of the digital world." Such generic answers would nicely demonstrate that Bob has no digital asset. That the number 10 stored in the spreadsheet represents empty numeric units. Units that contain or count nothing.

So what the Bitcoin author did was come up with a number - 21 million. Then he wrote a protocol that assigns units of that number to addresses and stores everything in a spreadsheet called blockchain. But these numeric units are empty. They count nothing. In the case of real money or real tokens, first, there's something actual to which a value can be assigned - gold, debt, liability to redeem, etc. Then, numbers on paper or electronic medium are used to represent those items, to count them or to express their amount. However, in the case of Bitcoin, first, there was nothing. Then a guy used his imagination to come up with the above-mentioned number, and units of that number are all that people get. There is nothing to count, nothing to represent, nothing to assign value to. Having Bitcoin is literally like having Monopoly money or play money for kids - all you have is digits on the medium.

People currently pay $70K to get the digit "1" or $700K to get the digits "1" and "0". Also, the Bitcoin system consumes enormous amounts of electricity - 141-160 terawatt-hours annually according to some estimates. Imagine the absurdity of giving up 700 thousand units of a resource that can delete a mortgage or pay off a government bond, only to get something that everyone can get in an instant by pressing two keys on the keyboard. Or the absurdity of spending as much electricity as the entire country of Norway on managing a spreadsheet with data on nothing. That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

Sure, whenever you transfer an item from one buyer to another you are using some system. But we are talking about the usefulness of the item not the system. That's why I said that you buy coins not the system when you buy Bitcoin. It is the coins what is useless.

Fiat useless? How is something that can save millions and millions of people from liens that banks have on their cars, houses, land and other property useless? How is something that can pay off government bonds and thus benefit taxpayers, useless? Why are you Bitcoin evangelists playing dumb all the time? Aha, I get it. You want to dump your digital snake oil on someone else. You want to get as much of useful fiat as possible in exchange for your useless coins. You were tricked and now you want to tricks someone else. Gotcha.

What technology are you talking about? You have a simple protocol that connects computers to transfer useless virtual coins from one address to another. It is those coins that you buy not the protocol and computers.

There's literally no difference between trading any item - it just means transferring it from one buyer to another. But again, the video doesn't debunk the myth of trading Bitcoin, but the myth of using it. Literally every item traded on the market except Bitcoin and its children called crypto currencies, has a use. They have both a 'trade case' and a 'use case'. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has only a 'trade case'. It can only go from one buyer to another. That's a fact. Then, you Bitcoin evangelists come along and start engaging in rhetorical tricks and semantical manipulations by declaring that trading an item is the same thing as using it. Even though you know it is not. Basically you're playing dumb. You deliberately misrepresent reality because you want to dump your useless Bitcoin on someone else. You're selling digital snake oil by using tricks and manipulations. It's really that simple.

Not used as a currency, but traded as a currency. Even useless items can be traded as a currency given that general acceptance is the only requirement to meet the definition of a currency. Also, the term "used as a currency" is meaningless given that "currency" is a generic term. When we go to specific examples only then we can talk about use. In the past, gold was a currency. Currently, the dollar is a currency.  The first is used as jewellery, an electroplated coating, dental restorative material, etc. The second is used for satisfying debt owed to commercial banks and FED. So basically, when you say that Bitcoin is "used as a currency" you're suggesting that Bitcoin is used as jewellery or for satisfying debt owed to FED, which is a complete nonsense. Bitcoin cannot be used for anything. It can only be traded. It is hilarious how you people use rhetorical tricks and semantical manipulations to try to argue that Bitcoin has a use case. When you buy Bitcoin you're witnessing first-hand that you cannot use it for anything. But regardless, your are spreading that myth about its use case. Indeed hilarious.

You perfectly expressed the myth debunked in the video. This is how stories about Bitcoin look like. You deny reality and misrepresent 'trade case' as 'use case'.

It's not words. It's real life. In real life whoever buys Bitcoin cannot do anything with it which is why they must dump it on another buyer. Investing, paying, buying, transferring... all these words mean the same - dumping coins on someone else. You know very well that the coins have no use. But you cannot admit it because you want to dump them at as high a price as possible. All holders want to do that. They know the truth that the coins are useless - after all, they are witnessing this first-hand. They know they need new suckers to dump the coins on them. In the process, they want to profit as much as possible. Telling the truth would thus go against their interests. So they naturally spread the myth debunked in the video. Or play dumb like you and other responders here.

So, you engage in red herring because you're unable to provide a rational response to the video. Gotcha.

So, what anyone can do with Bitcoin besides selling it to someone? Currently, you have the whole army of holders. You have masses of people who bought Bitcoin. What can they do with it besides transferring it to other market participants? Or take the following thought experiment because you Bitcoin supporters love to compare Bitcoin to fiat money:

Suppose you hold all the issued dollars and bitcoins. Question: what can you do with them without selling them on the market?

Let's start with dollars. The dollar is debt owed to banks. It goes into circulation when commercial banks issue loans to individuals and companies or when the Federal Reserve purchases government bonds. Consequently, the banks take it back for paying those loans and bonds. So with your dollars, you can benefit millions and millions of people by repaying their loans and removing liens on their cars, houses, land, etc. Also, you can repay government bonds subscribed to by the Federal Reserve. In that way, you can benefit taxpayers. An item that can benefit so many people without being sold on the market is obviously useful.

Let's now go to Bitcoin. So you hold all of its supply, which is around 19 million bitcoins. You hold virtual coins that were advertised as being fast, secure, immutable, decentralized, scarce, liberating, etc. But what can you do with them? Well, literally nothing. That anonymous guy Satoshi Nakamoto who put them into circulation via his protocol is not like banks. He doesn't take back issued coins in exchange for some benefit, such as removing a lien. Bitcoin, unlike the dollar, is not debt. So essentially, you're left with just watching the number 19 million on the screen. You have something that everyone can have in an instant by pressing keys on a keyboard. As no benefit can be derived from that, your holdings are totally useless.

No, investors are not just passing Bitcoin to one another for no reason. The reason is to profit from passing it. But still, Bitcoin is useless. When investors acquire it they can only sell it other investors. It's simple.

No, you're not using Bitcoin to send money. You are spending money on a useless coin. As long as there are new buyers of that coin you can get your money back. But if they stop buying you are in trouble because the coin cannot be used for anything.

No, because money such as the dollar, besides being traded on the market, can also be used for returning it to its issuers - banks for satisfying loan or bond debt that was created by putting the dollar on the market. Money such as gold, besides being traded can also be used as jewellery, an electroplated coating, dental restorative material, etc. So, no, money is not useless. Only Bitcoin.

But it is true. Bitcoin is useless. Saying "using Bitcoin to purchase something" means "trading Bitcoin."  You can as well say "I am using my car to purchase dollars" when you want to express the fact that you're selling your car. But that's nonsens because it is obvious that cars are used for driving. So, you are not using Bitcoin when you press sell button on your mobile app. You're just transferring its ownership to another holder. Bitcoin cannot be used.

---

Paying, buying, selling, transferring, exchanging... All that means trading Bitcoin. It means that Bitcoin can be exchanged among market participants, that it has a 'trade case'. But no one who buys it can use it for something. That means that Bitcoin lacks a use case.

Exactly. That what you call 'use' is actually 'trade'. You just transfered the coin to another buyer or you were the buyer to whome the coin was transferred. None of you were 'using' the coin but just trade it. Whoever buys the coin is forced to sell it - to dump it on someone else, exactly because the coin cannot be used for anything. It's completely useless. That's the whole point demonstrated by the video.

A short educational video explains the difference between 'trading an item' and 'using an item' to show that there's no such thing as a 'Bitcoin use case': https://youtu.be/uNzs9JAKjMY

Nakamoto invented decentralized pyramid scheme. It attracts investors by simulating bank deposits. People buy units of the number 21 million and then falsely believe that this is just like having units in their bank accounts. The catch is of course, as explained in the OP, that the second units are redeemable by their issuers (banks), while the first are not redeemable by their issuer (Nakamoto). Which in other words mean that Bitcoin units are worthless. And that's why everyone who holds them must dumpt them on someone else. They need new investors to save them from the pyramid scheme. With stories on Bitcoin's value or importance, like yours, they try to attract as much investors as possible.

Isn't it nice to ignore the point and just repeat this nonsensical crypto slogans?

Stories, stories, stories. Everybody is just telling stories.

Is there any person on Earth who doesn't want to sell their bitcoins at one time in the future? No, no such person exists. Everybody must sell their bitcoins simply because, as explained in the opening post, Nakamoto doesn't redeem them nor they are intrinsically valuable for someone to be able to satisfy their needs with them. So what is the point of all those stories about their value if everybody wants to get rid of them exactly because they know bitcoins have no value? Well, the point is simple: to lure as many suckers as possible and dump them worthless coins at as a high a price as possible.

So, please stop with this nonsense stories. At least in this topic. Just admit why you're all here and move on.