Article: Bitcoin - a Payment Simulator Taken Seriously

[coolcoinz]

allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.
Allegedly invented? If you put this into question then you should be ready to put up some evidence to the fact that it was not invented by Satoshi. If you don't have such evidence, you should stop using this word and instead write facts as they are. No one "alleges" that Satoshi is the creator. He is.

Also, what does it mean its own money? The payment system's money? Bitcoin has its own money... I've never heard that before.

Are you the author? I can't find author's name. Is he ashamed?

[franky1]

allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.

he is just a troll.. bored of life bored of reality but not ready to learn how things really work.. and he does not understand bitcoin..nor wants to know

. best to not argue about his misunderstanding and instead just use his misunderstanding against him

and so

by snowshow not being sure if the whitepaper writer created bitcoin.(by saying allegedly) then in snowshow mind the white paper has less relevance to bitcoin.

thus snowshow should stop reading the white paper and instead actually learn bitcoin

[Snowshow]

allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.
Allegedly invented? If you put this into question then you should be ready to put up some evidence to the fact that it was not invented by Satoshi. If you don't have such evidence, you should stop using this word and instead write facts as they are. No one "alleges" that Satoshi is the creator. He is.

Also, what does it mean its own money? The payment system's money? Bitcoin has its own money... I've never heard that before.

Are you the author? I can't find author's name. Is he ashamed?

Allegedly means that something is claimed to be the case, although there is no proof. Nakamoto claimed their system creates money, although it just simulates money via the record of numeric attributions. That's why they defined an electronic coin in terms of the chain. Because there's no money in the system. If there's no money, there's nothing to define, except the components of the simulator. The chain of digital signatures is one such component.

allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.

he is just a troll.. bored of life bored of reality but not ready to learn how things really work.. and he does not understand bitcoin..nor wants to know

. best to not argue about his misunderstanding and instead just use his misunderstanding against him

and so

by snowshow not being sure if the whitepaper writer created bitcoin.(by saying allegedly) then in snowshow mind the white paper has less relevance to bitcoin.

thus snowshow should stop reading the white paper and instead actually learn bitcoin

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the simulator. Nor about how these components work. Because the whole point of the article is that there's no money in the system, no electronic coins pagged at 21 million. Coins are just simulated via numeric attributions recorded into the blockchain. It's like a stock simulator. It has numbers and names recorded but manages no real equities. It just simulates them via the record.

You're constantly missing the point of the article and respond to irrelevant things. Just try to accept the fact you participate in a simulation and that's it.


 

[NotATether]

allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money

This little part already makes me think the author is a bitcoin hater and the whole thing is written to mock bitcoin and its users.
Allegedly invented? If you put this into question then you should be ready to put up some evidence to the fact that it was not invented by Satoshi. If you don't have such evidence, you should stop using this word and instead write facts as they are. No one "alleges" that Satoshi is the creator. He is.

Also, what does it mean its own money? The payment system's money? Bitcoin has its own money... I've never heard that before.

Are you the author? I can't find author's name. Is he ashamed?

Allegedly means that something is claimed to be the case, although there is no proof. Nakamoto claimed their system creates money, although it just simulates money via the record of numeric attributions. That's why they defined an electronic coin in terms of the chain. Because there's no money in the system. If there's no money, there's nothing to define, except the components of the simulator. The chain of digital signatures is one such component.

That is irrelevant here beause the system already exists whether the word "allegedly" appears in some paper or not.

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the simulator. Nor about how these components work.

Then, you can't claim that something you haven't even bothered to study is a simulator.

Because the whole point of the article is that there's no money in the system, no electronic coins pagged at 21 million.

The "article" is also irrelevant here as it is the Bitcoin software that people care about - and not the academic whitepaper - which functions contrary to your claims of being a computational "simulator".

[Snowshow]

That is irrelevant here beause the system already exists whether the word "allegedly" appears in some paper or not.

I am not claiming that the system, the simulator and its components doesn't exist. But money with units pagged at 21 million. That's non-existent. It's just simulated.

Then, you can't claim that something you haven't even bothered to study is a simulator.

So I cannot claim that the Monopoly game simulates capitalist economy if I haven't bothered to study it? Your logic is pretty weak.

The "article" is also irrelevant here as it is the Bitcoin software that people care about - and not the academic whitepaper - which functions contrary to your claims of being a computational "simulator".

Yes, I know that people care about the simulator and its components because they play it with real money and thus need new players to get the money back. But that's irrelevant here.

[pooya87]

Yes, I know that people care about the simulator and its components because they play it with real money and thus need new players to get the money back. But that's irrelevant here.

The funny thing is that when you start your silly definitions, everything else you claim later start falling apart too. Like money which is also a "simulation" in your little world that it doesn't really exist and people took it seriously. So there is no "real money" either to use to "play bitcoin" or get it back from new players.

[franky1]

snowshow now admits

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the [system]. Nor about how these components work.

so he admits he has not learned about bitcoin. or learned if it works as intended..

his whole premiss is about an article..

if he read bitcoin code he will learn soo much, real quick and realise how much he didnt know before

[darewaller]

This is a very cool new take on how they could diminish the value of bitcoin whereas Fiat has been not used as anything but government saying "trust us, this has value" and nothing more. I personally would use this "online transaction simulator" all my life over fiat if that was the case, but unfortunately not all people accept it so I still have to use fiat, but imagine how much I like it enough to never use fiat ever again if I was given the option.

You can try to make it look like bitcoin is not the greatest currency ever, but that is not going to work with people like me, because we know the reality that fiat has been terrible for many years so far and it should not be changing anything soon neither.

[suzanne5223]

This is a very cool new take on how they could diminish the value of bitcoin whereas Fiat has been not used as anything but government saying "trust us, this has value" and nothing more. I personally would use this "online transaction simulator" all my life over fiat if that was the case, but unfortunately not all people accept it so I still have to use fiat, but imagine how much I like it enough to never use fiat ever again if I was given the option.

You can try to make it look like bitcoin is not the greatest currency ever, but that is not going to work with people like me, because we know the reality that fiat has been terrible for many years so far and it should not be changing anything soon neither.

I believe it's not hard to know that fiat currency is a total failure but the government will never agree or want to accept the fact about it and in other for them t gain people's trust they have to say something bad about Bitcoin.
I read that someone said Bitcoin is backed with nothing which is not true because Bitcoin is backed with its community support, blockchain technology, and controlled supply.

Having said that, I don't think the number of people that didn't accept Bitcoin should matter to us because at the early stage of every innovative concept only a few people always accepted it and if we go back to the statement made by the OP we can also see that the author of the possible article she read to compose her post is never Bitcoin enthusiast

[NotATether]

Then, you can't claim that something you haven't even bothered to study is a simulator.

So I cannot claim that the Monopoly game simulates capitalist economy if I haven't bothered to study it? Your logic is pretty weak.

"Monopoly" does not attempt to simulate a real-life economy and only a foolish person could think such a thing. If you think I'm wrong then tell me where in the game are interest rates and inflation, where bonds are issued, money is printed, and leveraged bank loans are given and defaulted on.

[Snowshow]

Yes, I know that people care about the simulator and its components because they play it with real money and thus need new players to get the money back. But that's irrelevant here.

The funny thing is that when you start your silly definitions, everything else you claim later start falling apart too. Like money which is also a "simulation" in your little world that it doesn't really exist and people took it seriously. So there is no "real money" either to use to "play bitcoin" or get it back from new players.

Money is not a simulation, but a resource. When you have no resource in a system, then you simulate it. Nakamoto did that by simulating a resource quantity via numeric attributions.

snowshow now admits

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the [system]. Nor about how these components work.

so he admits he has not learned about bitcoin. or learned if it works as intended..

his whole premiss is about an article..

if he read bitcoin code he will learn soo much, real quick and realise how much he didnt know before

C'mon. You're like a child with this "you don't understand bitcoin" argument.

This is a very cool new take on how they could diminish the value of bitcoin whereas Fiat has been not used as anything but government saying "trust us, this has value" and nothing more. I personally would use this "online transaction simulator" all my life over fiat if that was the case, but unfortunately not all people accept it so I still have to use fiat, but imagine how much I like it enough to never use fiat ever again if I was given the option.

You can try to make it look like bitcoin is not the greatest currency ever, but that is not going to work with people like me, because we know the reality that fiat has been terrible for many years so far and it should not be changing anything soon neither.

Fiat money is means to express quantity of debt. Debt is a resource traded on the markets just like a product or a service. In the Nakamoto's system you have no resource so it is simulated by mimicking the recording of quantity as explained in the OP.

Bitcoin is a blockchain and bitcoin is the reward for providing computational power to keep Bitcoin working.  Blockchains provide a distributed ledger for making transaction with realtime records, which is fast, reliable, Swift, anonymous and low cost compared to conventional banking. Some people with little understanding call it a computer game..it's their foolishess.

Wrong! Blockchains provide a distributed ledger for making simulated transaction with realtime records.

The banking system makes real transactions, with debt.

You cannot compare a simulation with the real thing. It's ridiculous.

Then, you can't claim that something you haven't even bothered to study is a simulator.

So I cannot claim that the Monopoly game simulates capitalist economy if I haven't bothered to study it? Your logic is pretty weak.

"Monopoly" does not attempt to simulate a real-life economy and only a foolish person could think such a thing. If you think I'm wrong then tell me where in the game are interest rates and inflation, where bonds are issued, money is printed, and leveraged bank loans are given and defaulted on.

I agree, Monopoly is not complex enough. It's a simple simulation of capitalist economy.

[dezoel]

The idea that it is "allegedly" used as money or could be used money, is the same thing as we can say about regular money. You are holding a piece of paper that puts a value to it, 100 dollars could buy you some things (not as much as it used to lol) and you are just giving a piece of paper and nothing more, but it does represent money.

You may say but that is created by the government and backed, but it is not backed by gold or anything, just the power of the country and some countries are terrible like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, so that means it actually doesn't have any meaning at all, we put the meaning in there, and when we don't, it goes down like the fiat of those nations. We put the value in bitcoin too, just like we do with fiat, same thing.

[Snowshow]

The idea that it is "allegedly" used as money or could be used money, is the same thing as we can say about regular money. You are holding a piece of paper that puts a value to it, 100 dollars could buy you some things (not as much as it used to lol) and you are just giving a piece of paper and nothing more, but it does represent money.

You may say but that is created by the government and backed, but it is not backed by gold or anything, just the power of the country and some countries are terrible like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, so that means it actually doesn't have any meaning at all, we put the meaning in there, and when we don't, it goes down like the fiat of those nations. We put the value in bitcoin too, just like we do with fiat, same thing.

Stop repeating those nonsense conspiracy theories about fiat money being just paper. Banknotes or bank accounts hold info about quantity of debt that the holders own. Debt is a resource that brings goods, services or labour when it is paid. The article explained this in pretty simple terms, so everyone can understand it. Try to read and educate yourself for a change, instead of being the sheep that follows the herd.

[Flexystar]

I agree fully with what davis196 said. Most of them forget to consider the fact that bitcoin does not work just like that where you send money from one side and receives from another side. It’s literally process of creating something by using real energy (electricity), real machineries work it, computations happening for real and much more stuff to give it real world presence.

If we take into account OP calculations then there is no point to the traditional bank system! After all it’s just printed piece of paper with some famous personalities printed on them. 

[kryptqnick]

Abstract

Economy is a pretty simple concept - it is a system for producing and exchanging resources. Money is also a simple concept - it is a specific type of resource that has features like durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, and acceptability. In 2008, a person or group under the identity Satoshi Nakamoto, allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money in the form of electronic coins, generally known as bitcoins. Here, we will use Nakamoto's own definition of coins in order to demonstrate that they invented no such system. Instead, they invented a payment simulator. In this simulator, cryptographically signed numeric attributions are recorded into a distributed database called "blockchain". This mimics the recording of quantity that occurs when resources are produced or exchanged through economic activity. Given that Nakamoto's invention neither produces nor exchanges resources, this makes it a simulator, a Monopoly-style game, and not something that relates to real money or economy.

Here you can read the article: https://btcsim.wordpress.com/

While I generally agree with the definition of economy as a concept and of money as a concept, it's not all that simple. For example, acceptability of local fiat can be very low in a different country, next to nonexistent. That means there's a limit to that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by uniformity as money is often banknotes and coins that aren't unoform at all.
As for the claim that it's a payment simulator, it sounds as it it means it isn't real, it's a fake etc. That certainly isn't it. You know what else is a payment simulator? When you pay by card in a shop, and your online banking tells you that you spent money there. The money will actually leave your account much later, so all 'transactions' we rely on aren't really happening, at least not at that moment. Bitcoin is real enough to work and be trusted.

[Snowshow]

Abstract

Economy is a pretty simple concept - it is a system for producing and exchanging resources. Money is also a simple concept - it is a specific type of resource that has features like durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, and acceptability. In 2008, a person or group under the identity Satoshi Nakamoto, allegedly invented a payment system that exchanges its own  money in the form of electronic coins, generally known as bitcoins. Here, we will use Nakamoto's own definition of coins in order to demonstrate that they invented no such system. Instead, they invented a payment simulator. In this simulator, cryptographically signed numeric attributions are recorded into a distributed database called "blockchain". This mimics the recording of quantity that occurs when resources are produced or exchanged through economic activity. Given that Nakamoto's invention neither produces nor exchanges resources, this makes it a simulator, a Monopoly-style game, and not something that relates to real money or economy.

Here you can read the article: https://btcsim.wordpress.com/

While I generally agree with the definition of economy as a concept and of money as a concept, it's not all that simple. For example, acceptability of local fiat can be very low in a different country, next to nonexistent. That means there's a limit to that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by uniformity as money is often banknotes and coins that aren't unoform at all.
As for the claim that it's a payment simulator, it sounds as it it means it isn't real, it's a fake etc. That certainly isn't it. You know what else is a payment simulator? When you pay by card in a shop, and your online banking tells you that you spent money there. The money will actually leave your account much later, so all 'transactions' we rely on aren't really happening, at least not at that moment. Bitcoin is real enough to work and be trusted.

Here, simulator means having numeric values attributed to addresses without their holders being the owners of some resource in the quantity of attributed values. In short, the attributions just mimic the recording of quantity that occurs when resources are produced or exchanged through economic activity. Read the article. Your answer shows you didn't read it.

I agree fully with what davis196 said. Most of them forget to consider the fact that bitcoin does not work just like that where you send money from one side and receives from another side. It’s literally process of creating something by using real energy (electricity), real machineries work it, computations happening for real and much more stuff to give it real world presence.

If we take into account OP calculations then there is no point to the traditional bank system! After all it’s just printed piece of paper with some famous personalities printed on them.  

Nothing is created. Energy is spend on maintaining the record of numeric attributions. In short, it is spend on running the simulation.