What is the 'purpose' and 'nature' of Bitcoin? Some questions.

[samrajka]

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

[HugoStone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HS

[HugoStone]

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

Hi. That's not an answer to my question though. Please see my reply to Pursuer above.

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

Please see my reply to Pursuer above.

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

That's exactly my point, i.e. Bitcoin is a simulation of mining. So what is the point you're trying to make here?

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

My bank stores a number as an electromagnetic charge on a storage medium, so I already know my balance doesn't exist in any 'real' form. What would happen if you could flick a switch and turn off the electricity supply to your town or city? How 'real' would your balance (in Bitcoin or otherwise) be then?

Approach someone on the street, show them the ledger, and tell them it represents 'proof of trust'. Will they accept this at face value or will they ask for an explanation? Will your explanation be self-referential (i.e. the ledger exists, therefore it is 'proof of trust') or will you have to explain the code behind the ledger so that they understand how the ledger is created? Above and beyond even that, would they take your word for it? Trust is neither code nor data but a state that exists in the human mind.

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

No, I'm using a specific group of people as a test case in an attempt to get someone to explain what the practical benefits of Bitcoin are to those who do not currently use Bitcoin. It really doesn't matter if the people in question are in Tanzania or Texas. What is the incentive for choosing Bitcoin over fiat? What does Bitcoin offer that fiat doesn't? Next time you overhear someone moaning about money why don't you go over to them, explain how Bitcoin can solve their problems, and let me know what they say?

HS

[Ayers]

they would benefit from less fee for example for sending money abroad, outside from their country, they would also benefit for faster transaction, if they use zero-transaction confirmation, that some merchants offer, and their fortune would not lose value over tiem like the usd, due to inflation

[mindrust]

To be honest, bitcoin is for the geeks mostly. Unless you are interested in geeky stuff, you are most likely to have no clue about bitcoin. That's why people in Tanzania or Kenia will look you as they've seen a ghost unless you cross your way with geeks there. (I suppose that would be a rare case)

It is the same thing in Germany or USA too. The thing is, since the social media is a lot well developed in the first world countries. They probably heard it in somewhere at the worst case.

[HugoStone]

The purpose of Bitcoin is to upset or turn banking upside down.
A neutral entity that does not believe in right or wrong in order to evade the effects of karma.
It could free the world or enslave the world because it does not care.
It only desires that the mere idea infests as many hosts as it possibly can.
Then and only then can it be idolized so that it may rule over all.
Any other questions?

It's interesting that you refer to it in religious terms re: "Then and only then can it be idolized so that it may rule over all." I take your comment with a pinch of salt, but you're not the first to portray it like this. A few days ago, someone told me that he would refuse to do anything that "violated the sanctity of the global ledger", as if the global ledger is a virgin goddess who sits in a temple and must be worshipped from afar.

I'm not religious, but many translations of the bible interpret 'sin' as 'debt', i.e. "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." - see Matthew 6:12

Bankers don't like to talk about 'debt forgiveness'. Some of them even think it's 'immoral'.

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

Think about what a financial transaction amounts to. You walk into a shop, are 'charged' as a debtor, found 'guilty' by default, and ordered to hand over a token symbol of your 'guilt' to 'pay off' your debt. It's ridiculous though, because the token symbols we use are promises to pay (actual and digital promissory notes) that can only be converted into other promises to pay. OK, you can exchange a promise to pay for goods and services, but that just repeats the above cycle. You can only convert a £5 note into another £5 note, or other denominations of debt representing the same amount. We are asked to repay debt with debt, which makes the debt meaningless precisely because it can never be repaid. If you think about how modern money is created then it quickly becomes apparent that the debt never existed in the first place - it's just an illusion. It can't be paid back because it was never supposed to be paid back, because it doesn't really exist.

We have literally made an idol of money. All forms of money are just symbols that we attach meaning to. A dollar is just a dollar sign, and a pound is just a pound sign. The virtualisation of money itself makes this even more clear, because we're worshipping a non-existent entity - just the symbol (£/$/BTC etc.) itself.

I say that we should stop pretending that this debt is real and stop perceiving other people as 'debtors'.

Less of this: https://s11.postimg.org/nh2fdckoj/idol_worship.png

More of this: https://s16.postimg.org/dmoql3yed/forgiveness.jpg

If we're going to talk about it in religious terms then I say "There is no god but man."

HS

[jbreher]

This is not an answer to my question though. What motivation is there for an M-pesa user to switch to Bitcoin?

Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation.

Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.

[kiklo]

This is not an answer to my question though. What motivation is there for an M-pesa user to switch to Bitcoin?

Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation.

Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.

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

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

@jbreher

No matter how concise or how clear your answer, nothing seems to get thru to HS.
Experience that myself with him in another topic.

 

[HugoStone]

Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation. Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.

Hi. This was my question: "What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do?" But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"

The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?

HS

[HugoStone]

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

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

I'm still waiting for answers though. Why don't you have a go? According to jbreher, these are the benefits of Bitcoin:

Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address.

Ayers says:

they would benefit from less fee for example for sending money abroad, outside from their country, they would also benefit for faster transaction, if they use zero-transaction confirmation, that some merchants offer, and their fortune would not lose value over tiem like the usd, due to inflation

Some people would benefit from reduced fees, provided they're not one of the billions who can barely afford to live yet alone send money abroad. Zimbabwe? Venezuela? Any massive increase in the volume of bitcoin transactions and wallet ownership to suggest that citizens of these countries are switching to Bitcoin? Let's face it: if citizens of these countries can't be persuaded then who can?

Seven years after its introduction and Bitcoin has what? Two million users globally? Three million? Maybe five million? I'll be generous and say ten million. Could it be that there's a chronic mismatch between what Bitcoin provides and what people actually want or need? That in terms of what they want and need, Bitcoin provides them with nothing that the existing system doesn't already provide? That it's not a real alternative?

HS

[jbreher]

Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation. Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope.

But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya.

"It is a lot like M-Pesa, but offers the benefit of not being able to be rolled back or controlled by a central party". They might not immediately see the benefit of the latter, and I don't particularly care to force the issue. Adoption -- at least lacking some catalyzing crisis -- does not subsume from the center. It occurs at the margins. Patience, grasshopper.

In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"

None of that shit matters to an end user. My above point is enough.

The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?

Because M-Pesa was right place right time with a distribution network that was already in place with a captive customer base, and an advertising budget.

[kiklo]

Think about what a financial transaction amounts to. You walk into a shop, are 'charged' as a debtor, found 'guilty' by default, and ordered to hand over a token symbol of your 'guilt' to 'pay off' your debt. It's ridiculous though, because the token symbols we use are promises to pay (actual and digital promissory notes) that can only be converted into other promises to pay. OK, you can exchange a promise to pay for goods and services, but that just repeats the above cycle. You can only convert a £5 note into another £5 note, or other denominations of debt representing the same amount. We are asked to repay debt with debt, which makes the debt meaningless precisely because it can never be repaid. If you think about how modern money is created then it quickly becomes apparent that the debt never existed in the first place - it's just an illusion. It can't be paid back because it was never supposed to be paid back, because it doesn't really exist.

We have literally made an idol of money. All forms of money are just symbols that we attach meaning to. A dollar is just a dollar sign, and a pound is just a pound sign. The virtualisation of money itself makes this even more clear, because we're worshipping a non-existent entity - just the symbol (£/$/BTC etc.) itself.

Let me clear that up for you
Think about what a financial transaction Actually is . You walk into a shop, are 'charged' for any goods or services and Pay the Vendor for said goods, so the next time you arrive he will have the goods or services you need verses Robbing the Vendor and him not being there next time you need something.  
Your idea of creating a separate illusion will not work , as you have given the vendor & regular people no reason to fall for your illusion , except for your understanding , that since the bankers are creating an illusion , you can too. Illusions don't work that way, Vendors & regular people actually have to really believe your illusion, which the bankers used the gold standard in the beginning (A physical asset) , your illusion does not offer a Physical asset , so it will never fool anyone.

Money has only become an illusion when they removed the Gold Standard in the 1930s, until then the Fiat was directly exchangeable at a bank for gold.
It did have value which was lost, The guys perpetrating the illusion of amount of value offered are the Bankers, not the shop keepers or regular people.

Seven years after its introduction and Bitcoin has what? Two million users globally? Three million? Maybe five million? I'll be generous and say ten million. Could it be that there's a chronic mismatch between what Bitcoin provides and what people actually want or need? That in terms of what they want and need, Bitcoin provides them with nothing that the existing system doesn't already provide? That it's not a real alternative?

BTC was the first , and it has some advantages to begin with , like being able to pay someone on the other side of the planet fairly quickly.
The Infrastructure is still being built , that will allow a world wide virtual currency.
Compared to cars , which also was many years before there was mass adoption.
https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/blog/before-the-model-t-henry-fords-letter-cars

We are still in the early phases of crypto, the final winner will be Truly Decentralized, Energy Efficient, Quantity Large enough to be global, but still be affordable,
That coin is not BTC (in its current configuration), but another.  

Timeline will be determined by Diffusion, Everyone here are early adopters, there are many more stages to come before mass adoption,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

Innovation :
Innovations are a broad category, relative to the current knowledge of the analyzed unit.
Any idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption could be considered an innovation available for study.

Adopters :
Adopters are the minimal unit of analysis.
In most studies, adopters are individuals, but can also be organizations (businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.), clusters within social networks, or countries.

Communication channels :
Diffusion, by definition, takes place among people or organizations.
Communication channels allow the transfer of information from one unit to the other.
Communication patterns or capabilities must be established between parties as a minimum for diffusion to occur.

Time    :
The passage of time is necessary for innovations to be adopted; they are rarely adopted instantaneously.
In fact, in the Ryan and Gross (1943) study on hybrid corn adoption, adoption occurred over more than ten years, and most farmers only dedicated a fraction on their fields to the new corn in the first years after adoption.

Social system :
The social system is the combination of external influences (mass media, organizational or governmental mandates) and internal influences (strong and weak social relationships, distance from opinion leaders). There are many roles in a social system, and their combination represents the total influences on a potential adopter.

 

FYI:
Flaws in your specific illusion, is it fails to consider two primal issues.
1.  Physical Resources are not Unlimited .
2.  Your Illusion fails the believably test, because you are not initially backing it with a physical resource.

FYI2:
Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges, But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it.
You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.

[Kakmakr]

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

Did you even do a little bit of research before you posted? M-Pesa (M for mobile, pesa is Swahili for money) is a mobile phone-based money transfer, financing and microfinancing service, launched in 2007 by Vodafone for Safaricom and Vodacom, the largest mobile network operators in Kenya and Tanzania.

It has nothing to do with Bitcoin. ^hmmmmm^

BitPesa is a payments platform that offer an easy way for individuals and businesses to make payments to and from sub-Saharan Africa.

[davis196]

What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do? For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

HS

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

Yes,bitcoin is just a bunch of programming code,but that doesn`t matter.The system is important.

With btc,the money supply is "automated",with central banks the money supply is controled by humans.

[franky1]

bitcoin 2009-2013 was great. it actually offered everything M-pesa had, but without the need of vodaphone control.
people could program their own exchanges, do local trades using paper wallets and the cost of using bitcoin was negligible.

however bitcoin 2013-2016 has changed, not offering the same freedoms as m-pesa. the tx fee alone has priced out developing countries from using bitcoin as a real day-to-day currency.
the lack of momentum of scaling has slowed down being able to use it in a short time guaranteed transfer. thus not useful for actually shopping with bitcoin.

bitcoin has now become just an investment vessel for developing countries. and is starting to do the same for developed countries too. all because coders in certain groups decided to not use real code rules to scale bitcoins utility forward. but use economics to shift demand backwards purely for a "fiat" money grab

[HugoStone]

Your idea of creating a separate illusion will not work , as you have given the vendor & regular people no reason to fall for your illusion , except for your understanding , that since the bankers are creating an illusion , you can too. Illusions don't work that way, Vendors & regular people actually have to really believe your illusion, which the bankers used the gold standard in the beginning (A physical asset) , your illusion does not offer a Physical asset , so it will never fool anyone.

What 'physical asset' does Bitcoin offer? It is a virtual currency, not a physical asset. If what you're saying is true then why would anyone ever use Bitcoin? Think back to when it was first introduced - someone took a leap of faith and decided to use it. Or do you think it sprang into existence overnight complete with bitcoin exchanges, bitcoin ATMs, a few millions users, and an equivalence value against the dollar, sterling, etc?

FYI: Flaws in your specific illusion, is it fails to consider two primal issues. 1.  Physical Resources are not Unlimited. 2.  Your Illusion fails the believably test, because you are not initially backing it with a physical resource.

This thread is not about my proposal. It is about bitcoin. Nevertheless...

1. What my proposal actually does is remove cost considerations in relation to recycling and environmental concerns, thus making it possible to maximise the resources that are available. It also allows for massive input into R&D to develop new and innovative technologies to address these issues.

2. See above. When Hal Finney performed the first bitcoin transaction, did he do so because bitcoin was a physical asset or backed by a physical asset? No he did not. He took a leap of faith and used the software, which was all bitcoin was at the time. Was Hal Finney a fool? If I employ your logic then it becomes impossible to conceive how bitcoin has got to where it is right now without assuming that each and every bitcoin user is a fool.

Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges, But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it. You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.

Again, think back to the early days. Bitcoin may be backed up by fiat now, but was it backed by fiat right from the start? Was it backed by anything more than the early adopters' belief that it might have some future utility?

You still haven't answered any of my questions. I'll give you the short version again. My contention is that the reason people aren't abandoning fiat in favour of bitcoin is that a) the benefits bitcoin offers do not actually correspond with their wants and needs, and b) bitcoin doesn't offer them anything more than what existing monetary systems offer, i.e. it is the existing systems in an alternative form rather than an actual alternative. Do you disagree? If so, why?

HS

[kiklo]

Dude ,

really always saying no one has answered your questions, when the answers are posted Right in front of your FACE.
Does it help your Reading Comprehision at all, if I make the Font Bigger.


Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges,
But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it.
You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.


Did that break thru the haze or are you still blind to the answer before you?

 

[HugoStone]

Dude , really always saying no one has answered your questions, when the answers are posted Right in front of your FACE. Does it help your Reading Comprehision at all, if I make the Font Bigger.


Even BTC is being backed up by False Fiats (Dollar/Yuan) on the exchanges,
But people still believe in Fiat as long as someone else takes it.
You want your illusion to match the others , you got to back it up with something others consider has worth.


Did that break thru the haze or are you still blind to the answer before you?

1. If you intend to lecture people on their reading comprehension then first learn how to spell and construct a sentence.
2. You are again referring to my proposal even though this thread is about Bitcoin.
3. The 'answer' provided is an answer to your own question, not mine.

I will pose my question as a very simple statement in the hope you actually get it this time: "The benefits of Bitcoin do not meet people's real-world needs, i.e. Bitcoin is not a real alternative to fiat."

Do you agree with this statement or not? Yes or No? If you do not agree then why?

HS

[kiklo]

Nope the haze is still there. Must be hell to drive when those blinders on.

We are still in the early phases of crypto, the final winner will be Truly Decentralized, Energy Efficient, Quantity Large enough to be global, but still be affordable,
That coin is not BTC (in its current configuration), but another. 

Your haze must prevent reading comprehension, if you can't understand what I said.
It means BTC will not be replacing Fiat , it will be another better designed Crypto that achieves that goal.


 

[HugoStone]

Must be hell to drive when those blinders on.

See point 1 above. Do you mean 'with'?

We are still in the early phases of crypto, the final winner will be Truly Decentralized, Energy Efficient, Quantity Large enough to be global, but still be affordable, That coin is not BTC (in its current configuration), but another.  

Have I not already said that I'm talking about Bitcoin? Please refer to the title of this thread, then re-read the questions that appear in the first paragraph of my opening comment. I asked the same questions half-a-dozen posts later because none of the answers I received actually addressed them.

I have specifically asked how people would explain the benefits of an existing currency called Bitcoin to non-Bitcoin users, with a view to determining how they would persuade a non-Bitcoin user to switch to Bitcoin. I have also asked whether Bitcoin conveys any benefits that people actually need. I think my views on the subject are clear, but I was asking people to explain their views on the existing benefits of Bitcoin vis-a-vis fiat currencies and other e-payment systems. Do you understand?

Your haze must prevent reading comprehension, if you can't understand what I said. It means BTC will not be replacing Fiat , it will be another better designed Crypto that achieves that goal.

Again, the purpose was and still is to discuss Bitcoin (it's purpose and nature) as it currently exists, not a cryptocurrency which does not currently exist. OK?

HS