Why Bitcoin is ultimately doomed to fail (not today or tomorrow)

[deisik]

What does the number of telephones in the world matter?

With just one telephone existing in the world you can't call anyone (I don't really know if you can call your own number). But with two you evidently can (meaning you can use it as it was designed to be), provided you have something to say or ask your caller indeed...

Only if someone is willing to answer.

If everyone refuses to answer their phone, the value of your telephone instantaneously evaporates, right?

I don't see where you're going. You can still call even no one answers your calls, and if you assume that it is not your fault (or your phone's), then no, it is not. As I said before, if your assumption can be reduced to one telephone existing in the whole world, then yes, it instantaneously loses its utility...

Now tell me if you consider these two premises identical

You can still spend your bitcoins even if no one is willing to give you anything for them.

What am I missing and how is it applicable to phones?

[byt411]

... You are the one doomed to fail, since you have done no research at all.
When all bitcoins are mined, mining will continue, otherwise the entire network would collapse. Blocks will only consist of transaction fees. No more bitcoins will be produced.

[deisik]

... You are the one doomed to fail, since you have done no research at all.
When all bitcoins are mined, mining will continue, otherwise the entire network would collapse. Blocks will only consist of transaction fees. No more bitcoins will be produced.

So mining has to be continued to prevent the entire network from collapse, lol? And where did I say here (or anywhere) that more than 21M bitcoins would be produced?

[byt411]

You asked what would happen after 21M bitcoins were mined. And yes, mining has to continue, otherwise transactions can't be confirmed or verified at all.

[deisik]

You asked what would happen after 21M bitcoins were mined. And yes, mining has to continue, otherwise transactions can't be confirmed or verified at all.

And you came to the conclusion that I had assumed that even more coins would be mined?

[byt411]

I came to the conclusion that you didn't know what happened when 21M coins were mined, so I answered.

[deisik]

I came to the conclusion that you didn't know what happened when 21M coins were mined, so I answered.

This was irrelevant to my point (which is economical in its grounds), but your answer actually contributes more to the bitcoin ultimate failure than to its long term subsistence (but again this is irrelevant to the questions discussed in this thread)...

[byt411]

I can't even understand your assumption. Why do you expect bitcoins to be issued as paper currency anyway? Who will control it?

[deisik]

I can't even understand your assumption. Why do you expect bitcoins to be issued as paper currency anyway? Who will control it?

I was not talking about actual bitcoins issued as paper currency like today's paper wallets (that paper currency would not indeed be bitcoins). I meant bitcoin "paper" derivatives which would substitute bitcoin in circulation. There are many mechanisms through which this can be done. The most obvious one is through loans by banks (peeps love loans), and in this case the latter will evidently control the emission of these notes (under many different names)...

[byt411]

And how could this "feature" be implemented? Bitcoin is designed to be a decentralized currency, why would we allow banks to create substitute notes for bitcoin?

[deisik]

And how could this "feature" be implemented? Bitcoin is designed to be a decentralized currency, why would we allow banks to create substitute notes for bitcoin?

Bitcoin decentralization is irrelevant here. I think it was well explained in the thread. In short, because people love loans and banks would issue credit as demanded, just like they do today...

[Lloydie]

And how could this "feature" be implemented? Bitcoin is designed to be a decentralized currency, why would we allow banks to create substitute notes for bitcoin?

Bitcoin decentralization is irrelevant here. I think it was well explained in the thread. In short, because people love loans and banks would issue credit as demanded, just like they do today...

People don't love loans! Do spaniards love loans? I don't think so my friend. People are forced into loans to keep up with ever rising asset prices or to simply survive.

Decentralisation means we don't have to rely on banks and central banks for money or credit. That is a good thing. It is highly relevant. We can finally remove the parasitic third party apparatus that creates asset inflation.

[deisik]

With just one telephone existing in the world you can't call anyone (I don't really know if you can call your own number). But with two you evidently can (meaning you can use it as it was designed to be), provided you have something to say or ask your caller indeed...

Only if someone is willing to answer.

If everyone refuses to answer their phone, the value of your telephone instantaneously evaporates, right?

I don't see where you're going. You can still call even no one answers your calls, and if you assume that it is not your fault (or your phone's), then no, it is not. As I said before, if your assumption can be reduced to one telephone existing in the whole world, then yes, it instantaneously loses its utility...

Now tell me if you consider these two premises identical

You can still spend your bitcoins even if no one is willing to give you anything for them.

What am I missing and how is it applicable to phones?

I'm not sure. Are you reading carefully? Noticing that certain phrases are being repeated?

So you mean that you can spend your money on the phone calls no one answers, right? I still don't get your point. In these quarters (know nothing about yours) you don't pay for missed calls. In any case, you pay to the phone company which provides you an option of making calls. It doesn't guarantee though that someone will actually pick up the receiver...

[deisik]

So you mean that you can spend your money on the phone calls no one answers, right? I still don't get your point. In these quarters (know nothing about yours) you don't pay for missed calls. In any case, you pay to the phone company which provides you an option of making calls. It doesn't guarantee though that someone will actually pick up the receiver...

At this point I'm just questioning whether, in your opinion, telephones have "utility by themselves". I can't make my point until I know the answer to that question.

Okay, what was your original point? I still don't get it. I mean the post you have already successfully deleted but which I had wisely quoted in this post...

[deisik]

So you mean that you can spend your money on the phone calls no one answers, right? I still don't get your point. In these quarters (know nothing about yours) you don't pay for missed calls. In any case, you pay to the phone company which provides you an option of making calls. It doesn't guarantee though that someone will actually pick up the receiver...

At this point I'm just questioning whether, in your opinion, telephones have "utility by themselves". I can't make my point until I know the answer to that question.

Okay, what was your original point? I still don't get it. I mean the post you have already successfully deleted but which I had wisely quoted in this post...

You'll note that sentence has a question mark at the end of it, not a point.

I'm here to learn, not to score points. If you have a more specific question I might be able to answer it, though.

Yes, but in that very post I answered your question, right? This thread is about bitcoins, not about telephones, so why did you actually ask about utility of a phone?

[deisik]

So you mean that you can spend your money on the phone calls no one answers, right? I still don't get your point. In these quarters (know nothing about yours) you don't pay for missed calls. In any case, you pay to the phone company which provides you an option of making calls. It doesn't guarantee though that someone will actually pick up the receiver...

At this point I'm just questioning whether, in your opinion, telephones have "utility by themselves". I can't make my point until I know the answer to that question.

Okay, what was your original point? I still don't get it. I mean the post you have already successfully deleted but which I had wisely quoted in this post...

You'll note that sentence has a question mark at the end of it, not a point.

I'm here to learn, not to score points. If you have a more specific question I might be able to answer it, though.

Yes, but in that very post I answered your question, right?

No. You said what the answer would be if "the utility of a telephone is making distance calls only" and "this telephone remains the only sample in the world".

This thread is about bitcoins, not about telephones, so why did you actually ask about utility of a phone?

I was trying to understand what you meant by "utility by themselves" when you said "Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your 'paper wealth' instantaneously evaporates..."

But you somehow considered different from utility perspective the situation when there is only one phone in the world and just no one willing to answer your calls. If now you see no difference, then there would evidently be no utility of a phone in both these cases...

If, nevertheless, you still think otherwise, tell me the difference in utility between these two cases as you see it

[deisik]

I was trying to understand what you meant by "utility by themselves" when you said "Those numbers allow you to postpone your consumption (that's one of their functions), but they have no utility by themselves. If everyone refuses to sell you something worthy or vital, your 'paper wealth' instantaneously evaporates..."

But you somehow considered different from utility perspective the situation when there is only one phone in the world and just no one willing to answer your calls. If now you see no difference, then there would evidently be no utility of a phone in both these cases...

If, nevertheless, you still think otherwise, tell me the difference in utility between these two cases as you see it

I never thought there was a difference in utility between the two situations.

So, telephones don't have "utility by themselves"? Is that what we've concluded?

Yes, they can't have utility by themselves, since utility reflects usefulness of something to an individual in reaching his ends. If utility of a phone for someone consists in calling his girlfriend, and she refuses to answer his calls, the phone loses its utility for this poor fellow...

[Maddin]

so what you actually want to say it that banks will lend unfounded bitcoins just like they actually doing with fiat currency.
Like in Europe banks only need to have 1% of the money they lend.
And yes I think in a few years they'll do the same with bitcoin and even with less then 1% covering.
This would lead to inflation and therefore banks could destroy Bitcoin

[deisik]

so what you actually want to say it that banks will borrow unfounded bitcoins just like they actually doing with fiat currency.
Like in Europe banks only need to have 1% of the money they borrow.
And yes I think in a few years they'll do the same with bitcoin and even with less the 1% covering.
This would lead to inflation and therefore banks could destroy Bitcoin

You probably meant lend. And not necessarily unfounded. I mean that money multiplier should work just fine even in the case of bitcoins. Banks wouldn't lend bitcoins directly (though they can actually borrow them), they would evidently lend bitcoin notes and take them for extinguishing debt and voila!

[Hashcesar84]

Can we converse in English please 

Rotfl, I was thinking I couldn't understand well!!!