[VIDEO]The Empirical Proof of Bitcoin's Real Value Being Zero

[antikvark]

Your whole post is based on ignorance between market value and real value. Watch the video again.

Fortunately, Bitcoin has "real value", so market value doesn't matter.

Value of financial instruments(records on digital, paper, plastic or metal medium) comes from payments that their issuers provide to their holders. Fiat currencies, the same as bonds, stocks, CFD-s, futures, options, ... are records whose issuers provide various types of payments to their holders during the circulation of these instruments, or at their maturity, liquidation or withdrawal from circulation. Dollars for example are liquidated or withdrawn from circulation at loan payments. Bitcoin on the other hand is a record whose issuers never pay anything to its holders, nor is Bitcon ever liquidated or withdrawn from circulation by these issuers. Bitcoin is therefore a worthless record in an infinite circulation, that operates the same as ponzi-like scheme, since its holders can be paid only from funds of new investors. Even a $100 poker chip is more valuable than all bitcoins in the world, since issuer of this chip pays an equivalent amount of cash for it, while Bitcon issuers pay nothing.

[frank0ly]

The price of bitcoin is zero only if no one will invest in it

Okay, but what will happen if everyone uses Bitcoin and no one contributes fiat money to the cost of Bitcoin because there is enough for everyone the number of bitcoins that already exist? What will happen if people simply exchange bitcoins among themselves?

[Sadlife]

The fiat and bitcoin has the same speculative fundamentals because if you look at fiat for example the USD, it is only paper money with no real value that is backed with an scarce asset oil. The value depends on the supply/demand of  the market.

[antikvark]

The fiat and bitcoin has the same speculative fundamentals because if you look at fiat for example the USD, it is only paper money with no real value that is backed with an scarce asset oil. The value depends on the supply/demand of  the market.

Wrong. It's true that BTC and USD are only digital or paper records, but USD issuers (banks) provide USD holders with payments in the form of interest, non-monetary value or collateral, as explained in the video. Bitcon issuers on the other hand, pay nothing to Bitcon holders. USD is backed by collateral of the borrowers or equity of the banks. Bitcon is backed by nothing. Bitcoin is worthless number next to your virtual address.

[hv_]

Fortunately, Bitcoin has "real value", so market value doesn't matter.

Segwit killed that

It did not.

Price is not value btw

Correct.  Bitcoin has value. Coincidentally, it also has price, but price is only an attempt by the markets to try to determine what that value might be.

What do you think is mostly driving price up for BTC ?

I'm convinced it is only speculation.


Bitcoin is a protocol for value TRANSFER / audit  with its ledger

BSV has more value such  https://coingeek.com/the-next-genesis-bitcoins-two-beginnings/

[Kuffy]

People don't seem to be able to grasp that virtual assets can have real value. A novel is one example that I provide fairly often. Wouldn't it be great if schoolteachers, and the media could discuss real life topics, and not keep regurgitating globalist pap.

[antikvark]

People don't seem to be able to grasp that virtual assets can have real value. A novel is one example that I provide fairly often. Wouldn't it be great if schoolteachers, and the media could discuss real life topics, and not keep regurgitating globalist pap.

People don't seem to be able to grasp that declaring something "virtual asset" doesn't automatically mean it has value. Value is the benefit that a thing in itself provides to people. In goods and services this banefit is the ability of a thing to satisfy a particular want. In financial instruments this benefit is payment that instrument issuer makes to instrument holder. Bitcoin is a few digits in a memory. So one cannot use it for want satisfying. Nor its issuer pays something to its holder. This renders Bitcon worthless and declaring it asset, money, digital gold, coin, or whatever, won't make this fact go away.

[DannyHamilton]

Value of financial instruments(records on digital, paper, plastic or metal medium) comes from payments that their issuers provide to their holders. Fiat currencies, the same as bonds, stocks, CFD-s, futures, options, ... are records whose issuers provide various types of payments to their holders during the circulation of these instruments, or at their maturity, liquidation or withdrawal from circulation.

Using your definition of "Financial Instrument", it is clear that

. . . It is more like a commodity than a "financial instrument".  There are no "issuers" of Bitcoin, just like there are no "issuers" of gold.

Control over Bitcoins offers value on its own, so there is no need for "some payment to holders".

It's true that BTC and USD are only digital or paper records, but USD issuers (banks) provide USD holders with payments in the form of interest, non-monetary value or collateral, as explained in the video. Bitcon issuers on the other hand, pay nothing to Bitcon holders.

There are no Bitcoin issuers.  Just like holders of gold are not paid interest or collateral for holding gold, holders of Bitcoin are not paid interest of collateral for holding Bitcoin.

What do you think is mostly driving price up for BTC ?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricediscovery.asp

I'm convinced it is only speculation.

Speculation is nothing more than market participants contributing towards price discovery. Speculators both buy (provide demand) AND sell (provide supply).  For every purchase of bitcoin at an exchange, there is someone willing to sell at that price.  For every sale, there is someone willing to buy at that price.  There are millions of variables that all contribute to the spot price being what it is. Any attempt to label a single thing as the cause of the current price is nonsense and futile.

People don't seem to be able to grasp that declaring something "virtual asset" doesn't automatically mean it has value.

And declaring it a "Financial Instrument" and then stating that it is worthless doesn't automatically mean that it is worthless.

Value is the benefit that a thing in itself provides to people.

Finally, we are in agreement on something.  And yet, somehow, you don't seem to believe that Bitcoin provides a benefit to people?

In goods and services this banefit is the ability of a thing to satisfy a particular want.

Agreed.  And Bitcoin definitely satisfies various particular wants of various people.

In financial instruments this benefit is payment that instrument issuer makes to instrument holder.

Bitcoin has no issuer, therefore, it appears not to fit your definition of "Financial Instrument".  Perhaps if you stop thinking of it as something with an issuer, you'll begin to see that it gets its value from its ability to "satisfy a particular want" and stop demanding that the issuers that don't exist pay something to the holders.

Bitcoin is a few digits in a memory.

Bitcoin is more than that.

So one cannot use it for want satisfying.

You are clearly mistaken.  Many people DO use it for "want satisfying".

Nor its issuer pays something to its holder.

It has no issuer.

This renders Bitcon worthless

It does not.

and declaring it asset, money, digital gold, coin, or whatever, won't make this fact go away.

And declaring it a Financial Instrument, and demanding that an imaginary issuer pay interest won't make it worthless either.

[BitHodler]

What do you think is mostly driving price up for BTC ?

I'm convinced it is only speculation.

It doesn't matter what the market is, the factor driving prices is always speculation related. In all cases, the market tends to front run the potential 'utility' of an asset, which is why we see Bitcoin at $9k and BSV at $300....

I recall CSW having said that the value for BSV isn't that important, he wants BSV to be a platform people build on, which makes the applications on top of it valuable, BSV not so much.

Ethereum is the most built on platform and generates a shit ton of transaction volume, but its price is still under $200.... It's an indication that people value what's built on top of the protocol more than the native coin.

[antikvark]

Value of financial instruments(records on digital, paper, plastic or metal medium) comes from payments that their issuers provide to their holders. Fiat currencies, the same as bonds, stocks, CFD-s, futures, options, ... are records whose issuers provide various types of payments to their holders during the circulation of these instruments, or at their maturity, liquidation or withdrawal from circulation.

Using your definition of "Financial Instrument", it is clear that

. . . It is more like a commodity than a "financial instrument".  There are no "issuers" of Bitcoin, just like there are no "issuers" of gold.

Control over Bitcoins offers value on its own, so there is no need for "some payment to holders".

It's true that BTC and USD are only digital or paper records, but USD issuers (banks) provide USD holders with payments in the form of interest, non-monetary value or collateral, as explained in the video. Bitcon issuers on the other hand, pay nothing to Bitcon holders.

There are no Bitcoin issuers.  Just like holders of gold are not paid interest or collateral for holding gold, holders of Bitcoin are not paid interest of collateral for holding Bitcoin.

What do you think is mostly driving price up for BTC ?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricediscovery.asp

I'm convinced it is only speculation.

Speculation is nothing more than market participants contributing towards price discovery. Speculators both buy (provide demand) AND sell (provide supply).  For every purchase of bitcoin at an exchange, there is someone willing to sell at that price.  For every sale, there is someone willing to buy at that price.  There are millions of variables that all contribute to the spot price being what it is. Any attempt to label a single thing as the cause of the current price is nonsense and futile.

People don't seem to be able to grasp that declaring something "virtual asset" doesn't automatically mean it has value.

And declaring it a "Financial Instrument" and then stating that it is worthless doesn't automatically mean that it is worthless.

Value is the benefit that a thing in itself provides to people.

Finally, we are in agreement on something.  And yet, somehow, you don't seem to believe that Bitcoin provides a benefit to people?

In goods and services this banefit is the ability of a thing to satisfy a particular want.

Agreed.  And Bitcoin definitely satisfies various particular wants of various people.

In financial instruments this benefit is payment that instrument issuer makes to instrument holder.

Bitcoin has no issuer, therefore, it appears not to fit your definition of "Financial Instrument".  Perhaps if you stop thinking of it as something with an issuer, you'll begin to see that it gets its value from its ability to "satisfy a particular want" and stop demanding that the issuers that don't exist pay something to the holders.

Bitcoin is a few digits in a memory.

Bitcoin is more than that.

So one cannot use it for want satisfying.

You are clearly mistaken.  Many people DO use it for "want satisfying".

Nor its issuer pays something to its holder.

It has no issuer.

This renders Bitcon worthless

It does not.

and declaring it asset, money, digital gold, coin, or whatever, won't make this fact go away.

And declaring it a Financial Instrument, and demanding that an imaginary issuer pay interest won't make it worthless either.

Using a thing for want satisfying means utilizing or consuming a thing. It doesn't mean transferring a thing from one person to another. Nobody can utilize or consume bitcoin. Bitcoin can only be passed from hand to hand, like membership stakes in ponzi-like schemes.

Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So? Defining something simply means describing exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of it. Which was what I did. Where is the problem?

Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network. Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.

Finally, Bitcon is not gold. Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own. Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address. On its own it's worthless.

[XCANA]

Just like before, whenever they intend to buy more they usually cause a FUD for the weak to dump for them to buy. Please, tell them we aren't as before again, we have all learnt our lessons and won't dump for anyone anymore.

Please, never watch such ridiculous video from hell, consider yourself a loser, if you're here as a WHALE! we aren't going to fall.

[DannyHamilton]

Using a thing for want satisfying means utilizing or consuming a thing. It doesn't mean transferring a thing from one person to another. Nobody can utilize or consume bitcoin.

If I use a house for satisfying the want of shelter, I do not "consume" the house.  If I use a car for satisfying the want of transportation, I do not "consume" the car. If I use gold for satisfying the want of store and transfer of value, I do not "consume" the gold.

That's just more nonsense.

Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So?

So, Bitcoin doesn't fit your definition of a "Financial Instrument", and therefore should not be considered a "Financial Instrument" for the purposes of this conversation.

Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network.

Not true.

There was no payment made for any of those things.  Those individuals provided a service (for free), and issued nothing.

If I write a whitepaper about how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank works, it does not make the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I write software that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank uses to track the dollars that it issues, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I set up a network for the U.S. Federal Reserve to operate their systems, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.

This is just more nonsense.

Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.

They actually do "pop up into existence".  Or, perhaps you could think of it more like, they always have been and always will be in existence, they are just "found" (much like gold).

Finally, Bitcon is not gold.

Correct.  It is Bitcoin.  If it was gold, it wouldn't be worth as much.

Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is an actual intangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address.

Bitcoin is much more than that.

On its own it's worthless.

Clearly not.

[antikvark]

Using a thing for want satisfying means utilizing or consuming a thing. It doesn't mean transferring a thing from one person to another. Nobody can utilize or consume bitcoin.

If I use a house for satisfying the want of shelter, I do not "consume" the house.  If I use a car for satisfying the want of transportation, I do not "consume" the car. If I use gold for satisfying the want of store and transfer of value, I do not "consume" the gold.

That's just more nonsense.

Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So?

So, Bitcoin doesn't fit your definition of a "Financial Instrument", and therefore should not be considered a "Financial Instrument" for the purposes of this conversation.

Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network.

Not true.

There was no payment made for any of those things.  Those individuals provided a service (for free), and issued nothing.

If I write a whitepaper about how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank works, it does not make the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I write software that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank uses to track the dollars that it issues, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I set up a network for the U.S. Federal Reserve to operate their systems, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.

This is just more nonsense.

Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.

They actually do "pop up into existence".  Or, perhaps you could think of it more like, they always have been and always will be in existence, they are just "found" (much like gold).

Finally, Bitcon is not gold.

Correct.  It is Bitcoin.  If it was gold, it wouldn't be worth as much.

Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is an actual intangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address.

Bitcoin is much more than that.

On its own it's worthless.

Clearly not.

You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.

I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.

Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own. But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place, and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.

Bitcoins don't pop up into existence, but are put into existence by design. That means they have issuers.

Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.

[DannyHamilton]

You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.

I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.

And you utilize Bitcoin.

Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own.

Which is EXACTLY WHY Bitcoin DOESN"T fit your definition of a Financial Instrument (or at least one of the important reasons why).

Bitcoin is NOT "worthless on its own".

But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place,

Because it does not fit your definition of "Financial Instrument".

and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.

Or...

Stay with me here...

Bitcoin is NOT worthless on its own, and the fundamental feature for which it exists is NOT to provide payment to it's holder, therefore...

It is NOT a Financial Instrument according to your definition.

Bitcoins don't pop up into existence,

They kinda do.

That means they have issuers.

No, they do not.

Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.

And declaring Gold an actual tangible good doesn't make it valuable either.

And yet, they both are valuable.

[hv_]

Using a thing for want satisfying means utilizing or consuming a thing. It doesn't mean transferring a thing from one person to another. Nobody can utilize or consume bitcoin.

If I use a house for satisfying the want of shelter, I do not "consume" the house.  If I use a car for satisfying the want of transportation, I do not "consume" the car. If I use gold for satisfying the want of store and transfer of value, I do not "consume" the gold.

That's just more nonsense.

Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So?

So, Bitcoin doesn't fit your definition of a "Financial Instrument", and therefore should not be considered a "Financial Instrument" for the purposes of this conversation.

Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network.

Not true.

There was no payment made for any of those things.  Those individuals provided a service (for free), and issued nothing.

If I write a whitepaper about how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank works, it does not make the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I write software that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank uses to track the dollars that it issues, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.  If I set up a network for the U.S. Federal Reserve to operate their systems, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.

This is just more nonsense.

Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.

They actually do "pop up into existence".  Or, perhaps you could think of it more like, they always have been and always will be in existence, they are just "found" (much like gold).

Finally, Bitcon is not gold.

Correct.  It is Bitcoin.  If it was gold, it wouldn't be worth as much.

Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is an actual intangible good that has value on its own.

Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address.

Bitcoin is much more than that.

On its own it's worthless.

Clearly not.

You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.

I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.

Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own. But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place, and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.

Bitcoins don't pop up into existence, but are put into existence by design. That means they have issuers.

Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.

Bitcoin has some non-classical fundamental features, not easy to see like

Commodity without a weight ( easy to transport)
Programmable , it could automatically settle, pay (dividends), change ownership, show receipts and trace ( to auditors)
Interoperable, feature atomic swaps, smart contracts on oracle conditions...
Micropayments to reduce spam if used as underlying for mail, google search,....
Only public ledger I know that works for all ( if fully scaled in data centers , like Satoshi told us...)

....


That s cool?

[antikvark]

You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.

I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.

And you utilize Bitcoin.

Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own.

Which is EXACTLY WHY Bitcoin DOESN"T fit your definition of a Financial Instrument (or at least one of the important reasons why).

Bitcoin is NOT "worthless on its own".

But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place,

Because it does not fit your definition of "Financial Instrument".

and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.

Or...

Stay with me here...

Bitcoin is NOT worthless on its own, and the fundamental feature for which it exists is NOT to provide payment to it's holder, therefore...

It is NOT a Financial Instrument according to your definition.

Bitcoins don't pop up into existence,

They kinda do.

That means they have issuers.

No, they do not.

Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.

And declaring Gold an actual tangible good doesn't make it valuable either.

And yet, they both are valuable.

You don't utilize Bitcoin, but transferring it from one address to another. A car can be both, utilized and transferred. Bitcon can only be transferred. That's why one cannot use it for want satisfying. And that's why it is worthless. If the only thing that one can do with X is transferring it to someone else, then X is worthless by definition.

Yes, you are correct. Bitcoin doesn't fit my definition of financial instrument. Bitcoin is just a record and not all records are financial instruments.

Gold is not valuable due to declaration but due to utilization in dentistry, medicine, electronic, aerospace and jewelry. Bitcon can only be valuable due to declaration.

[jackg]

The monotonous computer generated voice in that video was extremely annoying.

You don't utilize Bitcoin, but transferring it from one address to another. A car can be both, utilized and transferred. Bitcon can only be transferred. That's why one cannot use it for want satisfying. And that's why it is worthless. If the only thing that one can do with X is transferring it to someone else, then X is worthless by definition.

Modern cars lose 14+% of their value every year though too so they're not great for transferrability and recouporation.

Cash can't exactly be utilised? Interest is a by-product of inflation and how well an economy is doing. If you sit with cash in your house, it's losing you money.

Gold is not valuable due to declaration but due to utilization in dentistry, medicine, electronic, aerospace and jewelry. Bitcon can only be valuable due to declaration.

Well not really. Gold is a bit like Bitcoin now.
Most medical, electrical and chemical equipment uses platinum instead of gold since it's cheaper (even though gold is more inflated).

There are fairly worthless financial instruments people like to gamble with all the time and bitcoin may or may not be one of them. It's certainly getting a lot of hype but I don't think it's going to be the main coin in the future for payment systems - I'm not sure if a true cometitor ahs yet been found yet though either. Money was initally created to be a store of value, a promise that you'll get something for the gold you carry. As time went on it got stored in banks and people just transferred signed receipts to retrieve those funds, and then came fiat currency after that which currently aims to keep an economy growing for as long as it can by using inflation.

You're not meant to hold a lot of cash anyway, maybe the same can be said for bitcoin and you're meant to invest or hold other assets that actually pay you back (also there aren't many banks in first countries at least that acutally pay higher than inflation in interest).

[DannyHamilton]

You don't utilize Bitcoin,

Yes, I do.  As do many other people.

A car can be both, utilized and transferred.

Bitcoin can also be utalized AND transferred.

Bitcon can only be transferred.

This is false.

That's why one cannot use it for want satisfying.

And yet one can, and does.

And that's why it is worthless.

And yet, it is not.

If the only thing that one can do with X is transferring it to someone else, then X is worthless by definition.

Not true.  However, fortunately for this discussion, is transferring it to someone else is NOT the only thing one can do with Bitcoin.

Yes, you are correct. Bitcoin doesn't fit my definition of financial instrument.

Glad to hear you agree.  Since you agree that it is not a Financial Instrument (by your definition), can we please stop talking about "issuers making payments"?

Bitcoin is just a record and not all records are financial instruments.

Bitcoin is more than "just a record".  Regardless, at least we are finally in agreement that your rules for Financial Instruments don't apply to Bitcoin.

Gold is not valuable due to declaration but due to utilization in dentistry, medicine, electronic, aerospace and jewelry.

Nobody would pay $1500 per ounce for gold if its manufacturing and product uses were the only thing it was utilized for.  It is utilized to store and transfer value. This is what makes it as valuable as it is.

Bitcon can only be valuable due to declaration.

And yet, Bitcoin has value though there is nobody to declare its value. So, clearly that's just nonsense.

Bitcoin is valuable due to the valuable ways in which it can be utilized.

[philipma1957]

People don't seem to be able to grasp that virtual assets can have real value. A novel is one example that I provide fairly often. Wouldn't it be great if schoolteachers, and the media could discuss real life topics, and not keep regurgitating globalist pap.

People don't seem to be able to grasp that declaring something "virtual asset" doesn't automatically mean it has value. Value is the benefit that a thing in itself provides to people. In goods and services this banefit is the ability of a thing to satisfy a particular want. In financial instruments this benefit is payment that instrument issuer makes to instrument holder. Bitcoin is a few digits in a memory. So one cannot use it for want satisfying. Nor its issuer pays something to its holder. This renders Bitcon worthless and declaring it asset, money, digital gold, coin, or whatever, won't make this fact go away.

All of this is based on belief systems.

here are a few

"Nothing has value to anyone. The reason is  Basically we will all be dead and who really gives a fuck about anything at all."


Now drifting away from that belief system is this belief system.

"BTC has value."

Is there any difference no none both are things or ideas people can believe or not believe.

Right now as I type there are enough people that believe BTC has a value over 9000 USD to keep it above 9000 usd.

You are saying that it is worthless with no value at all.

Neither group is correct. It is just what they believe in.

At the moment you are believing an untruth since no one will give you btc for free.  they will want 9000 + usd.

One day  when all the people in the world are dead  you may be correct in your belief.

If it was 2007  or earlier  you were correct.  Most of us choose to believe btc was so motherfucking worthless it did not even exist.

Right now in 2020  you are are the wrong side of this particular belief .

I would wish you luck for believing in zero value, but frankly I prefer to believe it is up up and away for my coin of choice.  25,000 + usd by 2021

[KonstantinosM]

I am not implying that you're all idiots for holding bitcoin. I am implying that you act like idiots. Being an idiot and acting like one are two different things. Under extreme emotional pressure(greed) or due to ignorance, even intelligent people can act very idiotically. Those that would give you a nice meal for some BTC (worthless record) are good example of such behavior.

So we are greedy and we act like fools.

So where is the proof that bitcoin's "Real" Value is zero?

What gives anything its "Value"

I would argue that financial value can be easily proven through the market. Even if we were all greedy fools, then bitcoin still has value.

Define the word "Empirically" and you will find that it contradicts your whole argument. Things proven empirically are things proven in the real world, not based on logic or theory.

Your argument is a theory based argument.


It's almost as old as bitcoin. You are all greedy fools and bitcoin is worthless.

But empirically I have bought and sold things using bitcoin.


I have eaten my lunch at work using bitcoin and I have worked (a little bit) for bitcoin.
Empirically bitcoin has value and that value is not zero.

If empirically the value of bitcoin was zero, you wouldn't mind giving me 100,000 Bitcoins for $100 since you'd be able to get 100,000 Bitcoins for 0 dollars.

So prove it to me. Send me 100,000 Bitcoins.

Oh what, you can't?

That's right because I just proved you to be a total "can't" no offence given to can't with a U either.

Edit:    Changed "Bitcoin'" to "Bitcoin's"
Edit 2: Changed "do" to "to" in "to be a total"

Your whole post is based on ignorance between market value and real value. Watch the video again.

You declare my whole post ignorance while ignoring all my points.

1. You use the term empirically incorrectly.

Empirically means through experience and not by theory, through experience bitcoin has value

2. If BTC's Value was 0 you could send me BTC100,000 for $1 and you'd make a buck, but you can't, because the value of bitcoin is empirically not zero.

3. Implying that we're greedy fools on our turf (Bitcointalk)  is kind of hilarious but you have no argument. Your video is such garbage that I had to tune out within seconds.
I'm the kind of guy to watch 6 hour videos of badly produced audio and loops. And even I can't watch your shit video.