Can you answer a couple of questions to a potential bitcoin buyer?

[BlackHatCoiner]

We are talking about business here, not social oppression and conspiracy theories.

Actually, the entire banking system, the way it currently works, is a conspiracy to humanity. It's not a business when one entity decides how's money gonna work. That's reign. Prior 1971, the gold standard was followed and every bank was following specific rules such as one note corresponded to a fixed amount of gold etc.

But, at the moment, this is really not the case. The government appears to have exceedingly much power to the economy of the society. The output of employment and inflation is down to their hands. When the state is inextricably linked with money, then the economy follows their behavior.

This is when some free market minds awoke.

[Antithesis]

We are talking about business here, not social oppression and conspiracy theories.

Actually, the entire banking system, the way it currently works, is a conspiracy to humanity. It's not a business when one entity decides how's money gonna work. That's reign. Prior 1971, the gold standard was followed and every bank was following specific rules such as one note corresponded to a fixed amount of gold etc.

But, at the moment, this is really not the case. A government appears to have exceedingly much power to the economy of the society. The output of employment and inflation is down to their hands. When the state is inextricably linked with money, then the economy follows their behavior.

This is when some free market minds awoke.

That's pretty naive way of looking at things. It's not fiat monetary system that is a problem, but government. Government is the problem. It has monopoly on coercion. A corrupt government can destroy everything. In communism people were coerced out of their ownership on mere government fiat. Governments can do whatever they want because they have power.

But, you cannot solve this problem with monopoly money like bitcoin. Botcoin is just holding numbers and owning nothing. A modern ponzi like redistribution scheme. If you own nothing, there's nothing to be destroyed or taken away from you. If today the whole bitcoin system is shut down, nobody's ownership would be lost. Because by holding bitcoin people have the ownership of nothing. They gave up their ownership when entering the bitcoin scheme.

The only way to solve the problem is by keeping governments small and in check.

[FatFork]

<...>
If today the whole bitcoin system is shut down, nobody's ownership would be lost.

That's a pretty big IF. How exactly would someone go about doing that? Can you describe that fictional scenario in more detail?

[Antithesis]

<...>
If today the whole bitcoin system is shut down, nobody's ownership would be lost.

That's a pretty big IF. How exactly would someone go about doing that? Can you describe that fictional scenario in more detail?

Anything that you set up can be shut down. For whatever reason. It's not like bitcoin system is a deity.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That's pretty naive way of looking at things. It's not fiat monetary system that is a problem, but government.

But, you can't deny that the government must be involved. The system requires a central point of failure to work. It's designed to be corrupted at some point in the future. You're the one who sounds naive; if it's a theory that doesn't work in practice, it's a wrong theory.

But, you cannot solve this problem with monopoly money like bitcoin.

Read what you're typing. Bitcoin, monopoly money? Then what's fiat that is exclusively possessed by the central banks? Also, you pretty much can. Bitcoin discriminates money and state. It promotes free trade and censorship-resistance.

That's a pretty big IF.

Indeed. Bitcoin can't disappear currently, it's a science fiction scenario.

Anything that you set up can be shut down.

You don't understand how things work. Become disciplined and learn.

[Antithesis]

That's pretty naive way of looking at things. It's not fiat monetary system that is a problem, but government.

But, you can't deny that the government must be involved. The system requires a central point of failure to work. It's designed to be corrupted at some point in the future. You're the one who sounds naive; if it's a theory that doesn't work in practice, it's a wrong theory.

But, you cannot solve this problem with monopoly money like bitcoin.

Read what you're typing. Bitcoin, monopoly money? Then what's fiat that is exclusively possessed by the central banks? Also, you pretty much can. Bitcoin discriminates money and state. It promotes free trade and censorship-resistance.

That's a pretty big IF.

Indeed. Bitcoin can't disappear currently, it's a science fiction scenario.

Anything that you set up can be shut down.

You don't understand how things work. Become disciplined and learn.

People are corrupted. All systems that manage ownership have people and thus, all such systems can be corrupted and pose a threat to someone's ownership. Welcome to the real world.

In bitcoin system there's no ownership. So, there's nothing to be managed by the people and there's nothing that can be under a threat.

Bitcoin is monopoly money simply because, the same as in the game of monopoly, by holding 'money' you own nothing. This is unlike in the world of grown-ups where by holding dollars, a deed, or a certificate of title you own debt, a building or a car.

[FatFork]

<...>
If today the whole bitcoin system is shut down, nobody's ownership would be lost.

That's a pretty big IF. How exactly would someone go about doing that? Can you describe that fictional scenario in more detail?

Anything that you set up can be shut down. For whatever reason. It's not like bitcoin system is a deity.

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

[Antithesis]

<...>
If today the whole bitcoin system is shut down, nobody's ownership would be lost.

That's a pretty big IF. How exactly would someone go about doing that? Can you describe that fictional scenario in more detail?

Anything that you set up can be shut down. For whatever reason. It's not like bitcoin system is a deity.

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

That's not a premise in an argument but a generic, true statement that needs no proof.

[BlackHatCoiner]

All systems that manage ownership have people and thus, all such systems can be corrupted and pose a threat to someone's ownership.

Great, Bitcoin isn't managed by an individual, that's all I'm saying.

In bitcoin system there's no ownership.

There is, the bitcoins.

So, there's nothing to be managed by the people and there's nothing that can be under a threat.

This is a false conclusion. Just because it isn't managed by individuals doesn't mean it can't be under a threat and oppositely.

Bitcoin is monopoly money simply because, the same as in the game of monopoly, by holding 'money' you own nothing.

I know that, down there, you know you're spitting nonsense.

[Antithesis]

All systems that manage ownership have people and thus, all such systems can be corrupted and pose a threat to someone's ownership.

Great, Bitcoin isn't managed by an individual, that's all I'm saying.

In bitcoin system there's no ownership.

There is, the bitcoins.

So, there's nothing to be managed by the people and there's nothing that can be under a threat.

This is a false conclusion. Just because it isn't managed by individuals doesn't mean it can't be under a threat and oppositely.

Bitcoin is monopoly money simply because, the same as in the game of monopoly, by holding 'money' you own nothing.

I know that, down there, you know you're spitting nonsense.

So? Your record by which you own nothing is not managed by an individual. Point? Bitcoins are indeed ownership, but ownership of nothing. Just like money in the game of monopoly. You know, down there, I am stating facts.

[FatFork]

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

That's not a premise in an argument but a generic, true statement that needs no proof.

You seem to be dodging the simple question. That's slightly to be expected isn't it?
A premise that cannot be proven as true cannot be a true statement. You commit a classic logical fallacy.

[Antithesis]

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

That's not a premise in an argument but a generic, true statement that needs no proof.

You seem to be dodging the simple question. That's slightly to be expected isn't it?
A premise that cannot be proven as true cannot be a true statement. You commit a classic logical fallacy.

Like I've said, it's not a premise. It's a truism. If you set up something, you can shut it down. There's nothing to argue about.

[FatFork]

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

That's not a premise in an argument but a generic, true statement that needs no proof.

You seem to be dodging the simple question. That's slightly to be expected isn't it?
A premise that cannot be proven as true cannot be a true statement. You commit a classic logical fallacy.

Like I've said, it's not a premise. It's truism. If you set up something, you can shut it down. There's nothing to argue about.

As I said, it cannot be a truism if it cannot be proven. You failed to do it. Which is actually surprising, since true truisms shouldn't be hard to prove, right?

[BlackHatCoiner]

So? Your record by which you own nothing is not managed by an individual.

Again, I do own units of a system we, as individuals, evaluate, because we've accepted it as a currency. It's not like money of monopoly.

If you set up something, you can shut it down.

If you kill every person on Earth? Yeah, it'll sooner or later stop working.

[Antithesis]

And how would you go about doing that? As you introduced this premise, you should know how to answer such a simple question.

That's not a premise in an argument but a generic, true statement that needs no proof.

You seem to be dodging the simple question. That's slightly to be expected isn't it?
A premise that cannot be proven as true cannot be a true statement. You commit a classic logical fallacy.

Like I've said, it's not a premise. It's truism. If you set up something, you can shut it down. There's nothing to argue about.

As I said, it cannot be a truism if it cannot be proven. You failed to do it. Which is actually surprising, since true truisms shouldn't be hard to prove, right?

Yes, but I am not going to do so.

[Antithesis]

So? Your record by which you own nothing is not managed by an individual.

Again, I do own units of a system we, as individuals, evaluate, because we've accepted it as a currency. It's not like money of monopoly.

If you set up something, you can shut it down.

If you kill every person on Earth? Yeah, it'll sooner or later stop working.

You own nothing. You hold a number. That's why you need someone to enter the system, you need a new investor to transfer you the ownership of something. Without that all you can do is play an internet game with your community of holders where you send each other numbers. It's a digital game of a primitive, boring monopoly.

[FatFork]

As I said, it cannot be a truism if it cannot be proven. You failed to do it. Which is actually surprising, since true truisms shouldn't be hard to prove, right?

Yes, but I am not going to do so.

Yeah... I didn't think you would. So much for an argumentative discussion with you. If I remember correctly, we already did this dance a few years ago?

If you set up something, you can shut it down.

If you kill every person on Earth? Yeah, it'll sooner or later stop working.

Why stop there? We could destroy an entire planet, or even an entire solar system... That should stop it, right?

[Antithesis]

As I said, it cannot be a truism if it cannot be proven. You failed to do it. Which is actually surprising, since true truisms shouldn't be hard to prove, right?

Yes, but I am not going to do so.

Yeah... I didn't think you would. So much for an argumentative discussion with you. If I remember correctly, we already did this dance a few years ago?

If you set up something, you can shut it down.

If you kill every person on Earth? Yeah, it'll sooner or later stop working.

Why stop there? We could destroy an entire planet, or even an entire solar system... That should stop it, right?

If you want to discuss that water is wet and the sky is blue you should find someone else.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why stop there? We could destroy an entire planet, or even an entire solar system... That should stop it, right?

It'd destroy the implementation, yeah, but not the idea. Ideas are bulletproof.

Now, @Antithesis, I answered your questions, even though you weren't a potential Bitcoin buyer in the first place. You denied all of my answers 'cause you think they're irrational. Unfortunately, your mind was set before you submit this. So I guess, we'll have to agree we disagree.

[FatFork]

If you want to discuss that water is wet and the sky is blue you should find someone else.

While I can see the blue sky every morning, and feel the water wet every time I touch it, I've never experienced anybody stopping Bitcoin from the moment it was created. Yet, you claim that it is a truism, and that it needs no proof. How is that?

Why stop there? We could destroy an entire planet, or even an entire solar system... That should stop it, right?

It'd destroy the implementation, yeah, but not the idea. Ideas are bulletproof.

Yeah, but we can't live off ideas, can we? ^{(assuming we survive the destruction of the solar system)}