How Satoshi Nakamoto Fooled the World

[Snowshow]

I refuted the definition, because you weren’t articulating yourself clearly, you didn’t even mention the word intrinsic value once till now(intrinsic value ≠ value). And nah i didnt fantasise about anything, this definition is still bad af for more serious use cases, even if you wanna use it for intrinsic value, but i won’t discuss this now, because it doesn’t matter.

You refuted nothing. You just said that my definition wouldn't be accepted.

If you wanna talk about intrinsic value, then it’s a different discussion. But finally you’re starting to articulate yourself more clearly, we can call this progress.

I don't want to talk about intrinsic value. I just stated the fact that after the bitcoin purchase, no intrinsic value exists to be consumed in order for people to satisfy their needs. There's nothing to discuss here.

The problem is you’re trying to suggest something with this. Sure there’s forms of money like gold than can be used to produce goods. But for people who used gold as money, this is not the primary function.

Irrelevant. The very reason gold is traded is because of its unique characteristics that are able to satisfy various human needs. Speculative buying doesn't change that fact. Gold still has intrinsic value that can be consumed by humans. This intrinsic value is what is stored in gold and traded.

Also like i said above, fungibility is important for any kind of money, small differences can already affect its desirability. So maybe it’s better in the first place, to not be able to make different things out of it, because amateurs won’t understand it and then shoot themselves in the foot. This is also be a point that could be made against nfts and tokens on a main layer.

Yes, fungibility is important for money, that is, for economic resources. But bitcoin is not an economic resource. It's a unit in a system that has zero economic resources. Thus, bitcoin is not money and fungibility doesn't apply to it.

K let’s remember the state of the world in the last years, now let’s check out what Bitcoin did:

• Uniting a group of anti authoritarians worldwide(which is hard, because they’re usually individualists and completely different from each other).
• Challenging people to get deeper into computer science, economics, game theory and psychology.
• No need to trust a central authority.
• Self custody over money.
• Censorship resistance.
• Transaction finality.
• Sane monetary policy that won’t change in our lifetime.
• Hardest asset to confiscate.
• Tearing down economic gatekeeping(you can transact worldwide, or borderlessly recover your money, if you can remember 12/24 words(optionally a passphrase on top) or keep them safe).
• No need for permissions.
• Best long term perfoming asset in the last decade.
• Triggering morally bankrupt and emotional people.

The list goes on.

Im sure no human can get a benefit out of this, because making jewelry out of money is more important for the world right now.

There's one problem with all this. There's no economic resource in the bitcoin system, so there's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust. Meaning, people are just transferring the info on how many units in the scheme with zero economic resources they have. This is like having a losing lottery ticket, have 21 million ownership stakes in that ticket and all that people do is transferring and storing the info about how many stakes someone has or has had. There's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust here, given that the ticket is a losing one and grants access to nothing. So, why would you spend time and energy on transferring and storing info on these stakes? It's a complete nonsense. That's the essence of the whole bitcoin system. It's the dumbest thing ever created. People are spending enormous amounts of energy only to store and transfer the info on how many stakes in nothing they have or had.

There’s an argument to be made, about how debt based money creation affects its durability. Because with each time you’re taking or giving a loan, you’re essentially making everyone else’s purchasing power go lower, on the big scale this is huge.

How durable is it to gain some additional economic capabilities individually in the short term, but then making the entire working population fall into the cantillon effect(more and more extreme concentration of wealth at the top).

So repeated use of Fiat actually affects it’s durability to be used as a store value, no matter how someone will phrase it, which makes it a weak form of money long term.

Irrelevant. Debt is an economic resource because it benefits people at settlement. The quality of debt is a completely different question that has nothing to do with this topic.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

And now to put it simply, stop mixing economic resources and money, because it will do you more harm than good and just create confusion to yourself. In most cases money isn’t supposed to be used as an economic resource(to produce goods or services). It should facilitate trade, but not be an productive resource itself. The purest form of money isn’t to be used for anything else, like i outlined above, using money for different things can be counterproductive.

Money is just a name for specific types of economic resources. Unit(BTC) in a system that has zero economic resources cannot be money by definition because there nothing to compare with the resources that you give up in a trade. So, BTC is not money. It's a ponzi unit, given that all ponzies have zero economic resources for people to benefit, and they can benefit only from resources contributed by new investors.

[tadamichi]

You refuted nothing. You just said that my definition wouldn't be accepted.

Because it wouldn’t be.

no intrinsic value exists to be consumed in order for people to satisfy their needs.

Because money is not an economic resource and not supposed to be an productive asset. Your gold that gets used on computers or as jewellery becomes useless as money. Gold holders will never convert their gold into anything different, they will even make sure no bare hand touches their bar or coin, because it hurts the fungibility of it. You can’t just use it for various things and then sell it as before, this is a myth beginners don’t get.

The very reason gold is traded is because of its unique characteristics that are able to satisfy various human needs.

But there’s different reasons for it, someone who buys gold bars or coins doesn’t think about, if it satisfies different needs they won’t be using it for. They will use a similar evaluation model that i outlined above, its completely different from jewellery buyers or makers. Gold isn’t valuable, because it’s used for different things. Different things use gold, because it’s valuable.

There's one problem with all this. There's no economic resource in the bitcoin system, so there's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust. Meaning, people are just transferring the info on how many units in the scheme with zero economic resources they have. This is like having a losing lottery ticket, have 21 million ownership stakes in that ticket and all that people do is transferring and storing the info about how many stakes someone has or has had. There's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust here, given that the ticket is a losing one and grants access to nothing. So, why would you spend time and energy on transferring and storing info on these stakes? It's a complete nonsense. That's the essence of the whole bitcoin system. It's the dumbest thing ever created. People are spending enormous amounts of energy only to store and transfer the info on how many stakes in nothing they have or had.

I think you’re almost there to understand Bitcoin, if you can start to separate between money and economic resources. In economics a clear distinction between the two is made, and money is explicitly excluded to be counted as an economic resource. If you get this concept we’re there and it will make sense to you.

Money is what allows the trade of economic resources without doing barter(more efficient). It is not an economic resource itself and it’s not its job to become a product, it should just allow us to trade more efficiently. Some forms of money can be used as an productive asset, but then loose their purpose in return(it’s not money anymore then, or becomes a worse form of money).

Bitcoin is just the purest form of money there is at the moment, and so it might seem weird that it can’t be used for anything else, but exactly this is what money is supposed to be. It’s cool that gold can be used for many things, but it hurts its monetary properties when used for something else.

[Snowshow]

You refuted nothing. You just said that my definition wouldn't be accepted.

Because it wouldn’t be.

no intrinsic value exists to be consumed in order for people to satisfy their needs.

Because money is not an economic resource and not supposed to be an productive asset. Your gold that gets used on computers or as jewellery becomes useless as money. Gold holders will never convert their gold into anything different, they will even make sure no bare hand touches their bar or coin, because it hurts the fungibility of it. You can’t just use it for various things and then sell it as before, this is a myth beginners don’t get.

The very reason gold is traded is because of its unique characteristics that are able to satisfy various human needs.

But there’s different reasons for it, someone who buys gold bars or coins doesn’t think about, if it satisfies different needs they won’t be using it for. They will use a similar evaluation model that i outlined above, its completely different from jewellery buyers or makers. Gold isn’t valuable, because it’s used for different things. Different things use gold, because it’s valuable.

There's one problem with all this. There's no economic resource in the bitcoin system, so there's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust. Meaning, people are just transferring the info on how many units in the scheme with zero economic resources they have. This is like having a losing lottery ticket, have 21 million ownership stakes in that ticket and all that people do is transferring and storing the info about how many stakes someone has or has had. There's nothing to confiscate, counterfeit or put in trust here, given that the ticket is a losing one and grants access to nothing. So, why would you spend time and energy on transferring and storing info on these stakes? It's a complete nonsense. That's the essence of the whole bitcoin system. It's the dumbest thing ever created. People are spending enormous amounts of energy only to store and transfer the info on how many stakes in nothing they have or had.

I think you’re almost there to understand Bitcoin, if you can start to separate between money and economic resources. In economics a clear distinction between the two is made, and money is explicitly excluded to be counted as an economic resource. If you get this concept we’re there and it will make sense to you.

Money is what allows the trade of economic resources without doing barter(more efficient). It is not an economic resource itself and it’s not its job to become a product, it should just allow us to trade more efficiently. Some forms of money can be used as an productive asset, but then loose their purpose in return(it’s not money anymore then, or becomes a worse form of money).

Bitcoin is just the purest form of money there is at the moment, and so it might seem weird that it can’t be used for anything else, but exactly this is what money is supposed to be. It’s cool that gold can be used for many things, but it hurts its monetary properties when used for something else.

You're using semantics to try to find justification for bitcoin ponzi. Yes we can say that money is not an economic resource. Money is a word that we use to describe the concept that some economic resources have specific characteristics, such as fungibility. Because of that, we say that an economic resource is money. So if there are no economic resources to begin with, you cannot use the word money. Except if you want to scam people. Which is exactly what happens here. A unit in a scheme that has no economic resources is called money, or specifically, "revolutionary new money", in order to scam people out of their resources. Hence, a classical scam dressed up in a new uniform.

[tadamichi]

You're using semantics to try find justification for bitcoin ponzi.

How? You can’t even separate between someone who is discussing with arguments, and someone who wants to scam you out of your money. Idc what you invest in, or how you handle your money, you should decide it yourself anyways. You assume everyone who doesn’t fit your own reasoning is a scammer, which makes you incapable of intellectual debate. This world is too complex to understand for you, so you gotta assume everyone is nefarious, to not get overwhelmed, a big sign of weakness. It’s just laughable, when people that are way older than the younger generation, aren’t even capable to engage in debate, when they’re supposed to be the ones who teach us.

Yes, money is not an economic resource but a word that we use to describe the concept that some economic resources have specific characteristics, such as fungibility. Because of that, we say that an economic resource is money. So if there are no economic resources, you cannot use the word money. Except if you want to scam people. Which is exactly what happens here. A unit in a scheme that has no economic resources is called money, or specifically, "revolutionary new money",

Like i said its not an economic resource, just stop trying. The lack of fungibility is a real problem, wanna see it in action?
Here:
https://www.emk.com/en-us/gold/#navigation:q=&attrib%5Bcat_url%5D%5B0%5D=%2Fgold&order=shopsort+desc&first=0

Which one of these would you accept over another? Which one do you choose to best store your money? The answer will always be an subjective decision, but if we wanna enable universal trade this becomes a problem. This problem doesn’t exist with Bitcoin, because each unit is the same. Im not using abstract semantics, this actually relates to the real world. It actually influences how well something can be used as money, not everyone will want your jewellery, not everyone will want ur gold coin the same, because there’s too many differences. The same problem exists in fiat, who will accept your yen, who will accept your euros, who will accept a 500€ bill? The desirability varies if fungibility isnt good enough.

in order to scam people out of their resources. Hence, a classical scam dressed up in a new uniform.

I don’t even want you to invest in it, even if you start to understand it. Im discussing with you because you’re working with wrong assumptions and bending concepts to fit ur needs, instead of staying objective. Scepticism towards something new, against any rational argument is a repeating pattern in society, people are just too hesitant to leave their conformity bubbles.

[Snowshow]

You're using semantics to try find justification for bitcoin ponzi.

How? You can’t even separate between someone who is discussing with arguments, and someone who wants to scam you out of your money. Idc what you invest in, or how you handle your money, you should decide it yourself anyways. You assume everyone who doesn’t fit your own reasoning is a scammer, which makes you incapable of intellectual debate. This world is too complex to understand for you, so you gotta assume everyone is nefarious, to not get overwhelmed, a big sign of weakness. It’s just laughable, when people that are way older than the younger generation, aren’t even capable to engage in debate, when they’re supposed to be the ones who teach us.

Yes, money is not an economic resource but a word that we use to describe the concept that some economic resources have specific characteristics, such as fungibility. Because of that, we say that an economic resource is money. So if there are no economic resources, you cannot use the word money. Except if you want to scam people. Which is exactly what happens here. A unit in a scheme that has no economic resources is called money, or specifically, "revolutionary new money",

Like i said its not an economic resource, just stop trying. The lack of fungibility is a real problem, wanna see it in action?
Here:
https://www.emk.com/en-us/gold/#navigation:q=&attrib%5Bcat_url%5D%5B0%5D=%2Fgold&order=shopsort+desc&first=0

Which one of these would you accept over another? Which one do you choose to best store your money? The answer will always be an subjective decision, but if we wanna enable universal trade this becomes a problem. This problem doesn’t exist with Bitcoin, because each unit is the same. Im not using abstract semantics, this actually relates to the real world. It actually influences how well something can be used as money, not everyone will want your jewellery, not everyone will want ur gold coin the same, because there’s too many differences. The same problem exists in fiat, who will accept your yen, who will accept your euros, who will accept a 500€ bill? The desirability varies if fungibility isnt good enough.

in order to scam people out of their resources. Hence, a classical scam dressed up in a new uniform.

I don’t even want you to invest in it, even if you start to understand it. Im discussing with you because you’re working with wrong assumptions and bending concepts to fit ur needs, instead of staying objective. Scepticism towards something new, against any rational argument is a repeating pattern in society, people are just too hesitant to leave their conformity bubbles.

A scammer is the one who uses false information or advertising in order to achieve financial gain. People who have units in the bitcoin ponzi must use such falsehoods in order to get rid of their worthless units. You're sort of a scammer. You're spreading false information online and making false statements. But fortunately(for you), you're not a public figure and the reach of your falsehoods is not significant enough for you to make financial gains. But people like Elon Musk are a completely different story. One of the criminal charges in the case against Bernie Madoff was concerned with "false statements". Musk made a lot of false statements, such as that crypto is money, and achieved financial gains because of that. When the bitcoin ponzi collapses there will be a lot of unhappy people pressuring the politicians to deliver justice. And then, people like Musk could be the target.

[tadamichi]

A scammer is the one who uses false information or advertising in order to achieve financial gain. People who have units in the bitcoin ponzi must use such falsehoods in order to get rid of their worthless units. You're sort of a scammer. You're spreading false information online and making false statements. But fortunately(for you), you're not a public figure and the reach of your falsehoods is not significant enough for you to make financial gains. But people like Elon Musk are a completely different story. One of the criminal charges in the case against Bernie Madoff was concerned with "false statements". Musk made a lot of false statements, such as that crypto is money, and achieved financial gains because of that. When the bitcoin ponzi collapses there will be a lot of unhappy people pressuring the politicians to deliver justice. And then, people like Musk could be the target.

K im out. You obviously have some sort of cognitive dissonance to work on first, before you can understand more challenging things.

[Snowshow]

A scammer is the one who uses false information or advertising in order to achieve financial gain. People who have units in the bitcoin ponzi must use such falsehoods in order to get rid of their worthless units. You're sort of a scammer. You're spreading false information online and making false statements. But fortunately(for you), you're not a public figure and the reach of your falsehoods is not significant enough for you to make financial gains. But people like Elon Musk are a completely different story. One of the criminal charges in the case against Bernie Madoff was concerned with "false statements". Musk made a lot of false statements, such as that crypto is money, and achieved financial gains because of that. When the bitcoin ponzi collapses there will be a lot of unhappy people pressuring the politicians to deliver justice. And then, people like Musk could be the target.

K im out. You obviously have some sort of cognitive dissonance to work on first, before you can understand more challenging things.

Translation: "I am out because you don't buy false advertising. But before I leave I'll insult you with a couple ad hominems."

[darkv0rt3x]

What the heck? How such thread has like 30 pages? I think the OP is actually getting what he was asking for... Attention. Come on peeps... Ignore these kind of posts and let him be alone in his little world.

I have to admit that the original post is actually one of the best rhetoric twisted narratives I have ever seen. This looks like "Pudding" (my alias for Putin) trying to make us believe that a mall is actually an ammo depot or that a paediatric hospital was a command center or another ammo depot!

This guy must have learn from Pudding because despite the fact the Pudding was in FSB and is supposedly very good at lying and deceiving, they are both terrible with their narratives! And I end up also contributing. lol
What a mess!

[Wakate]

This thread is crazy and I still that know why op will have to drop this here. Is there anyone that is interested in arguing with this thread when op is not the actually the original authur of this post. Any person can choose to write whatsoever they like and that is welcome. Bitcoin is an asset in as much as it is making person make wealth. Everything is timing and nothing more. Bitcoin is down now and will soon go bullish letter just like the price had been fluctuating.

[amihada]

Currently bitcoin is trusted by the big whale with the news you share will not change anything, now bitcoin has been legalized in the country that is elsavador so if there is fud news maybe bitcoin will only go down temporarily and will rise again over time just need patience to hold bitcoin and You will be a successful person in the future.

[cr1776]

Exactly the same thing happens in bitcoin system. The senders are just transferring data (numbers) via bitcoin messaging system, without the receivers getting the ownership rights on some type of property. The receivers are just able to read the received numbers or send them to someone else. And that's basically it. That's what messaging system are doing.

Ok, let's do a test.
Get 1 BTC, I'll give you my address, send that Bitcoin to my address and let's see afterward who owns it and who can send that "SMS" once more or if you can get that "data" back unless I want that too. Deal?

That essentially means that there's no buying going on in the bitcoin system. No investing. We don't buy or invest in numbers. This would be as nonsensical as saying that we bought or invested in SMS message when we received one. Receiving a dozen of letters or numbers is not investing or buying, because alfanumeric symbols are not copyrighted. We use them for free whenever we need them.

Again, can you please send me some let's say 10 BTC, maybe 20 BTC if you're such a nice guy? Especially since they are free?

If we need numbers for performing mathematical calculations or labeling and quantifying things, we just produce them out of thin air and represent with symbols (0-9). We don't need to buy numbers. We don't need someone to protect them in a distributed database. Numbers are stored in our minds, and they don't need protection like gold, diamonds or cars do.

So a credit card or a bank account is...what?  

I don't know what the OP's motive here, to convince people his distorted beliefs towards bitcoin? What you offer him to do will basically test his premise here. If the receiver is just able to receive the numbers and not owners, let's see if he is even willing to send you even 10k satoshis. We are not buying numbers here but the value of the bitcoin itself. This is why if you have btc, you want to secure it as much as possible. If you think that it is only just a number, can you easily transfer your btc to another person without much thinking about it? After all, you said, it is just a number and don't need any kind of protection.

OP's motives are probably that he is some type of authoritarian - fascist, socialist, communist, despot etc - at heart and doesn't like people being free to protect themselves and their assets from him and his ilk.

[Snowshow]

Currently bitcoin is trusted by the big whale with the news you share will not change anything, now bitcoin has been legalized in the country that is elsavador so if there is fud news maybe bitcoin will only go down temporarily and will rise again over time just need patience to hold bitcoin and You will be a successful person in the future.

You all talk of this bitcoin like it is some kind of a god. Here's the news: bitcoin is unit in a scheme. Scheme is some kind of a plan. I can make a plan that you will give me your car, and after that I'll just say to you: "you have 10 units in my plan". Or write that down. And that would mean exactly what? Well it would mean I am planning to fool you. So, the fact that Nakamoto's software writes down that you have units in their plan, simply means that you've been fooled. So, stop viewing bitcoin as a god.

[marahoga112]

Bitcoin fanciers should count themselves lucky that the entire world press has become obsessed with the cabaret over whether a 64-year-old Temple City software engineer is the Satoshi Nakamoto, the fabled mysterious/pseudonymous inventor/inventors of bitcoins.

That’s because the pursuit of the corporeal Mr. Nakamoto has distracted everyone’s attention from the real problems with bitcoins, which erupted last month with the collapse of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange--at one time the largest bitcoin exchange in the world--and have only continued to look worse. He believes that there is a place for crypocurrencies like bitcoin--in fact, Ben Bernanke and many other current or former central bankers agree--but a sustainable model won’t look like bitcoin. The one good thing about the collapse of Mt. Gox, he concludes, is that if you can prove your loss to the IRS, it’s tax-deductible.In this way Satoshi nakamoto fooled the world.

[Snowshow]

This thread is crazy and I still that know why op will have to drop this here. Is there anyone that is interested in arguing with this thread when op is not the actually the original authur of this post. Any person can choose to write whatsoever they like and that is welcome. Bitcoin is an asset in as much as it is making person make wealth. Everything is timing and nothing more. Bitcoin is down now and will soon go bullish letter just like the price had been fluctuating.

So you think that units of a number that Nakamoto imagined in their mind are asset although you know that without other people joining the Nakamoto scheme you're left with literally nothing? How's that not delusional?

[Snowshow]

What the heck? How such thread has like 30 pages? I think the OP is actually getting what he was asking for... Attention. Come on peeps... Ignore these kind of posts and let him be alone in his little world.

I have to admit that the original post is actually one of the best rhetoric twisted narratives I have ever seen. This looks like "Pudding" (my alias for Putin) trying to make us believe that a mall is actually an ammo depot or that a paediatric hospital was a command center or another ammo depot!

This guy must have learn from Pudding because despite the fact the Pudding was in FSB and is supposedly very good at lying and deceiving, they are both terrible with their narratives! And I end up also contributing. lol
What a mess!

You know what Mark Twain said:

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

You guys are proving him right nicely.

[runningwolf]

Money is what people collectively choose to believe in. It happens that bitcoin is the best type of money ever invented.

[Snowshow]

Money is what people collectively choose to believe in. It happens that bitcoin is the best type of money ever invented.

Money is not a belief. Money is an economic resource that provides utility to humans. The degree of that utility is then compared to the degree of utility of other economic resources in order for people to exchange those resources.

Bitcoin is a unit of the number 21 million that Nakamoto created in their imagination. It cannot be money by definition given that no utility exist to compare it with the utility of economic resources. It's simply a fraud unit, not money.

[Myntist]

Satoshi Nakamoto is the identity used by the unknown person, people or organization that authored the so called Bitcoin Whitepaper. In that paper, they claimed to have invented money, and a system based on cryptographic proof that uses that money and allows parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Basically, they claimed to have invented a payment system with its own money. However, that was not true. They invented neither money nor payment system. Instead, they created a fraudulent investment scheme. The scheme was arranged as follows. First they developed protocols and software for attributing the scheme units to online addresses of scheme participants. But here’s the catch: the scheme units were not the units of economic resources, be it: products, capital, land, debt, licences, patents, copyrights, etc. Instead, they were just the units of a number created in Nakamoto’s imagination – 21 million. Nakamoto gave the units of their imaginary number the name “bitcoins” (lowercase “b”). Protocols and software were given the name “Bitcoin” (uppercase “B”). Then, whenever the so called “bitcoin miners” join the scheme by investing the electricity to make the system running, the software simply attributes a specific amount of Nakamoto’s imaginary units to their addresses. The amount is, of course, predetermined by the protocols. The record of attribution is stored on a distributed ledger called "blockchain". Finally, the units are accessible through the special software applications called “bitcoin wallets”. Miners use those to transfer the units to other participants that want to join the scheme. And that’s literally it. That’s Nakamoto scheme in a nutshell.

The fraud in this scheme is obviously contained in the scheme units (bitcoins). The Bitcoin Whitepaper falsely presented these units to the public as the units of money. Later, the scheme participants also started to call them: “a currency”, “a reward”, “tokens”, “an asset”, “digital gold”, etc. So, the false public presentation of scheme units as “money”, and later as “asset”, is the central point of the fraud. This is how people are lured to join the scheme. Namely, money and asset are the generic terms that people use when referring to economic resources. And it is economic resources what people are supposed to invest into the scheme. It is economic resources what all fraudsters want to get their hands on. This is the ultimate goal of all investments frauds. And that is, of course, because the economic resources are what provide utility to people. For example. Products, labor, or services, are resources that provide utility because they satisfy human needs. Land is a resource that provides utility because it supports all human activities. Shares in the companies are resources that provide utility because they grant access to profits or equity of the companies. Debt units represented with fiat currencies are resources that provide utility, because they grant access to products, labor, services or collaterals of the borrowers at debt repayment or settlement. So, other people’s economic resources are what the fraudsters are always up to. And given that money and asset are the generic terms for economic resources, calling the units of Nakamoto’s imaginary number “money”, and later “asset”, was a perfect way to deceive people and lure them into the scheme. People would simply think that they are just exchanging one type of money or asset for another. Hence, a nice trick.

But once people are in the scheme, they realize that the units they hold are not the units of economic resources. They realize that Nakamoto scheme is completely void of anything that can provide utility to anyone. So they must dump their worthless units to someone else. Only in that way they can get the resources back and have the utility. And for that reason, they are forced to spread the same disinformation that was used by Nakamoto in the Bitcoin Whitepaper. They must publicly present their scheme units as money. From that necessity, the whole propaganda and false advertising came about. And now the scheme units are not just “money”, but ‘revolutionary money’. ‘Scarce money’. ‘Money that saves people from inflation and poverty’. ‘Money that provides freedom from the governments’. And so on. Due to the fact that Nakamoto scheme is online, and thus global, and given there are a lot of gullible and naive people around the world, the propaganda was successful. It was successful so much, that on the one hand, it pumped up the price of scheme unit from zero, to a high of $70,000, with the current price around $20,000. And on the other hand, it made the whole industry to pop up. This industry is now known by the name “crypto industry”.

To conclude. Satoshi Nakamoto fooled the world by taking a traditional fraudulent investment scheme and disguise it by splitting it into units that were put online and presented to the public as the units of money. The disguise was successful and people fall for it. But given that, in its core, Nakamoto scheme is a good old investment fraud, it contains zero economic resources for the participants to access. Which is why the earlier participants can return their investment of resources only from resources brought by more recent participants. Consequently, if people stop participating (buying the scheme units), then there are no resources anymore. And those that are left holding the units, are literally left with nothing.

Source: https://btcfraud.wordpress.com/

If that is the case then whole banking system is a fraud, as you do not own any thing inspite of some number in your credit card. You just talk about BTC, then what about other financial system commodities, cash, money, what is all this. Bitcoin is just bullied because it was invented by a normal person, no government involve no institution back up this currency that is why it has security concern and called as a pyramid fraud scheme. If that system given by some renowned organization then every would go and said it is the future. But to be honest life is full of miracles and BTC in one of them.

[dragonvslinux]

I feel like joining this discussion is pointless, but I'll give it ago anyway...

Money is what people collectively choose to believe in. It happens that bitcoin is the best type of money ever invented.

Money is not a belief. Money is an economic resource that provides utility to humans. The degree of that utility is then compared to the degree of utility of other economic resources in order for people to exchange those resources.

I think this person might mean that fiat currencies are based on belief systems, at least since the 70s when they were no longer backed by anything. Which is sort of true, but not entirely.

Try cashing in a bank note to your national bank, they won't have anything of value to offer you. This much is true. They owe you X worth of Y, but since de-pegging from Gold, that X is no longer worth Gold (or anything) in comparison, there is no resource anymore. But I imagine someone already pointed this out to you. Of course proponents of fiat currencies will point out that these monies are backed by the Government itself, so is even better than being redeemable for Gold, but with this they simply mean that same Government can print more money (inflate the currency) to stabilise a weak economy, and most importantly will commit to doing so, as opposed to allowing the currency, and therefore economy, to fail. So in this sense, by your own definition, this money as an economic resource is worth something because the Government says it's worth something, and they'll make sure it continues to be worth something. Or at least they will try their best.  Some succeed, others fail. There's a good reason why Gold in the 70s increased from $35 to $800 since the de-pegging event, because many realised that fiat currencies were no longer backed by a popular resource, backed only by those who produce it, which set a dangerous precedent.

Your argument should therefore really be based not on the idea that a medium of exchange like Bitcoin isn't money, but that like other monies (hyper-inflationary failing economies), that it's worthless or otherwise unnecessary. But the issue here is you have to rule out some utility as being useful, namely unrestricted international payments and ability to open an account without needing authorisation or access from a central party. In countries with stable currencies it's easy to consider this as worthless or unnecessary for sure, but in countries that lack reliable monetary policies, a lot more difficult. Try telling someone who has a hyper-inflationary currency, and doesn't have access to dollars, that Bitcoin is fundamentally useless. Of course you could argue that Bitcoin isn't a good investment, due to the current volatility, but not that the most reliable or accessible medium of exchange for someone is useless. I'll ignore the inflationary properties and ownership abilities because these are monetary policies, as opposed to utilities.

So the real question becomes, does there need to be an international currency that is accessible to everyone regardless of geography, status, income, etc? Should countries have the ability to reduce or remove their dependency on political forms of monies such as the dollar or the euro that only leads to power being more centralised to certain nations? Obviously the Western world would generally argue no, and would rather have hyper-dependency on their own currencies, but others that live in countries that are dependant on the dollar, the euro, the pound or the rubble, but don't always have access to it (or limited access), would no doubt argue differently, as they don't have much of a choice in the matter.

To argue Bitcoin has no utility is therefore simply just baseless and no doubt comes from a position of privilege and ignorance - that of having access to a stable currency. You're better off arguing that as a utility, it's not worth $300 billion, or $1 trillion, etc, despite global debt curently being $300 trillion, or Gold being worth $11 trillion. The fact that fiat currencies have developed into a failed experiment since the 1970s, because it became dependant on humans to determine their value, is somewhat beside the point.

Bitcoin's immutable monetary policy simply rules out previous failures in developing reliable currencies. The only similarity is that adoption for new forms of currencies is slow, many remain skeptical, others simply consider them fraudulent until proven otherwise, such as when bank notes were introduced in the 17th century. Not many wanted "IOUs" back then, they wanted actual Gold or Silver, not a promise of it, but after realising they could redeem their bank note for Gold the "proof of concept" became clear, bank notes became more broadly adopted, even traded between different parties thereafter as we see today.

I was also a complete skeptic to begin with. The first thing I did when I bought Bitcoin was to purchase something online, in order to confirm it as a medium of exchange. Just like 17th century traders, I wasn't going to simply "take someone's word for it" that this new form of money was a medium of exchange unless I tested the theory out myself. So I exchanged it with another economic resource 

[Snowshow]

I feel like joining this discussion is pointless, but I'll give it ago anyway...

Money is what people collectively choose to believe in. It happens that bitcoin is the best type of money ever invented.

Money is not a belief. Money is an economic resource that provides utility to humans. The degree of that utility is then compared to the degree of utility of other economic resources in order for people to exchange those resources.

I think this person might mean that fiat currencies are based on belief systems, at least since the 70s when they were no longer backed by anything. Which is sort of true, but not entirely.

Try cashing in a bank note to your national bank, they won't have anything of value to offer you. This much is true. They owe you X worth of Y, but since de-pegging from Gold, that X is no longer worth Gold (or anything) in comparison, there is no resource anymore. But I imagine someone already pointed this out to you. Of course proponents of fiat currencies will point out that these monies are backed by the Government itself, so is even better than being redeemable for Gold, but with this they simply mean that same Government can print more money (inflate the currency) to stabilise a weak economy, and most importantly will commit to doing so, as opposed to allowing the currency, and therefore economy, to fail. So in this sense, by your own definition, this money as an economic resource is worth something because the Government says it's worth something, and they'll make sure it continues to be worth something. Or at least they will try their best.  Some succeed, others fail. There's a good reason why Gold in the 70s increased from $35 to $800 since the de-pegging event, because many realised that fiat currencies were no longer backed by a popular resource, backed only by those who produce it, which set a dangerous precedent.

Your argument should therefore really be based not on the idea that a medium of exchange like Bitcoin isn't money, but that like other monies (hyper-inflationary failing economies), that it's worthless or otherwise unnecessary. But the issue here is you have to rule out some utility as being useful, namely unrestricted international payments and ability to open an account without needing authorisation or access from a central party. In countries with stable currencies it's easy to consider this as worthless or unnecessary for sure, but in countries that lack reliable monetary policies, a lot more difficult. Try telling someone who has a hyper-inflationary currency, and doesn't have access to dollars, that Bitcoin is fundamentally useless. Of course you could argue that Bitcoin isn't a good investment, due to the current volatility, but not that the most reliable or accessible medium of exchange for someone is useless. I'll ignore the inflationary properties and ownership abilities because these are monetary policies, as opposed to utilities.

So the real question becomes, does there need to be an international currency that is accessible to everyone regardless of geography, status, income, etc? Should countries have the ability to reduce or remove their dependency on political forms of monies such as the dollar or the euro that only leads to power being more centralised to certain nations? Obviously the Western world would generally argue no, and would rather have hyper-dependency on their own currencies, but others that live in countries that are dependant on the dollar, the euro, the pound or the rubble, but don't always have access to it (or limited access), would no doubt argue differently, as they don't have much of a choice in the matter.

To argue Bitcoin has no utility is therefore simply just baseless and no doubt comes from a position of privilege and ignorance - that of having access to a stable currency. You're better off arguing that as a utility, it's not worth $300 billion, or $1 trillion, etc, despite global debt curently being $300 trillion, or Gold being worth $11 trillion. The fact that fiat currencies have developed into a failed experiment since the 1970s, because it became dependant on humans to determine their value, is somewhat beside the point.

Bitcoin's immutable monetary policy simply rules out previous failures in developing reliable currencies. The only similarity is that adoption for new forms of currencies is slow, many remain skeptical, others simply consider them fraudulent until proven otherwise, such as when bank notes were introduced in the 17th century. Not many wanted "IOUs" back then, they wanted actual Gold or Silver, not a promise of it, but after realising they could redeem their bank note for Gold the "proof of concept" became clear, bank notes became more broadly adopted, even traded between different parties thereafter as we see today.

I was also a complete skeptic to begin with. The first thing I did when I bought Bitcoin was to purchase something online, in order to confirm it as a medium of exchange. Just like 17th century traders, I wasn't going to simply "take someone's word for it" that this new form of money was a medium of exchange unless I tested the theory out myself. So I exchanged it with another economic resource  

Fiat currencies are the records of debt. They are not supposed to be backed by anything given they are just information on how many debt units you have in the banking system. Debt units, that is, debt is what is backed. It's backed by the collaterals of the borrowers, which are under the management of the banking system. Debt is an economic resource because what is payable by one is receivable by another. Borrowers are literally every day providing labour, products, services and other economic resources to holders of fiat currencies and in that way settle their debt. If they default on the debt the banks will seize their collaterals and sell it to fiat currency holders in order to settle that debt. So, when you hold dollars you invested in debt, you invested in an economic resource that provides utility at debt repayment or settlement. When you hold bitcoins you invested in nothing. You just hold the units of the number 21 million that Nakamoto created in their imagination and their software attributed to your online addresses in order to inform you that you have been scammed out of your economic resources.

Thus, even mentioning bitcoins in the context of dollars is a nonsense of a high order. Dollars are records of an existing resource that you own. Bitcoin is a number attributed to your address.