Why is Bitcoin the Dumbest Thing Ever Invented

[CageMabok]

Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.

That's not crazy, but rather funny because I myself have never made a comparison between physical assets and crypto assets, nor the way of sending physical objects or goods with sending assets in crypto. Because these two things are definitely different, although sometimes there are people who make examples of physical goods when they want to give a few examples to people who are learning about crypto. So the funny thing is when someone makes a comparison between digital transactions and goods transactions that have a physical element.

[JamesNZ]

Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.

That's not crazy, but rather funny because I myself have never made a comparison between physical assets and crypto assets, nor the way of sending physical objects or goods with sending assets in crypto. Because these two things are definitely different, although sometimes there are people who make examples of physical goods when they want to give a few examples to people who are learning about crypto. So the funny thing is when someone makes a comparison between digital transactions and goods transactions that have a physical element.

You don't get it do you? When you just say "asset" you're saying nothing. Asset is generic term. You must name what actual resource is held by a unit. For instance: unit of gold, unit of debt(fiat money), unit of a company (share), units of oil, wheat, etc. If I were to ask you: "unit of WHAT is BTC", you wouldn't be able to provide an answer because BTC is an empty unit. It's literally like taking a piece of paper and write down that: "Alice owns 5 units of ABC". Then I ask: what exactly is ABC, and you say "an asset" or "a commodity", or money. You're forced to use generic terms because ABC is mere declaration. No actual asset, commodity or money exists under the name ABC. The number 5 represents empty units. Units that hold nothing. That's Bitcoin in a nutshell. It's basically like play money for kids, or monopoly money. You have monetary units that are exchanged for playing purposes but they are empty. They hold no resource or asset.

[Fiasem20]

Op I couldn't finish reading your post because of how lengthy it is but I still don't understand what you mean by Why is Bitcoin the dumbest thing ever invented......Like are you 100% for real,I think if you were 100% real you wouldn't have been on this forum in the first place because this forum is all about bitcoin.Bitcoin is one of the amazing thing ever invented.Bitcoin is amazing because it's transparent, accessible and it's users are financial free from third party.Bitcoin being volatile it's what makes it so unique unlike some stable coins that don't pump.Op I think you need a finance advice on Bitcoin and nothing more.

[Medusah]

Is this person still engaged and steadfast in their belief that Bitcoin holds no value?  Seriously?

You must name what actual resource is held by a unit.

Says who?  Who is the sole arbitrator of the term "asset"? 

For instance: unit of gold, unit of debt(fiat money)

Unit of debt is fiat currency, and unit of fiat currency is what?  Debt?   

No actual asset, commodity or money exists under the name ABC.

There is no tangible asset, commodity, or physical currency known as the "US dollar".  Its value relies solely on faith.  Nevertheless, it holds a certain value, albeit one that may go unnoticed by many. 

[Wendu010]

The so-called crypto-currencies, such as Bitcoin, are exactly like our hypothetical crypto-post. From the outside, Bitcoin looks similar to traditional currencies. It is a system that has units which are transferred between people. If you have a bank account or a banknote, what you have is some name such as USD, EUR, or GBP, and a number that represents the quantity of units in a banking system. If you have a Bitcoin account you also have a name - BTC and a number that represents the quantity of units in the Bitcoin system. But the catch is that the units in the Bitcoin system are empty. They are like envelopes and boxes in our crypto-post. They are containers that hold nothing.

On the other hand, units of traditional currencies are containers that hold something. They hold a debt-based resource. Namely, these units are created as loans of commercial banks to individuals and companies or as purchases of government bonds by central banks. So if you have for example dollars you have something that the US government and millions of people need for satisfying debt owed to the US banking system. If your neighbor has a $500K loan with a mortgage on his house, while you have $500K you have something that can save them from the mortgage. In short, you have an asset, a resource needed by your neighbor. Just like letters, documents, and products held by envelopes and boxes are resources needed by people.

Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created by issuing loans or purchasing bonds, they are empty. They are like envelopes and boxes that hold nothing. Often, people say that Bitcoin is simple and thus better than a complex banking system that manages fiat currencies. But of course Bitcoin is simple given that it manages empty units. Fiat currency units hold debt and managing debt is complex. It includes credit assessments, contracts, collaterals, foreclosures, etc. Implementing those requires both people and infrastructure. With Bitcoin, the author just wrote a protocol that tells people: "You have 10 units", "you have 0.5 units", "you have 50 units", etc. But units of what? A company? A tangible asset like a precious metal? An intangible asset like a patent, copyright or license? No, none of that. In the Bitcoin system, people have units of literally nothing, units that are empty, that hold no asset. That is why it is so simple. Managing empty units is simple. But extremely dumb. Just like it would be managing empty envelopes and boxes in our hypothetical crypto-post. With Bitcoin, such managing even requires the consumption of enormous amounts of electricity. That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.
[/quote]

[JamesNZ]

Is this person still engaged and steadfast in their belief that Bitcoin holds no value?  Seriously?

You must name what actual resource is held by a unit.

Says who?  Who is the sole arbitrator of the term "asset"?  

For instance: unit of gold, unit of debt(fiat money)

Unit of debt is fiat currency, and unit of fiat currency is what?  Debt?  

No actual asset, commodity or money exists under the name ABC.

There is no tangible asset, commodity, or physical currency known as the "US dollar".  Its value relies solely on faith.  Nevertheless, it holds a certain value, albeit one that may go unnoticed by many.  

Resources or assets have value. And assets either exist or they don't. Debt behind fiat currencies factually exists - every unit of fiat currency is issued as loan or bond. Debt is both liability and asset because the fulfilment of liability by one side is benefit to the other. So, faith has nothing to do with assets. In the Bitcoin system there's no resource or asset so there's nothing to assign value to. It is indeed like play money for kids. You create units by declaration, represent them with numbers on a medium and then exchange. The same is with monopoly money. Spending enormous amounts of energy on this is crazy. Paying $70K for such a unit is even crazier. You're giving up 70 thousand asset units in order to hold 1 non-asset  or monopoly-money-like unit. If that's not crazy then nothing is crazy.

[Medusah]

Resources or assets have value. And assets either exist or they don't. Debt behind fiat currencies factually exists - every unit of fiat currency is issued as loan or bond.

There's no evidence to confirm the existence of this debt.  Consider the scenario where a government arbitrarily prints a trillion dollars without any underlying assets or value creation.  This action merely steals purchasing power from the general populace.  It does not create value. 

So, faith has nothing to do with assets.

Indeed, it does have.  The authority over currency issuance lies with the government.  Therefore, regarding fiat currency as a reliable asset is essentially based on faith, as the government retains the power to render it valueless at its discretion, with or without existing debt.   

[JamesNZ]

Resources or assets have value. And assets either exist or they don't. Debt behind fiat currencies factually exists - every unit of fiat currency is issued as loan or bond.

There's no evidence to confirm the existence of this debt.  Consider the scenario where a government arbitrarily prints a trillion dollars without any underlying assets or value creation.  This action merely steals purchasing power from the general populace.  It does not create value.  

So, faith has nothing to do with assets.

Indeed, it does have.  The authority over currency issuance lies with the government.  Therefore, regarding fiat currency as a reliable asset is essentially based on faith, as the government retains the power to render it valueless at its discretion, with or without existing debt.  

Wait, what? There's no evidence? It is a common knowledge that units of fiat currencies are created by commercial banks issuing loans and by central banks purchasing government bonds. Did you live under a rock all the time?

[EarnOnVictor]

You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!

Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.

Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.

All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?

So basically, your argument is that an empty box that someone sold you for $70K is not actually empty. The trading act magically make a valuable product, an asset to appear in it?

Yes, the moment the box was assigned value and liquidity makes it stopped being empty. When you open it in the blockchain now, you will know what you called empty is no longer empty anymore as block values are constantly being assigned. Bitcoin is a complete system that will do all that fiats can do (if allowed) with no exception. This is possible because it is an asset, a digital one for that matter. But this digital/virtual denotation is where you are missing it, or perhaps you just do not want to accept it.

Whether you like it or not, there are classes of assets, and the digital asset is one of them, which will not do less of any asset if you operate it through the right channel. Bitcoin was empty, it is not empty anymore if that will suit you in the plain term and at this point I urge you not to rely on your understanding of this alone. For it to be digital/virtual doesn't make it less of an asset, it is indeed an asset, not until you see an asset physically before it can be valuable or be used for particular physical projects like what Gold, Diamond, Oil, etc are being used for. Once they can still purchase those physical assets (Gold, Diamond, Oil etc) that you mentioned, they are not less valuable regardless of the form they are.

Although when you open it you see with your own eyes it is still empty. You know how this is called? Being naive, gullible and delusional.

Nothing is empty in Bitcoin anymore, values and purposes are being signed regularly, you should go and learn how the blockchain works even if we try to neglect the trading aspect that proves it valuable. And this is a reality, my friend, it is never delusional.

Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.

This is where you are actually getting it wrong and it will continue like this unless you change your overall thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created as an empty box (if your narration is to be followed) which I never disputed, but it was later filled with value (liquidity), which now makes it an asset. So, in what you cited, the sender never sent an empty box again in case you do not know and as long as it is Bitcoin we are talking about. How can I send Bitcoin to you and you are saying it's empty, how?

Take for instance, a box was created empty (initial stance), and the box was later filled with Apple products (value) and was sent to a receiver. Are you still telling me that the receiver will receive an empty box despite filling it with value which is the Apple products? It is you who will need to accept "digital assets" as it is and stop believing that all assets must have physical things that back them up. The world is revolving, so should we revolve with it as well?

Lastly, today, if I send you 1 BTC, am I not sending you more than $70,000? It is as simple as that. But I found it so troubling that a simple fact like that is difficult for you to understand. Does an empty box or anything that is valueless be able to deliver over $70,000 into your hand upon receiving it? And you still call it empty? C'mon!!!

[JamesNZ]

You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!

Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.

Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.

All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?

So basically, your argument is that an empty box that someone sold you for $70K is not actually empty. The trading act magically make a valuable product, an asset to appear in it?

Yes, the moment the box was assigned value and liquidity makes it stopped being empty. When you open it in the blockchain now, you will know what you called empty is no longer empty anymore as block values are constantly being assigned. Bitcoin is a complete system that will do all that fiats can do (if allowed) with no exception. This is possible because it is an asset, a digital one for that matter. But this digital/virtual denotation is where you are missing it, or perhaps you just do not want to accept it.

Whether you like it or not, there are classes of assets, and the digital asset is one of them, which will not do less of any asset if you operate it through the right channel. Bitcoin was empty, it is not empty anymore if that will suit you in the plain term and at this point I urge you not to rely on your understanding of this alone. For it to be digital/virtual doesn't make it less of an asset, it is indeed an asset, not until you see an asset physically before it can be valuable or be used for particular physical projects like what Gold, Diamond, Oil, etc are being used for. Once they can still purchase those physical assets (Gold, Diamond, Oil etc) that you mentioned, they are not less valuable regardless of the form they are.

Although when you open it you see with your own eyes it is still empty. You know how this is called? Being naive, gullible and delusional.

Nothing is empty in Bitcoin anymore, values and purposes are being signed regularly, you should go and learn how the blockchain works even if we try to neglect the trading aspect that proves it valuable. And this is a reality, my friend, it is never delusional.

Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.

This is where you are actually getting it wrong and it will continue like this unless you change your overall thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created as an empty box (if your narration is to be followed) which I never disputed, but it was later filled with value (liquidity), which now makes it an asset. So, in what you cited, the sender never sent an empty box again in case you do not know and as long as it is Bitcoin we are talking about. How can I send Bitcoin to you and you are saying it's empty, how?

Take for instance, a box was created empty (initial stance), and the box was later filled with Apple products (value) and was sent to a receiver. Are you still telling me that the receiver will receive an empty box despite filling it with value which is the Apple products? It is you who will need to accept "digital assets" as it is and stop believing that all assets must have physical things that back them up. The world is revolving, so should we revolve with it as well?

Lastly, today, if I send you 1 BTC, am I not sending you more than $70,000? It is as simple as that. But I found it so troubling that a simple fact like that is difficult for you to understand. Does an empty box or anything that is valueless be able to deliver over $70,000 into your hand upon receiving it? And you still call it empty? C'mon!!!

Are you for real or are you playing dumb? If I pay you $70K for an empty box and you send it to me what I received is that empty box. I didn't receive $70K. I gave up that money. So, you must be playing dumb because no one can be that stupid to claim that they received $70K when they actually gave up that money.

[martinex]

Are you for real or are you playing dumb? If I pay you $70K for an empty box and you send it to me what I received is that empty box. I didn't receive $70K. I gave up that money. So, you must be playing dumb because no one can be that stupid to claim that they received $70K when they actually gave up that money.

I respect your opinion. Yes. Only people with stupid thoughts can do it. If we think too much about the empty box, we will never feel the contents of the box and it will always be empty. Can you see visually what the air actually looks like? We can only feel it when we inhale and exhale.

[khalidkhan82118]

Are you for real or are you playing dumb? If I pay you $70K for an empty box and you send it to me what I received is that empty box. I didn't receive $70K. I gave up that money. So, you must be playing dumb because no one can be that stupid to claim that they received $70K when they actually gave up that money.

I respect your opinion. Yes. Only people with stupid thoughts can do it. If we think too much about the empty box, we will never feel the contents of the box and it will always be empty. Can you see visually what the air actually looks like? We can only feel it when we inhale and exhale.

It reminds me of the idea that overthinking can sometimes prevent us from experiencing things fully. How do you find a balance between thoughtful analysis and just going with the flow?

[Medusah]

Wait, what? There's no evidence? It is a common knowledge that units of fiat currencies are created by commercial banks issuing loans and by central banks purchasing government bonds. Did you live under a rock all the time?

Did you take the time to go through my message?  What occurs if the central bank opts to generate money out of thin air?  There's no value generation involved— just the introduction of new debt devoid of any intrinsic value.

There's no evidence supporting the notion that fiat currencies are backed one-to-one by value; in fact, evidence suggests the contrary.  There is disconnection between the creation of money and tangible assets. 

[oktana]

Often, people would say that Bitcoin is simple and thus better than a complex banking system that manages fiat currencies. But of course Bitcoin is simple given that it manages empty units. Fiat currency units hold a debt-based asset and managing debt is complex. It includes credit assessments, contracts, collaterals, foreclosures, etc. Implementing those requires both people and infrastructure. In the case of Bitcoin, however, the author just wrote a protocol that tells people: "You have 10 units", "you have 0.5 units", "you have 50 units", etc. It is literally like receiving play money for kids or Monopoly money - you get 'monetary units' for trading purposes but they hold no asset. They are empty. With Bitcoin, the creation of such empty units requires the consumption of enormous amounts of electricity. Also, people currently pay $70K for a single unit. Imagine the absurdity of giving up 70 thousand asset-holding units or tens of thousands of kWh of electricity only to get 1 Monopoly-money-like unit. That's why Bitcoin the dumbest thing ever invented.

Bitcoin creation requires enormous amount of electricity but guess what, we’re less than a few millions away from the 21M total supply. I don’t understand what you mean by empty unit. It appears you don’t understand how Bitcoin works because what you call empty unit has value because it isn’t empty. It may not be visible but very valuable. But guess what’s with the fiat you’re speaking so confidently about; there’s no limit to how much can be created. If I asked you how many dollars exist, you can’t tell and that’s why you’ll someday buy coffee for $20

[d5000]

Ok, so let's debunk this once and for all time

Using the (a bit questionable, but serviceable) postal service analogy, we accrue value in this system in three stages.

Stage 1: Bitcoin's creation and its USPs

The "postal service" isn't just "a simple postal service". It's a postal service that has qualities no other postal service ever had. The boxes will reach the destination in about 10 minutes, no matter where in the world (=block interval). "Boxes" can never get lost because once they are accepted by the system (=confirmations) everybody knows all the time where they are (=public blockchain record), nobody can steal a box (=double spend protection) and the postal service can also not decide to reject a box just because they don't like the sender, the receiver or the value that is inside (=censorship protection). The boxes will also always (as soon as they're accepted) reach the receiver, even if the system doesn't know who the sender and the receiver is. And while once a sender blew up the post office with a "bomb" inside a box (=2010 value overflow), the post office was able to repair it instantly and in 14 years it never happened again, so we can almost safely say it won't repeat.

Stage 2: First boxes are filled

The postal service, due to the USPs named in stage 1, start to get usage when someone puts value in a box. It's important to clarify when value is put inside a box: not when someone uses Bitcoin to make a transaction, and also not when coins are mined. Mining and transacting are still "empty boxes". The system only accrues value when someone accepts the Bitcoins in exchange for something. These Bitcoins are then pegged to this "something". First, such pegs will be private contracts. The peg will only exist for the sender and the receiver. Basically, it means that once in a while the boxes will contain something. But the value is still not clear. They work like NFTs today. Let's say this was the "Pizza era" (Happy Pizza Day ) The pizza transaction was basically a number of pizzas divided into 10.000 boxes.

Stage 3: Boxes get a value (Bitcoin price)

A community begins to form around the postal service. More and more boxes are filled with value when people are accepting Bitcoin either for goods and services or for different currencies or other "assets". The community begins to publish the Stage 2 contracts on the web (=exchange sites, Coinmarketcap ...). This means that people already know what to expect when they use the postal service and how much value is approximately inside of each box. We have now an almost unified box price. And we have an ecosystem of people, companies and other groups willing to put value in the boxes (=pay fiat/sell a good or service for Bitcoin).

What's now exactly inside the box (A box is 1 BTC)?

It's actually not that simple. I would describe it as "the 21 millionth part of the ecosystem" described in Stage 3. If this ecosystem is large enough, then the single box can be valued at $70000. But if the ecosystem shrinks or grows, then the value can also shrink or grow.

You'll say that this value can never be calculated? And why is it so volatile?

First, in the fiat system the value is also not fixed. Let's say a bank creates a loan of $100 and the Central Bank's issues a 100 dollar bill. But one week later speculation makes the currency's value go down. What's now inside the 100 dollar bill? A smaller part of the loan of the bank? Just like fiat, the "box value" can also change with speculation. It can even go to near-zero like in countries like Argentina.

Second, the volatility is just the consequence of the difficult calculation. As we don't know how much value is in the whole ecosystem, we use hints. For example, when the ETFs were approved, people were expecting the ecosystem to grow because new investor classes (US institutional investors) was able to put value in the boxes. This was a hint causing people to value of the boxes no longer $30-40k but instead $50-70k.

So even if the question "what's Bitcoin's value?" is not very simple to answer, there is actually also nothing very mysterious.

@OP: How would you describe collectibles in your system (e.g. coins and bills which are worth lots of $ due to a failure of the printing/minting machine in the numismatic community, stamps, art ...)? Their nature can actually be described in a similar way. But only Bitcoin has "Stage 1", i.e. a real set of advantages over other asset classes.