Why is Bitcoin the Dumbest Thing Ever Invented

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme

Fiat is used as a get-rich-quick scheme.  An observably more effective one, as the 1% are accumulating wealth at an ever faster rate.  Rich get richer, poor get poorer.  Anyone with even a hint of awareness can see that it isn't sustainable. 

Bitcoin started as an experiment and it has proven effective.  It's a viable alternative to debt-based money and it affords many benefits fiat is unable to match.

Fiat has merely proven itself to be financial deprivation for the vast majority of participants.  Just a bunch of rich people feeding on their livestock.

You advocate for continued and increasing poverty for the masses.  That's what debt-based money is.

[EarnOnVictor]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

[GideonGono]

If you think it is dumb then what about the other crypto currency?
And if it is a dumb thing invented why is it still in the industry and one of the most popular and highest price in cryptocurrency market?
There are so many people who are against Bitcoin or crypto, but most of them would just ignore it and continue with their life.

[khalidkhan82118]

Suppose that someone invented a crypto postal service. Or is short a crypto-post. Its purpose is to transfer envelopes and boxes quickly, safely, and decentrally. However, there is a catch. The envelopes and boxes are empty. They hold nothing. From the outside, the crypto-post would look similar to a traditional post. Because obviously, a traditional post transfers envelopes and boxes. And that crypto-post transfers them as well. But in reality, it would be the dumbest thing ever invented given that the very reason envelopes and boxes exist is to serve as a container for holding letters, documents, and products. Their purpose is not to be empty.

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, 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 just 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 debt. 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 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. You have a product needed by them, just like letters, documents, and products transferred via postal service are needed by people.

Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created as debt, they are empty. They are containers 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 contracts, credit assessments, collaterals, foreclosures, etc. And this requires resources, both material and human. 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? Something tangible like a precious metal? Something intangible like a patent, copyright or software license? No, none of that. In the Bitcoin system, people buy and hold units of literally nothing. Units that are empty. 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.

The analogy drawn between Bitcoin and a hypothetical crypto-post is thought-provoking. While Bitcoin operates similarly to traditional currency systems on the surface, the fundamental difference lies in what these units represent – debt in traditional currencies versus 'empty' units in Bitcoin. This perspective sheds light on the complexities of managing debt within fiat currencies compared to the simplicity of Bitcoin's protocol. However, it's essential to consider various viewpoints and factors when evaluating the role and value of cryptocurrencies in the broader financial landscape.

[JamesNZ]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset. Bitcoin is an empty unit, a box or a container that holds nothing. Since it is a container, this creates the illusion that it holds an asset. All assets are transferred via some kind of a container. So when Satoshi created a container this created the illusion that it holds an asset. And sure, Bitcoin protocol could have been set up to issue new units via loans. Then it would be a container that holds an asset in the form of debt, like fiat. But it is not. It is set up to issue, store and transfer empty units. Which is nonsensical, just as that hypothetical crypto-post would be.

[EarnOnVictor]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

[Belarge]

Bitcoin is used as a get-rich-quick scheme

Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme where you make money money overnight without planning or implementing structures to enact good phase. Bitcoin have always been here to support the patient investors because they've recorded good entries on the project. We should learn to understand that bitcoin is not a get-rich quick scheme, rather we take our time to channel our focused on bitcoin and hope for promising results for ourselves. Bitcoin have made the pump and dump moves for everyone to witnessed but most people missed out due to FUD while most people also have FOMO.

[blckhawk]

If you think it is dumb then what about the other crypto currency?
And if it is a dumb thing invented why is it still in the industry and one of the most popular and highest price in cryptocurrency market?
There are so many people who are against Bitcoin or crypto, but most of them would just ignore it and continue with their life.

OP doesn't see that far to think about that part too much, OP just sees bitcoin and nothing else, kind of like having a myopic view on things, no consideration about other factors or other things that might be related to what OP's yapping about. It's probably just a stunt to troll forum users here in the bitcoin forum which I dare say is pretty effective at doing what it wants to do because it sure did earn the ire that OP is expecting, that's what the basic formula to do with trolling is, you mess with the people by putting up dumb statements and having the conviction to defend those dumb statements.

[JamesNZ]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism.

[EarnOnVictor]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism.

I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up.

Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them.

[JamesNZ]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism.

I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up.

Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them.

I know that you people need Freudian rationalizations, you need to play dumb to justify your purchases of empty units. But these rationalizations look pretty hilarious in the context of the OP. The distinction between a unit that holds an asset and a unit that holds nothing is obvious. 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? You couldn't say any of that because BTC units hold neither intangible (digital or whatever) nor tangible asset. They are literally like empty envelopes or boxes. They are containers that hold nothing. That's why you are forced to use Freudian rationalizations like the above. Just imagine the stupidity: a guy wrote a protocol to tell that you hold a non-existent asset, you paid a lot of money for that and now you comfort yourself that this is like buying Mona Lisa. Crazy. It's no wonder people view you as a cult.

[FatFork]

<snip>

You say Bitcoin units hold nothing, like empty boxes. But aren't empty boxes valuable too? Collectors pay a fortune for limited edition shoeboxes!  Maybe Bitcoin is the ultimate limited-edition digital box.  Who knows, maybe someday people will be fighting over empty Bitcoin wallets at museums!

As for the whole "non-existent asset" thing, tell that to the folks using Bitcoin for everyday transactions or those holding it as a hedge against inflation.  Maybe it's not the Mona Lisa, but scarcity and utility do hold value. You don't have to admit it, but it's a fact.

[JamesNZ]

<snip>

You say Bitcoin units hold nothing, like empty boxes. But aren't empty boxes valuable too? Collectors pay a fortune for limited edition shoeboxes!  Maybe Bitcoin is the ultimate limited-edition digital box.  Who knows, maybe someday people will be fighting over empty Bitcoin wallets at museums!

As for the whole "non-existent asset" thing, tell that to the folks using Bitcoin for everyday transactions or those holding it as a hedge against inflation.  Maybe it's not the Mona Lisa, but scarcity and utility do hold value. You don't have to admit it, but it's a fact.

Meaby Bitcoin is Almighty God, who knows. Let's be serious. Collectible boxes are something that people can see and touch. When they buy them they can explore them with their senses. When you buy Bitcoin the system just tells you that you have xx units. And that's it. Then someone givs you money and the system tells them the same thing - they have xx units. There's nothing collectable in this. It's a simple unit-based pyramid scheme. It's literally crazy how vehemently you people try to portray this scheme as something valuable and revolutionary when in reality it's the good old investment model that utilizes new investors' funds to pay earlier participants.

[EarnOnVictor]

Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

If you think Bitcoin is dumb then why you're present on this forum? If you don't like the idea of Bitcoin and find it useless then I believe someone like you should not be part of the forum that's a place for Bitcoin community. You need some research I believe, no I think you may need some treatment so you can understand Bitcoin properly.

For me I think he is just a troll that needs people to actually notice him just like the other fella who always shares post about how he is the original Satoshi Nakamoto and the owner of the forum. Sometimes when I see post like this, ignoring them is probably the best thing but with that being said how can someone even think of uttering such nonsense that Bitcoin is the dumbest thing created, well it's simple if you like being a financial slave to the system then you are free to go but other who don't know the importance of BTC.

How is investing in something that people need being a slave, but investing in something no one needs being free? If I invest in dollars I hold something that masses of people need for paying off debt owed to banks. I am the master, not the slave. On the other hand, if you traded dollars for Bitcoin you are the slave because you need other people to invest and buy your Bitcoin otherwise you cannot get your dollars back. It's hilarious how you Bitcoin evangelists think that you're the masters while in reality you're the slaves.

Let me say that I appreciate your wisdom and insightfulness about words from the main OP and your subsequent replies. Many take the ideology of Bitcoin to the extreme even though it is not perfect and I think I am one of the few who tells some facts about it here since I've been in the world of investment before the crypto era, unlike many of them who's eyes are just being opened to investment due to cryptocurrency.

But from the main OP, your narration was not without faults but I still say that I give you 85%, you are indeed a thinker. Well, you might be wondering why the denial of the remaining 15%, it's because (though risky) whether physical or virtual, anything could be related and referred to as an asset. All the things that are being labelled assets today are because of the importance/relevance people place on them, and whether virtual or not, once people appreciate it to the point of investing and holding their money in it, they are assets and valuable, which is also applicable to Bitcoin in this context.

That said, Bitcoin as an asset can do almost everything that fiat money can do as well, all you need to do is to convert it one way or the other and the debt, loan, and mortgage as you cited them in the main OP will all be paid. Obligations can be fulfilled with Bitcoin, for real! About the bonds and other collateralized arrangements/agreements, what is happening in the crypto space is not any different, only that it is not so popular in governance and since many centralised systems have nothing to do with cryptocurrency but fiats, the popularity of such arrangements/agreements, and dependency in such can't be as though you are dealing with the fiat currencies like the USD.

Lastly, I give you 100% in this current OP, and my reason is simple, I 100% agree with you (in summary) that the fiat can do without Bitcoin but Bitcoin can't do without fiat which makes the fiat the master regardless of whatever anyone interprets to it. I've always indicated this even as some always preach Bitcoin as the supreme of them all. Let's be realistic!

But the whole point is that Bitcoin is not an asset.
-snip-

I disagree with you in its strong terms to the point that I didn't even bother to read the rest of what you wrote. Bitcoin is an asset and nothing will change that. I've lived in the world of financial markets, payments and settlements long enough to know the difference in this regard. It is so plain and obvious but I wonder why you have not seen it. Maybe you should do your independent research about it and not rely on your wisdom alone.

Even Investopedia called Bitcoin an asset among other renowned business, trading and investment websites/outlets. There is no controversy here as Bitcoin is a virtual/digital asset, this is unless you do not even know what asset means. Fine, Bitcoin might be guilty of some of what you narrated in the main OP, but certainly, it's an asset. If it is not an asset, why are people buying and holding it? Don't you know that anything you invest your money in is an asset?

For short, an asset is a store of value and Bitcoin perfectly fits into that fact/narration without mincing words. For it to be a "digital" asset doesn't make it less of an asset. The world is revolving and it's high time you accept this easy fact.

This is like saying that an empty box is an asset. No, that what is inside the box, that what the box holds is an asset. Bitcoin box holds nothing. So there's no asset in the Bitcoin system. But understandably, people like to believe the opposite. If someone spend $70K on an empty box they obviously won't admit they bought nothing. They would say that they bought an asset. A digital gold. A precious intangible commodity. Whatever. It's a Freudian defence mechanism.

I think I know where your confusion is coming from, you just do not want to accept that there is a virtual or digital asset simply because they are not what you can see with your eyes physically, but you are so wrong. First, I would like you to perish the idea that you will have to be able to touch something valuable before you can label it an asset. Ordinary papers and drawings that were worthless before are being sold for millions of dollars today, this is not because they suddenly became gold or diamond, but because people place relevance/importance on it. Take for instance the Monalisa paint, it is worth a fortune ($100m in 1962, and now over a billion dollars), but do you think the material used to paint it is worth up to $100? Nevertheless, it's being sold for millions of dollars, why? It's simple, people place a relevance on it, which makes it an asset. This principle is what stocks and even bank cheques and notes/bonds work with. There are values placed on them because liquidity is backing them up.

Also, do not think that the operations of the companies you buy their stocks is the worth of the stocks and the company itself, no, people are buying stocks of companies without having anything to do with the company in any way, and that keeps adding value to the company to the point that people can fulfil financial obligations with stocks (virtual/digital). Asset is all about people's money, and nothing more. The same goes for Bitcoin which has a market capitalization of over $1T, this is huge and many physical assets do not even have up to that and they exist as assets. Today, you may buy your Lamborgini and tell the seller you will clear the bills with a certain amount of Bitcoin. Can a valueless entity as you claim do that? Only an asset can do that just like bonds, cheques and other financial settlement means do. It is you who needs to change your orientation about the virtual/digital assets, for them to have been created empty doesn't mean they will remain empty. The moment people are moving money in to back it up and place importance on it, it becomes an asset. Besides, anything you trade in the financial market is an ASSET. Thankfully, Bitcoin is one of them.

I know that you people need Freudian rationalizations, you need to play dumb to justify your purchases of empty units. But these rationalizations look pretty hilarious in the context of the OP. The distinction between a unit that holds an asset and a unit that holds nothing is obvious. 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? You couldn't say any of that because BTC units hold neither intangible (digital or whatever) nor tangible asset. They are literally like empty envelopes or boxes. They are containers that hold nothing. That's why you are forced to use Freudian rationalizations like the above. Just imagine the stupidity: a guy wrote a protocol to tell that you hold a non-existent asset, you paid a lot of money for that and now you comfort yourself that this is like buying Mona Lisa. Crazy. It's no wonder people view you as a cult.

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?

[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? 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.

[NewRanger]

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? 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.

It seems like you are very skeptical of this but, that's okay, I just want to ask what about fiat whose value is agreed, Is BTC no value and just an empty box if you buy it today for example with a face value of $ 500 only, then you test selling on the exchange you buy at the same time whether your money will be lost to the earth in your account,  If possible, do it today.

I'm probably not very technical and like to just get straight to real applications.

[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.

[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.

[Smartprofit]

I don't agree with you.  Bitcoin, as a financial asset, unlike fiat money (dollars, euros, yuan, rupees, etc.) has a creation cost. 
The cost of Bitcoin is the cost of electricity, depreciation, ASIC repair and maintenance, and technical staff salaries.  And every year the cost of Bitcoin grows and grows.  But this is not the main thing....
Bitcoin is of great importance as a generally accepted decentralized protocol for the transfer of values ​​in the virtual space.  This is what determines the enormous importance of Bitcoin in the financial sector, and despite the large number of different cryptocurrencies, there is no analogue to Bitcoin. 
Because Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, and all other cryptocurrencies are its copies to one degree or another.

[CODE200]

Probably to earn the anger and violent reactions of the people that are in this forum, that's what most trolls do, they see something that a lot of people enjoy and then they try their best to spoil the fun by making fun of the thing that everyone's enjoying it by crafting some elaborate bullshit

It is not everybody that likes Bitcoin, there even people who hate Bitcoin outside the forum and you can no hold back the opinion of those people towards Bitcoin, the OP have just drop his own opinion which is an opinion that is as dumb as his topic, I can't understand what he is explaining on the other comments he has written on this topic. Every of the reasons drop is not even sensible enough to justify the title.

Your point being? Hate does nothing to bitcoin anyway. Hating bitcoin isn't really a big factor as to why someone should stay in this forum, I mean what does a person like OP would get out of this? Does he get off when he/she/they stay in the forum hating on bitcoin and people that cares about bitcoin? If that's the case then by all means stay but if it's not then I don't think there's no need to justify what OP's doing because there's no justification to hating without any valid reason or a sensible at the minimum. See, you can't even understand it yourself and you're defending OP, what's with you dude?