Why is Bitcoin the Dumbest Thing Ever Invented

[Renampun]

... That's why Bitcoin is the dumbest thing ever invented.

hahaha, it's true what you said, bitcoin is the stupidest thing ever created but this stupidest thing helped me survive when the pandemic hit and helped me build my online business while fiat which you think is the smartest thing has never helped me at all.

If you want to make propaganda and invite people to accept your thoughts and fight Bitcoin, remember you are in the wrong place, you know where the exit is.

[d5000]

ad hominems

Lol, it's hilarious that you accuse me of ad hominems, when you have done that to all other thread participants basically, even indirectly to Satoshi

BTW, I've refuted all of your "arguments" but you wasn't able to refute mine. If you want to challenge them, then please do so but try to be at least a bit coherent, and I'm sure I can answer them. If not, then do like you please, but then don't cry.

PS: I have no problem to discuss and exchange real arguments with Bitcoin skeptics/critics, but due to your last two answers to me I chose to not feed you anymore. Come on ...

[Medusah]

Every day that passes by is further proof that OP is wrong (as are their multitude of other accounts attempting to sell the same lie). 

I just looked at his other accounts—Snowshow, Antithesis, antikvark, fxsurfer.  What's going on with this guy?  Why does he keep creating these threads?  Honestly, I'm starting to feel sorry for him.  It seems like he's craving attention from us so badly.  I doubt we'll have any luck reasoning with him.  Judging by his history, it's evident he's simply in denial, and that probably gives him some sort of satisfaction. 

[JamesNZ]

The same is with dollars. I don't have a bank loan nor have I issued a bond to get dollars from the FED so I don't need dollars to return them to the US banking system. But masses of individuals and companies, the same as the US government, do need them.

Sure, it's like this: Bitcoin shares similarities with traditional currencies.  While you might not personally own Bitcoin, there's a large network of individuals and businesses who do, and they've collectively established a standard for using it as a form of currency.  Bitcoin possesses qualities that make it attractive for people to use it as a currency.  What's your problem in this?  

Literally every issued dollar is someone's debt.

If the central bank suddenly becomes corrupt and creates $1 trillion out of thin air, what debt backs up these newly printed dollars?

Regarding the second. What happens if the corrupt government destroyes people's houses in a war? Does that mean houses in general don't have real value? So, your logic is pretty flawed.

Houses in a country at war aren't worth as much as those in peaceful countries.  This supports my idea that value is subjective and can change anytime.  Nothing in life has a set value that everyone agrees on.  But you act like the US dollar will always represent the exact same value.  

Why are you so obsessed with this "corrupt government" argument? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. If a postal service becomes so corrupt that it steals majority of letters, documents and products that doesn't mean its alternative is a service that transfers empty boxes and envelopes.

Also, why are you repeating that nonsense about value being something that 'everyone agrees on' if it was explained to you multiple times already, via practical examples, that the value of an item is the ability of that item to satisfy people's needs. Food is valuable because it can satisfy nutritional needs of people. Dollars because they can satisfy debt owed to the US banking system. What "agreement" are you fantasizing about?

[JamesNZ]

ad hominems

Lol, it's hilarious that you accuse me of ad hominems, when you have done that to all other thread participants basically, even indirectly to Satoshi

BTW, I've refuted all of your "arguments" but you wasn't able to refute mine. If you want to challenge them, then please do so but try to be at least a bit coherent, and I'm sure I can answer them. If not, then do like you please, but then don't cry.

You can comfort yourself that you refuted something. But the beauty of the OP is that it cannot be refuted. It is just the description of reality. Reality can only be denied. Which is what you try to do with those ad hominems and red herrings.

[martinex]

You can comfort yourself that you refuted something. But the beauty of the OP is that it cannot be refuted. It is just the description of reality. Reality can only be denied. Which is what you try to do with those as hominems and red herrings.

About the undeniable reality... Do you know what reality is like, it's like our ex-girlfriend, we want to avoid it, it still exists. That's what happens when you feel it.

[tottong]

Given that units in the Bitcoin system are not created by issuing loans or purchasing bonds, they don't hold a debt-based asset. They neither hold some tangible asset like a precious metal or food nor some intangible asset like a patent, copyright, or license. Also, they don't hold capital of some company, like shares. Simply put, in the Bitcoin system, people have empty units, units that hold no asset. Consequently, there's nothing to assign value to.

In the last line you mention that bitcoin has no value, but you forget that the value of bitcoin is determined by the supply and demand process.
Your perspective is a little confused because you actually don't understand the concept of bitcoin and I suggest that you read it again so that you have good knowledge.
You are just trying to logicalize assumptions in your own analysis and that is a mistake you are making because bitcoin actually had value even when it was created.

If you can describe people's behavior then we can easily recognize human nature. Likewise, with bitcoin, even though it has no form, it has a value that continues to be traded at any time by anyone.

[Medusah]

Why are you so obsessed with this "corrupt government" argument? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is very relevant, because you're under the delusion that every dollar bill represents a portion of debt, which is not true if the government issues money that isn't owed to anyone.  Your argument suggesting that the current monetary system isn't based on faith is simply incorrect.  It functions as long as there's trust that the government acts responsibly. 

In Bitcoin there is nothing that can be corrupted, that's why it has captured widespread interest.  It represents a wholly novel and innovative monetary system.  Your difficulty in grasping it comes from denying money existing without debt. 

[Fuso.hp]

Bitcoin is one of the most popular and most reliable digital currencies we see in the market so far. We cannot compare investing in Bitcoin and holding the investment as a fool's errand. The majority of investors currently invest in Bitcoin. Everything has its negative and positive side, dumping the price of Bitcoin is one of its negative side but this is not the only negative side to consider when investing. If we can accept the positive side of investment market pumping very well then we have to accept dumping well. When the price of Bitcoin is dumping, you can look at it as a positive rather than a negative, as if you see the price dumping, you are getting an opportunity to buy Bitcoin at a lower price. If we think in this way when it comes to investing then the investment will always be positive for us.

[JamesNZ]

Why are you so obsessed with this "corrupt government" argument? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is very relevant, because you're under the delusion that every dollar bill represents a portion of debt, which is not true if the government issues money that isn't owed to anyone.  Your argument suggesting that the current monetary system isn't based on faith is simply incorrect.  It functions as long as there's trust that the government acts responsibly.  

In Bitcoin there is nothing that can be corrupted, that's why it has captured widespread interest.  It represents a wholly novel and innovative monetary system.  Your difficulty in grasping it comes from denying money existing without debt.  

Historically, even the most corrupt governments issued fiat currency units as debt. The problem was that these governments defaulted on that debt which caused hyperinflation. So even if your fantasy scenario about the dollar becomes reality, every issued dollar would still represent a portion of debt. It's is just that the value of the asset behind that debt would be small. But again, what that has to do with the topic at hand? Bitcoin units are not issued as debt. They don't hold a debt-based asset, nor any other asset for that matter. They are as asset-empty as Monopoly money. This topic is about the stupidity of transferring or managing empty units and spending tones of energy in the process. It seems that you're so desperate in finding an excuse for that stupidity that you just have to say something no matter how irrelevant or irrational it is.

[Medusah]

But again, what that has to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with your denial to acknowledge that money units can detach from any backing by debt and essentially represent nothing, relying solely on the faith that the government will be responsible the monetary policy.   

They don't hold a debt-based asset, nor any other asset for that matter. They are as asset-empty as Monopoly money.

Money doesn't require being backed by debt.  When you make a purchase from a vendor, you're not considering whether your banknotes represent any debt.  Money functions primarily as a medium of exchange, contingent upon mutual agreement on its value.  Monopoly money fails as money because it can be printed arbitrarily.  Bitcoin can function as money, even though not backed by an asset, because it is the asset.  It possesses the characteristics of money, like portability, durability, divisibility, and easy verifiability. 

[JamesNZ]

But again, what that has to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with your denial to acknowledge that money units can detach from any backing by debt and essentially represent nothing, relying solely on the faith that the government will be responsible the monetary policy.    

They don't hold a debt-based asset, nor any other asset for that matter. They are as asset-empty as Monopoly money.

Money doesn't require being backed by debt.  When you make a purchase from a vendor, you're not considering whether your banknotes represent any debt.  Money functions primarily as a medium of exchange, contingent upon mutual agreement on its value.  Monopoly money fails as money because it can be printed arbitrarily.  Bitcoin can function as money, even though not backed by an asset, because it is the asset.  It possesses the characteristics of money, like portability, durability, divisibility, and easy verifiability.  

Literally every type of money throughout human history was unit of SOMTHING - cow, tobacco, metal, and, currently, debt. But if I were now to ask you: "unit of what is Bitcoin"  what you would do is offer some generic answer like this: "Bitcoin is a coin, a digital asset, a currency, money, resource." You wouldn't be able to name SOMETHING actual. That's because Bitcoin is unit of nothing. That Satoshi guy simply wrote a protocol to tell people that they have xx units of nothing. It's a nonsense of a high order.

I can write down or put in some database the following: "Bob has 10 units of ABC". Then someone asks: what is ABC? As a response I offer the following generic answer: ABC is a digital asset. Then they ask: "What actually is that digital asset? What it can do? Let's see what Bob has, what needs that ABC asset can fullfil so we can determine its value. For instance, Microsoft Word is a digital asset. And we know that it can fulfill people's needs regarding text editing. And that its value depends on how good it can do this editing." But I continue with the generic talk: "ABC is something precious, a revolution, a future of digital world." They insist: can you please answer what exactly is ABC? And I respond with this: "You don't understand ABC". "You're in dental.", "You hate ABC."...  

So when you try to defend Bitcoin with generic talk, with red herrings and ad hominems, which is what you do, you're demonstrating nicely that Bitcoin is an empty unit. That no actual asset exists in the system. No actual money, coin or SOMETHING .You are demonstrating that you Bitcoin lovers currently exchange 70 thousand units of something for one unit of nothing. That you spend as much electricity as the entire country of Norway on managing nothing. You're demonstrating that you participate in the dumbest thing humanity ever invented.

[Medusah]

Literally every type of money throughout human history was unit of SOMTHING - cow, tobacco, metal, and, currently, debt.

Correct.

But if I were now to ask you: "unit of what is Bitcoin"  what you would do is offer some generic answer like this: "Bitcoin is a coin, a digital asset, a currency, money, resource."

If you asked me "unit of what" is Bitcoin, I would explain that it stands as a unit unto itself, not tied to anything.  For those lacking creativity, it might be thought as a number in a database.

I can write down or put in some database the following: "Bob has 10 units of ABC". Then someone asks: what is ABC? As a response I offer the following generic answer: ABC is a digital asset. Then they ask: "What actually is that digital asset? What it can do?

Your ABC number would hold no value, and furthermore, it couldn't have any real worth due to its absence of essential monetary attributes.  It lacks durability and a stable monetary policy.  You could generate infinite ABC coins by merely altering your spreadsheet.  If your ABC number possessed durability and a verifiably fixed supply, it might begin to be regarded as a form of money.

What appears to me, is that you fail to understand that money doesn't necessarily require backing by a physical asset.  In ancient times, when tobacco served as currency, its value didn't stem from its tangible real-world worth per se.  It was accepted as money because it fulfilled the essential characteristics of currency.  Same for gold. 

[JamesNZ]

Literally every type of money throughout human history was unit of SOMTHING - cow, tobacco, metal, and, currently, debt.

Correct.

But if I were now to ask you: "unit of what is Bitcoin"  what you would do is offer some generic answer like this: "Bitcoin is a coin, a digital asset, a currency, money, resource."

If you asked me "unit of what" is Bitcoin, I would explain that it stands as a unit unto itself, not tied to anything.  For those lacking creativity, it might be thought as a number in a database.

I can write down or put in some database the following: "Bob has 10 units of ABC". Then someone asks: what is ABC? As a response I offer the following generic answer: ABC is a digital asset. Then they ask: "What actually is that digital asset? What it can do?

Your ABC number would hold no value, and furthermore, it couldn't have any real worth due to its absence of essential monetary attributes.  It lacks durability and a stable monetary policy.  You could generate infinite ABC coins by merely altering your spreadsheet.  If your ABC number possessed durability and a verifiably fixed supply, it might begin to be regarded as a form of money.

What appears to me, is that you fail to understand that money doesn't necessarily require backing by a physical asset.  In ancient times, when tobacco served as currency, its value didn't stem from its tangible real-world worth per se.  It was accepted as money because it fulfilled the essential characteristics of currency.  Same for gold.  

Hahaha. Bravo! Beautiful. You demonstrated exactly what I said. You were unable to explain the unit of WHAT is BTC. You proved nicely that BTC is the unit of nothing. And nothing cannot have value. It cannot satisfy anyone's needs. As for ABC, how do you know that the item that Bob has is a coin? How do you know that 10 ABC means 10 coins if you cannot show anything in the quantity of 10? How do you know it has fixed supply? Just as with BTC. You can as well say ABC is an ice cream, a car, a mobile phone, a digital item. You can use whatever generic term. You can say whatever you want. But if you cannot show something actual in the quantity of 10 you're essentially lying, or talk nonsense and stupidity. The same is when you say that ABC or BTC have a supply. Only SOMETHING actual can have a supply. You mentioned numbers. Numbers are mathematical abstractions and they're infinite. There's no such thing as a supply of numbers. Only SOMETHING actual, something that can satisfy human needs can have a supply. And in the Bitcoin system there's nothing ACTUAL that you can name or show. BTC is indeed the unit of nothing. An empty and invisible container. Thanks for proving my point.

[Medusah]

You were unable to explain the unit of WHAT is BTC.

I've illustrated the essence of a Bitcoin unit.  It signifies a numerical value within a distributed, resilient, and incorruptible database.  It doesn't denote the quantity of a tangible asset, much like electronic poker chips don't signify any physical object, yet they possess specific characteristics that make them valuable.

As for ABC, how do you know that the item that Bob has is a coin? How do you know that 10 ABC means 10 coins if you cannot show anything in the quantity of 10?

If I create an online game and grant you 10 "e-diamonds", there's no physical item I can present to depict these diamonds.  They exist solely within the confines of my game's rules.  Should you trust me, these e-diamonds can attain value and serve as a form of currency. 

Only SOMETHING actual can have a supply. You mentioned numbers. Numbers are mathematical abstractions and they're infinite. There's no such thing as a supply of numbers. Only SOMETHING actual, something that can satisfy human needs can have a supply. And in the Bitcoin system there's nothing ACTUAL that you can name or show. BTC is indeed the unit of nothing. An empty and invisible container. Thanks for proving my point.

If that were the case, then send 1 million bitcoins to this address: bc1q0u2tencdlkzeungrj7zsswl62nlxgucghhanwe.  Since they're merely abstract figures in a database, it shouldn't pose much difficulty for you to generate them out of nothing, correct? 

[teamsherry]

What a sick joke, how is bitcoin dumb, I guess you prefer a currency that woudl always suffer inflation and you like beigk under the subject of the government nosing around every transaction and asset you have, then you free to leave, no one forced you to be on this forum, you can go join the nocoiners on Reddit or what ever group they are and leave a bitcoin related forum in peace.

[JamesNZ]

You were unable to explain the unit of WHAT is BTC.

I've illustrated the essence of a Bitcoin unit.  It signifies a numerical value within a distributed, resilient, and incorruptible database.  It doesn't denote the quantity of a tangible asset, much like electronic poker chips don't signify any physical object, yet they possess specific characteristics that make them valuable.

As for ABC, how do you know that the item that Bob has is a coin? How do you know that 10 ABC means 10 coins if you cannot show anything in the quantity of 10?

If I create an online game and grant you 10 "e-diamonds", there's no physical item I can present to depict these diamonds.  They exist solely within the confines of my game's rules.  Should you trust me, these e-diamonds can attain value and serve as a form of currency.  

Only SOMETHING actual can have a supply. You mentioned numbers. Numbers are mathematical abstractions and they're infinite. There's no such thing as a supply of numbers. Only SOMETHING actual, something that can satisfy human needs can have a supply. And in the Bitcoin system there's nothing ACTUAL that you can name or show. BTC is indeed the unit of nothing. An empty and invisible container. Thanks for proving my point.

If that were the case, then send 1 million bitcoins to this address: bc1q0u2tencdlkzeungrj7zsswl62nlxgucghhanwe.  Since they're merely abstract figures in a database, it shouldn't pose much difficulty for you to generate them out of nothing, correct?  

Please cut the crap. Poker chips or gaming tokens can be redeemed at their issuers for a specific amount of money or gaming items. They are not empty units but units of issuer's liability. The bigger the liability the greater their value. The Bitcoin issuer has no liability to redeem BTC units for a specific amount of money or other items. The only thing Bitcoin can be compared to is play money for kids or Monopoly money. You have predefined amount of units for trading purposes within the system but these units are units of nothing - they denotate no liability, no debt, nothing intangible, nothing tangible. They are mere declarations of their authors. It's just they are printed on paper instead on digital media.

[Medusah]

The Bitcoin issuer has no liability to redeem BTC units for a specific amount of money or other items.

Using poker chips as an analogy for Bitcoin was a bad idea, because poker chips are liabilities, not assets.  They derive their value from the casino's promise to redeem them for currency.  Bitcoin is an asset.  It is not backed by anything other than itself, just as every asset.  Its value comes from the trust and confidence that people have in it as a decentralized currency.  You're just incapable of acknowledging that Bitcoin possesses these qualities.  

You haven't answered my question:

If that were the case, then send 1 million bitcoins to this address: bc1q0u2tencdlkzeungrj7zsswl62nlxgucghhanwe.  Since they're merely abstract figures in a database, it shouldn't pose much difficulty for you to generate them out of nothing, correct?  

[Hopila]

Honestly for me,I doesn't think Bitcoin is actually the dumbest thing.execept  the perception and the criticism where people consider it to be risky, volatile, or not a sustainable investment.

For me if given the opportunity to invest I will be in fore front considering how  lucrative it is without having a second thought.

[GbitG]

Honestly for me,I doesn't think Bitcoin is actually the dumbest thing.execept  the perception and the criticism where people consider it to be risky, volatile, or not a sustainable investment.

For me if given the opportunity to invest I will be in fore front considering how  lucrative it is without having a second thought.

Points like volatility, risk management, etc. depend on the person how much competence he has in controlling these points because volatility is the dominant part of Bitcoin and  If he has the technical knowledge to protect against volility, I think his claim will be wrongly conidered that the dumpest thing of Bitcoin is volility. If i tell the truth, that the volatility of Bitcion is not a defect but rather an advantage because, due to this volatility, Bitcion organizes a high margin of profit in a short time by doing such a high correction. 
 
So if Volitility is to be considered dumpest then Bitcoin is of no use. So therefore, it is not a defect but a virtue. It depends on you, how you make a plan, which strategy you follow, etc. If your plan was subjective, volitility can't lose you so easily.