Wake up people, there are no bitcoins, Nakamoto fooled you

[Mariokb]

I think OP is still far behind in technology education. Or he is a blind fan of fiat currency which is losing its purchasing power day by day.
There is a huge difference between a Bitcoin written on a white paper and a Bitcoin created by a blockchain. It is decades ahead of current technology.
I would like to ask OP, what asset can give you financial freedom? What asset is yours alone, with no second or third party interference?
What asset do you own that you know the total supply of?

Once again, this assumes the very point under dispute instead of arguing for it. You say there is a Bitcoin created by a blockchain, but that is precisely the collective delusion the article is talking about.

A blockchain records numbers associated with addresses according to a set of rules. Recording numbers, whether on paper or in a database, does not bring anything into existence. Writing "10 patents" does not create ten patents. Writing "2 BTC" does not bring two "bitcoins" into existence. The existence of the record does not establish the existence of the thing the record supposedly represents.

Everything else you mentioned, financial freedom, third-party interference, purchasing power, total supply....is a distraction from that central point. Those questions all presuppose that "bitcoins" exist. The supply must be of something. Creating a rule about the sum of numbers associated with addresses is not a supply of anything.

[TokenTikas]

I got about a third of the way through the OP and stopped reading. What a load of crap, in the words of the great Satoshi Nakomoto himself, ‘If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.’

You have still read about one-third of the posts and that is already a lot. But before visiting this kind of post, even if you feel like visiting after seeing the subject of the post, once you come to visit it, you don't feel like reading it because it seems better not to comment than to read and comment on this kind of post.

Op are you actually sharing this article you read in whatever site with us to be convinced that every crap captured their are true or we should convince you that they're not true?

Maybe he got the matter mixed up, which is why he is having trouble comparing what is true and what is false. Still, I don't know what he actually wanted to mean. Since he is a Newbie, maybe he could not post properly. That could also be the case, nothing can be said for sure.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It's not a bad thing to have that kind of anti-Bitcoin post here every once in a while. You don’t see them very often, and yet there are people who think that way. The main flaw in the argument is that Bitcoins are mined, and you access them with your private keys. They’re a real thing in the digital world. And if the OP doesn’t believe in that to begin with, they shouldn’t believe in fiat money either, which is created out of thin air. A bank gives you a loan, and depending on where you live, it might have a reserve ratio of 0; if it’s not 0, it’s maybe 2%. In other words, they’re creating money out of thin air at that very moment. This used to be more of a problem when people spent a lot of cash—in bills and coins—and there was a greater risk of bank runs. But nowadays? Banks have it easy; they can keep creating fiat trash with less and less fear that a crowd of people will show up at the door demanding their deposits back in cash.

[MainIbem]

Another Bitcoin Critics? What a post i don't blame the critics i blame his frend for letting someone convince him to sell his 2 BTC it's something he'll regret and probably hate his friend for convincing him to do that in future. I stopped reading when I got to the point where he talked about Bitcoin not being a worthy asset but numbers created out of thin air, that's a dumb statement cause Bitcoin is doing good in the asset class, ranking top 10 if not mistaken so i wonder where he got the idea that it's not an asset. I'll rather choose a digital currency that gives self custody or saving my money with the government (bank).

[Mariokb]

OP are you saying you believe this write up and you are trying to confuse people on here that this is true? That's a shitty post

He claimed to take a piece of paper and write 2 BTC To proof rubbish, if someone should me 2 million dollars in is bank account I can do the same, grab a paper and write the same down to proof that I own 2 million dollars.

This person is a very stupid person that might never learn anything in his life, the difference is I can withdraw 2 BTC for $500,000 in the near future and he will have to withdraw his 2 BTC from his piece of paper, let's see how that goes.

You've just repeated my argument without realizing it.

You're absolutely right that writing "$2 million" on a piece of paper doesn't create $2 million. That's precisely why I used the analogy.

The difference is that, in the case of dollars, the record refers to units of an existing debt. Writing the record doesn't create the debt.

You simply assume that the same is true for "2 BTC," but that's the very point my article disputes. You never establish the existence of any "bitcoins." You merely point out that someone is currently willing to exchange dollars for the recorded number.

Being able to sell the recorded number 2 does not establish that two units of something exist. It only establishes that people are currently willing to pay for a recorded number.

When you say, "I can withdraw 2 BTC for $500,000," that is not true. All you can do is exchange a recorded number for dollars (units of debt) because someone else is currently willing to buy that number, believing they are buying bitcoins. That does not establish that two "bitcoins" exist any more than selling a piece of paper with "2 BTC" written on it would establish that two bitcoins had come into existence.

So, just like everyone else here, you've skipped the very point under dispute. You assume the existence of "bitcoins" and then argue that people are willing to pay for the recorded number.

[marrcelo]

If there's a person wanting to buy or sell anything, it has value, so if a person make a commitment with a signature on paper that they gonna pay in the future you don't say it's just a risk on paper, or worse the person just give their word that they gonna pay in the future, for me the word of that person that's a acquaintance or a friend have value for me. It's fine if for you Bitcoin don't have value, but for thousands of people, big companies, corporations, banks, even countries it have value. If you keep believing that Bitcoin is just a risk on paper, feel free.
Let's pretend this story is real, which I doubt. That friend of yours who has 2 Bitcoin decided to give you all that Bitcoin, since you think it has no value, you shouldn't accept that Bitcoin, but at this moment the stupidity goes away.

[Mariokb]

Following your reasoning nothing exists: no software, no digital documents, no games, no operating systems, just pixels on a screen. Btc source can be audited, transactions can be verified, addresses can be signed from uniquely; everything's verifiable and easy to analyze dude Your argument's nonsense.

My article explicitly states that software, digital documents, photographs, patents, copyrights, and debts all exist. They can all be analyzed to determine whether they provide benefits and therefore whether they are assets or valuable.

What I dispute is the existence of what you call "bitcoins." You describe source code, cryptographic signatures, address ownership proofs, an auditable ledger, and changes to the recorded numbers associated with addresses. I agree that all of those exist. My article explicitly describes the Bitcoin network, its software, its protocol, its rules, and the recorded numbers associated with addresses. I have never denied the existence of the system. On the contrary, I described it in detail.

But the system that creates the illusion of "bitcoins" is not itself "bitcoins." That's the category error your reply makes.

So, once again, you've assumed the existence of "bitcoins" instead of establishing it. Describing how the system updates recorded numbers, verifies signatures, or enforces its rules does not bring "bitcoins" into existence. It merely describes how the illusion is maintained.

[Kelward]

It's not a bad thing to have that kind of anti-Bitcoin post here every once in a while. You don’t see them very often, and yet there are people who think that way. The main flaw in the argument is that Bitcoins are mined, and you access them with your private keys. They’re a real thing in the digital world. And if the OP doesn’t believe in that to begin with, they shouldn’t believe in fiat money either, which is created out of thin air. A bank gives you a loan, and depending on where you live, it might have a reserve ratio of 0; if it’s not 0, it’s maybe 2%. In other words, they’re creating money out of thin air at that very moment. This used to be more of a problem when people spent a lot of cash—in bills and coins—and there was a greater risk of bank runs. But nowadays? Banks have it easy; they can keep creating fiat trash with less and less fear that a crowd of people will show up at the door demanding their deposits back in cash.

OP should understand that anything that is given value becomes valuable, for example if gold is seen like a shiny yellowish stone and diamond is seen like another shiny bright stone they would probably have the same value as ordinary stones, but they are scarce and people attach values to them and that is why they are worth a lot of money in the market. I'm sure that if gold and diamonds are unlimited like ordinary stones nobody will attach any value in them, as far as they are seen as stores of value there would be demands for them, if their supply exceeds demand at any point their value would dip but as long as they are valuable and scarce their prices will surely increase and reach ATH.

In that sense Bitcoin is no different from gold and diamond except that it is in a digital form, Bitcoin has limited supply which means that it is scarce like them and as long as it's demand continues to exceed it's supply it's value will continue to increase on the long term. Bitcoin is a value driven digital asset, remember that when it was created many of us never took it seriously but as it's adoption began to increase and more people begin to find value in holding it automatically it's price began to increase because of the high demand as a result of it's limited total supply.

One of Bitcoin biggest value is that it is decentralized, if you hold it in a none custodial wallet you have a total control over it which is privacy and freedom, Bitcoin network is not controlled by any government or institutions. This is why as a currency it is a hedge against inflation for fiat which a government can decide to print out of thine air with unlimited supply. Therefore Bitcoin has become a store of value that has potentials to reach ATH on the long term.

[Mariokb]

It's not a bad thing to have that kind of anti-Bitcoin post here every once in a while. You don’t see them very often, and yet there are people who think that way. The main flaw in the argument is that Bitcoins are mined, and you access them with your private keys. They’re a real thing in the digital world. And if the OP doesn’t believe in that to begin with, they shouldn’t believe in fiat money either, which is created out of thin air. A bank gives you a loan, and depending on where you live, it might have a reserve ratio of 0; if it’s not 0, it’s maybe 2%. In other words, they’re creating money out of thin air at that very moment. This used to be more of a problem when people spent a lot of cash—in bills and coins—and there was a greater risk of bank runs. But nowadays? Banks have it easy; they can keep creating fiat trash with less and less fear that a crowd of people will show up at the door demanding their deposits back in cash.

OP should understand that anything that is given value becomes valuable, for example if gold is seen like a shiny yellowish stone and diamond is seen like another shiny bright stone they would probably have the same value as ordinary stones, but they are scarce and people attach values to them and that is why they are worth a lot of money in the market. I'm sure that if gold and diamonds are unlimited like ordinary stones nobody will attach any value in them, as far as they are seen as stores of value there would be demands for them, if their supply exceeds demand at any point their value would dip but as long as they are valuable and scarce their prices will surely increase and reach ATH.

In that sense Bitcoin is no different from gold and diamond except that it is in a digital form, Bitcoin has limited supply which means that it is scarce like them and as long as it's demand continues to exceed it's supply it's value will continue to increase on the long term. Bitcoin is a value driven digital asset, remember that when it was created many of us never took it seriously but as it's adoption began to increase and more people begin to find value in holding it automatically it's price began to increase because of the high demand as a result of it's limited total supply.

One of Bitcoin biggest value is that it is decentralized, if you hold it in a none custodial wallet you have a total control over it which is privacy and freedom, Bitcoin network is not controlled by any government or institutions. This is why as a currency it is a hedge against inflation for fiat which a government can decide to print out of thine air with unlimited supply. Therefore Bitcoin has become a store of value that has potentials to reach ATH on the long term.

Before we can discuss scarcity, demand, or value, there must first be something that exists to be scarce, demanded, or valued.

Gold exists. Diamonds exist. We can analyze them to determine whether they provide benefits and therefore whether they are valuable assets.

You begin by talking about scarcity, demand, and value as though "bitcoins" exist and possess those properties. That is precisely what my article disputes.

The Bitcoin network exists. Its software exists. Its protocol exists. Its rules exist. The recorded numbers associated with addresses exist.

What my article disputes is the existence of what you call "bitcoins."

A rule limiting the sum of the recorded numbers associated with addresses does not create a scarce supply of "bitcoins." It merely limits the sum of those recorded numbers.

Likewise, people paying for recorded numbers does not establish that "bitcoins" exist. It only establishes that people are currently willing to pay for recorded numbers while believing they are buying "bitcoins."

So, once again, your entire argument begins by assuming the very thing my article disputes instead of establishing it.

[bitLeap]

Thank you, Op. I've finally concluded that I should continue saving more money to buy Bitcoin. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, but I'm sure 90% of us only read the headline, and you have every right to distrust Bitcoin.

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

[decodx]

What my article disputes is the existence of what you call "bitcoins."

You are right, "bitcoins" don't exist. Neither do "dollars" in your bank account. Congrats on learning the definition of an abstract accounting unit!

A rule limiting the sum of the recorded numbers associated with addresses does not create a scarce supply of "bitcoins." It merely limits the sum of those recorded numbers.

Guess what? A rule limiting the sum of the recorded numbers in a central bank's database merely limits those recorded numbers too.

When a protocol mathematically guarantees that the sum of those recorded entries can never exceed 21 million, and forces a global, decentralized network of thousands of nodes to enforce that cap under threat of exile, that is the literal definition of absolute digital scarcity.

Likewise, people paying for recorded numbers does not establish that "bitcoins" exist. It only establishes that people are currently willing to pay for recorded numbers while believing they are buying "bitcoins."

"Potato, potahto"...

[Slow death]

The Bitcoin network exists. Its software exists. Its protocol exists. Its rules exist. The recorded numbers associated with addresses exist.

You can admit that the Bitcoin network exists, you can admit that the Bitcoin protocol exists, you can admit that the Bitcoin software exists. But you can't admit that Bitcoin exists? That's surreal. Are the millions of people buying Bitcoin less intelligent than you? 1 Bitcoin = $62,600. Anyone who withdraws 1 Bitcoin to a bank account will have $62,600 in their bank account and can withdraw $62,600 in cash and buy physical goods, and you had the nerve to lie to your colleague, telling him that Bitcoin doesn't exist and that he was a victim of collective delusion?

If you believe so much in this crazy idea of ​​yours, then why didn't you do a practical test with your colleague? It was very simple: you would write 2 BTC on paper, and your friend, with 2 BTC in his wallet, would try to withdraw it to a bank account and then spend it in the real world. Can you magically write 2 BTC on paper, withdraw it to a bank and have $120,000 appear in your account?

[athanred]

Before we can discuss scarcity, demand, or value, there must first be something that exists to be scarce, demanded, or valued.

And there is: hash function values below a given target. Which is why we have mining.

Are you trying to claim, that hash functions do not exist? Or that they can be easily broken? If breaking the math behind it would be as easy, as taking a piece of paper, and writing some number on it, then math problems would be worthless. If you think it is the case, then you can easily become wealthy, if you know any weakness, and you can demonstrate it.

[Marvelockg]

I concluded, “Every collective delusion inevitably ends in a harsh awakening. When that happens, no one will be willing to give you assets anymore, and your money will be gone forever.”"

This is probably coming from a bitter soul that felt because he is late to being invested in bitcoin that he can just discourage others from being invested in bitcoin by bringing up some cheap argument. So if i invested an equivalent of 2 bitcoin and hold it what i have done is worth nothing? or i have to make a sell before i can ascertain that i have actually held it?

It is not out of place if you are not an enthusiast and certainly, it is not everyone that will believe in bitcoin. that being said, trying to frame up stories just to push a narrative that bitcoin is worthless is what is wrong and dead o arrival.

[o48o]

-cut-
My argument is that before we can discuss value, ownership, or assets, there must first be something that exists. Your reply never addresses that. It simply assumes that "bitcoins" exist and then changes the subject to banking and monetary policy.
-cut-

Are you saying that because you don't agree with the collective agreement on markings in ledger, or understand how it works, it's same as you writing something in a piece of paper?

Thing is that bitcoin doesn't need your acceptance to be accepted by others. To me this all sounds like you had to challenge the concept of ownership and "real" in order to make your point. So may i point out that every ownership is based on some sort of agreement and ledger, just like with bitcoin.

Just because something doesn't fit your definition of "existing" or "owning", it doesn't make it less "real".

[Dunamisx]

This is not the first time we will be having encounter in this manner whereby people give a different approach to bitcoin or even assume it does not exist, but we may not have to argue up on every debate here because not everyone understands what bitcoin is and how it was intended by the founder, so whenever we see people coming with a different ideology in this manner, we just take a look away and avoid argument with them over what will be already known, that they don't know.

[Mariokb]

The Bitcoin network exists. Its software exists. Its protocol exists. Its rules exist. The recorded numbers associated with addresses exist.

You can admit that the Bitcoin network exists, you can admit that the Bitcoin protocol exists, you can admit that the Bitcoin software exists. But you can't admit that Bitcoin exists? That's surreal. Are the millions of people buying Bitcoin less intelligent than you? 1 Bitcoin = $62,600. Anyone who withdraws 1 Bitcoin to a bank account will have $62,600 in their bank account and can withdraw $62,600 in cash and buy physical goods, and you had the nerve to lie to your colleague, telling him that Bitcoin doesn't exist and that he was a victim of collective delusion?

If you believe so much in this crazy idea of ​​yours, then why didn't you do a practical test with your colleague? It was very simple: you would write 2 BTC on paper, and your friend, with 2 BTC in his wallet, would try to withdraw it to a bank account and then spend it in the real world. Can you magically write 2 BTC on paper, withdraw it to a bank and have $120,000 appear in your account?

You've just demonstrated the very confusion my article explains.

No one "withdraws Bitcoin" into a bank account.

A bank account contains units of bank debt...dollars, euros, pounds, etc. The Bitcoin network contains recorded numbers associated with addresses.

What actually happens is that someone agrees to buy your recorded number with dollars. The exchange updates the recorded numbers in the Bitcoin network and transfers units of bank debt in the banking system. Nothing is "withdrawn" from the Bitcoin network into a bank account.

You're treating the Bitcoin network as though it stores dollars, like PayPal or a bank account, from which money can simply be withdrawn. It doesn't.

The fact that someone is currently willing to exchange dollars for a recorded number does not establish that the recorded number identifies units of an existing thing called "bitcoins." It establishes only that a market currently exists for those recorded numbers.

As for your opening question, truth is not determined by counting heads. History is full of examples where millions of people believed something that later proved to be false. The number of believers says nothing about whether the underlying claim is correct.

[Mariokb]

-cut-
My argument is that before we can discuss value, ownership, or assets, there must first be something that exists. Your reply never addresses that. It simply assumes that "bitcoins" exist and then changes the subject to banking and monetary policy.
-cut-

Are you saying that because you don't agree with the collective agreement on markings in ledger, or understand how it works, it's same as you writing something in a piece of paper?

Thing is that bitcoin doesn't need your acceptance to be accepted by others. To me this all sounds like you had to challenge the concept of ownership and "real" in order to make your point. So may i point out that every ownership is based on some sort of agreement and ledger, just like with bitcoin.

Just because something doesn't fit your definition of "existing" or "owning", it doesn't make it less "real".

You've changed the subject again.

My argument is not about whether people agree on a database or whether ownership depends on legal or social conventions.

It's much simpler.

Before we can have ownership, there must first be something to own.

A land registry records ownership of land because the land exists. A shareholder register records units of an existing company. A patent register records patents because patents exist. A bank database records units of an existing debt because the debt exists.

In every case, the records refer to something that already exists.

You simply assume that the Bitcoin database does the same thing. That is precisely the point under dispute.

Saying that people agree on the database or agree on the protocol does not establish that the recorded numbers identify units of an existing thing. It establishes only that people agree which numbers are assigned to which addresses.

[macson]

It merely describes how the illusion is maintained.

If that's the case, why do you keep creating new accounts to stay on the forums discussing the "illusion" you're referring to? I really just want to ignore this bullshit thread, but people keep feeding the AI ​​shitposter, which is actually quite annoying.

[Orpichukwu]

Following your reasoning nothing exists: no software, no digital documents, no games, no operating systems, just pixels on a screen. Btc source can be audited, transactions can be verified, addresses can be signed from uniquely; everything's verifiable and easy to analyze dude Your argument's nonsense.

I have read a lot of criticism concerning Bitcoin and some interesting debate as to why they don’t believe in Bitcoin, but this OP theory is the worst of it all; it holds no ground, and if we were even to go by his logic, internet banking and money which moves through it do not exist; they are just pure illusions we are forced to believe in. The OP is totally in a state of confabulation.