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

[o48o]

-cut-
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.

That's what bitcoin freaking is. It's numbers and code like all data. Main difference with your number on paper analogy is that you can't fake that data by yourself, as you can prove if "transaction" is legit.

I am not sure if you are trying to argue what "exists" in metaphysical sense, or if you just don't understand how bitcoin works because it's not tangible, but i am willing to bet on latter one. And sincerely, there's no shame of not understanding it as it has been a long road for getting people to understand a new concept.

[Rgram]

We also see the network’s protocol, the software that implements it, and its rules. One of those rules limits the sum of all numbers associated with addresses to 21 million. But nowhere do we find two units that we could call ‘bitcoins’ and analyze. There are no two digital items, such as documents, photographs, or software programs; no two intangible items, such as patents or copyrights; and no two physical items, such as metal coins.

Going through the OP, I realized far too early that the reasoning and bases for this argument was going to be subjected about 2 points and that being:

1. The intangible nature of Bitcoin and
2. The power of the state to make and not to make.

This is a stand that is further supported by the repeated use of physical and documents as used in the article as reported by the OP in the above and below quotes.

I went on, “Now let’s apply exactly the same reasoning to Bitcoin. When Nakamoto’s creation records ‘2 BTC,’ the record does not tell you that you hold two units of any existing thing, such as a debt, a company, a document, a photograph, a software program, a patent, or a metal coin. Consequently, there is nothing to analyze to determine whether it is valuable or whether it is an asset, just as there was nothing when I wrote ‘2 BTC’ on a piece of paper. So, you did not buy two bitcoins. You bought a digitally recorded number: 2.”

I think one thing the author of the article seem to forget is, power first belonged to the people before it is given to the government and at every poll or election, the power does return to the people.
That’s to say, it is actually in the position of the people to make and not to make. Value is placed where an individual deems fit and consequently, the state which has being given such position to act in that capacity.

That’s why, you can’t use the currency of one country to purchase goods in another country.

With Bitcoin, that power stays with the people and that’s why its value has no borders or doesn’t rely on any central authority for validity. It’s value and integrity is maintained by those who actively use it through systems that has being known to work and is being adopted by our society today. Systems like the blockchain technology, miners, people running nodes and lots more. It doesn’t need no declaration or a physicality to it to be valued.

[decodx]

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.

And here is the fundamental flaw in your argument: you think a database must always be a passive shadow of some external physical or legal entity. But that's not how it works at all. You're confusing the label with the object, when in fact the ledger entry itself IS the object.

Just to give you one example: When you buy a domain name like "google.com", what exists before the registry records it? Nothing. There is no physical land, no pre-existing corporate entity, no debt. The registration creates the digital property right through consensus. The record in the DNS system is the asset.

A Bitcoin UTXO is no different; it's an object native to the digital space. Has anyone ever said that it represents a gold bar in a vault somewhere, a piece of land, or some corporate promise? I don't think so. Not even Satoshi. The ledger entry IS the primary reality in the same way your DNS entry is.

And hey - you can certainly deny that domain names are "real" in the traditional sense because they only exist as records in a database right? But is that reality? Can we "own" a domain name?

[Stalker22]

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

You ae stuck in this: "there must be something to own" but you cant actually define "a thing" in a digital realm, can you?

With every example you gave, the "thing" which you claim predates the record was purely abstract, human created, and subject to rules.  Bitcoin is no different, except that its enforcement comes from math and code instead of government, police and courts.  So, your entire argument boils down to your belief in authority instead of math, which is a classic argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, isnt it?

[Alphakilo]

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

You ae stuck in this: "there must be something to own" but you cant actually define "a thing" in a digital realm, can you?

With every example you gave, the "thing" which you claim predates the record was purely abstract, human created, and subject to rules.  Bitcoin is no different, except that its enforcement comes from math and code instead of government, police and courts.  So, your entire argument boils down to your belief in authority instead of math, which is a classic argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, isnt it?

A fallacy in every aspect.
I just finished reading a new post that same Op created to explain this one, that's why I had to come read this to even understand the theory and hearing.

I don't have much to say though because I believe the U.S crypto currency reserve bank and other countries that have crypto reserve banks and have accumulated crypto currency including Bitcoin overtime, are all confused and misdirected. Including the regulations and policies like Clarity Act and agencies like CFTC or SEC that agree on the existence of Bitcoin as an asset and commodity in some instances and other crypto currencies are all delusional too.

I haven't even gotten to the part where large institutional holders accumulate Bitcoin on their balance sheet because they think it's valuable numbers and must have enough of it.

Everyone including OP has a right to air their opinion and that's why while some remain conservative in thoughts and languish in poverty, others take risk and get rich.

[Nothingtodo]

Satoshi did not force anyone to be interested in his Bitcoin, rather he allowed those who wanted to accept Bitcoin and those who did not want to can boycott it. But what you mentioned in your topic is a kind of advertisement for paper money. No matter how much you say, paper money will not exist in the world for a while and at some point people will get so fed up with banks and paper money that then people will become interested in digital currency. Moreover, you or we who are interested in Bitcoin have become interested in it after seeing the terrible inflation of fiat currency. Basically, I have lost confidence in banks and fiat currency because banks do not keep up with me and there is massive inflation in fiat currency, so I have to be forced to be interested in some system that can relieve me of all the troubles and problems. In this regard, there can be no alternative to Bitcoin.

[avp2306]

It seems that OP just want to troll people, by posting crazy claims and pointless statements here.

But let's assume you didn't know anything about it.

Then you are wrong OP since its not good to assume that asset mush have physical existence to be called that asset exist.

Since Bitcoin is the same with those digital asset which is transferrable, people can verify its ownership and have limited supply.

Try to look at you bank balances since its the same numbers in the database. Then the system behinds it give it a value that's why its truly a crazy claims that there's no Bitcoin while in fact it exist successfully same with those digital fiats.

Bitcoin works the same with those other digital assets that you currently know.

So If you assume that Bitcoin does not exist, then those stocks, digital money released by corporate or institution and other assets we could fine online is not true? So you claim is not factual and maybe you just have limited knowledge on Bitcoin that's why you said all of this things.

[tread93]

This reads more like an advertisement for the FIAT system. The OP is himself part of the
collective delusion in the FIAT system!

The system where governments can create more and more at will and debase what they
have already created.

I picked up a pen, wrote “2 BTC” on a piece of paper, and said that I had just created exactly the same record. I explained to him that this did not mean that two units of something had miraculously appeared in my possession. There was nothing to analyze to determine whether it was an asset or whether it was valuable.

You just proved my point above, that 'paper never refuses ink'. But really you created nothing,
nobody else but yourself would hold any value to a piece of paper with your #2 written on it.

I pointed out that what we actually see is a network of computers

In this you are factually correct! That network of computers which remains unbreached is
creating a public digital ledger and is backed by energy, security and a public account of a
capped supply of Bitcoin. Of course its not physical, its digital. Unlike your beloved FIAT
'More' cannot be created.



Thank you for creating this post, anyone doubting Bitcoin will be set on the right path after
reading all the replies.

I mean honestly the nerve of some people lmao. Really just the ignorance of using a totally synonymous example of what fiat currency is to try and describe the supposed unreal bitcoin is ironic lmao. What an idiot. Word blab vomit and slave to the system. Wake up son

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

I pointed out that this is precisely the problem and the very core of the collective delusion in which he was participating. Millions of people are giving away assets just to hold a number, surrendering tangible future benefits for something anyone can create for free with a few strokes of a pen or taps on a keyboard.

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.”"

It's the same with fiat currencies because we only see the numbers in our savings accounts and don't necessarily have them available at any bank branch when we withdraw large sums. I've personally experienced this situation. I read the article and found there was almost nothing in the collective content worth reading, and I also have no intention of convincing you about Bitcoin if you're not interested, don't believe it, or don't know the truth. In fact, Bitcoin has evolved far beyond what was imagined, and everyone recognizes that Bitcoin is a different asset, positioning it as a potential asset.

[davis196]

So, you did not buy two bitcoins. You bought a digitally recorded number: 2.”

Unable to answer, my colleague pivoted, claiming he didn’t actually care because the market is massive and he was bound to make money anyway.

I pointed out that this is precisely the problem and the very core of the collective delusion in which he was participating. Millions of people are giving away assets just to hold a number, surrendering tangible future benefits for something anyone can create for free with a few strokes of a pen or taps on a keyboard.

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.”"

Do we really have to start the old "Bitcoin is a bunch of numbers on an online spreadsheet" debate again? Are we back in 2011? There's no point starting this debate again. Fiat money are also a bunch of numbers on a bank spreadsheet or a bunch of paper with pictures and numbers on it. So what? Fiat money have value, because the government told you, that they have value and because you are legally forced to use them as a legal tender.
Bitcoin has value because the community of Bitcoiners has decided that it has value. No government around the world has told us that BTC has value and no government around the world has forced us to use BTC in our everyday lives.