Bitcoin:How an Anonymous Programmer Created the Biggest Collective Delusion Ever

[Mariokb]

In my previous thread, I explained why there are no "bitcoins" and how Nakamoto's project created perhaps the biggest collective delusion in history. Reading the replies, however, made me realize that many people cannot grasp the basic ontological concepts on which the argument rests.

That is why I rewrote the entire argument from scratch as a simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin. If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

https://medium.com/@mario.kb99/bitcoin-how-an-anonymous-programmer-created-the-biggest-collective-delusion-ever-789d1dd19cad

[Hazink]

If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

Just as Satoshi don’t have time to convince anyone to belive in Bitcoin, if you don’t believe in the idea just fvck off.. and stop looking for someone who will dive into your illusion.

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

[Ambatman]

One of the biggest collective delusion still remains the belief that the government would protect you.

simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin.

Just checked your first thread and I believe this is something you lack
Likewise what money really is.
I'd like to add
If you challenge the status quo doesn't necessarily mean you are smart.

[Smack That Ace]

An anonymous programmer devised a protocol and software that connect computers into a network maintaining a digital file recording which numbers are assigned to which addresses. He also devised rules that limit the sum of those numbers and prevent their duplication.

Is that where you're going to stop? Why not take it one step further?
What we call Bitcoin is not just number. It's an ownership claim recognized within decentralized consensus network. And that network is actual thing that exist.
Thousands of node, miner, hardware device, electricity, code, and most importantly our social consensus all work together to keep this system running. With all of that in place, would you still call it just a text file?

But there was one fundamental problem.
There are no coins.

What's wrong with there being no physical coin?
When you buy share of a company, isn't that a number written on paper? But there is company behind it.
In the case of Bitcoin, security & consensus is also behind it, doesn't that trigger your mind?

People discuss scarcity, transferability, durability, divisibility, value, and asset classification even though nothing exists to possess those properties or to be classified. When a number is reassigned from one address to another, they say that “bitcoins” were transferred or that a valuable asset was received. Yet nothing was transferred, nothing was received, and nothing was analyzed to determine whether it is valuable.

So, can't social consensus itself be considered as real thing?

Does most of gold's value come from its industrial use? Of course not.
A large part of its value come from social consensus, even though you can't physically see or measure that consensus.

The same applies to Bitcoin. Social consensus combined with network security created a real & tangible system.
When bitcoin is transferred, it's not just the ledger that's being updated. The cryptographic control over ownership changes hand, got it?.
That is why you can't simply claim that nothing was transferred.

The delusion went even further. Entire debates developed around whether “bitcoins” are valuable, scarce, or assets, even though nothing existed that could be analyzed to determine whether it was valuable, scarce, or an asset.

So you're saying institution are holding nearly $97 billion in spot Bitcoin ETF AUM for nothing?
And are all those company and even countries, holding Bitcoin in their treasury for absolutely no reason?

[MicroGuy]

Entering this world being taught the simulation is 'real' might be a slightly bigger con job than Bitcoin.

[Exitoral]

I read your article and I can see some flaws I am going to point out. Your assumptions are the flaws I want to point out. Your first assumption I noticed was that you assumed for something to be worth while, they must be an independent object. But many things that we own are rights. For example, bank balance, copyright, patent and so on. With what I just listed, are they physical objects? No they are not. But they exist because we see value in them and we recognise that these things are important and governed by a system. It's the same thing with Bitcoin. We see value in it and it is governed by a system. You can tell why your bank balance is important, that copyright and a lot of things. For Bitcoin it has a protocol that defines that. The system I was pointing out. What is it? It's a cryptographic control of UTXOs. That's the protocol governing Bitcoin.

Another thing I read in your article was how you compared Bitcoin to dollars. Like for real. Can inflation affect Bitcoin just like it is affecting the dollars?  No. You also made mention of debt as if Bitcoin claimed to represent debt. How will you be judging Bitcoin using traditional finance when Bitcoin works entirely different.

It's people that tell what has value or not. Will you now call all of us delusional just because the things that work just like Bitcoin have value and we are using it? Example: domain names, company, that record. All these have value because humans saw the value in them.

[Rain1620]

In my previous thread, I explained why there are no "bitcoins" and how Nakamoto's project created perhaps the biggest collective delusion in history.

Your idea that bitcoin doesn’t exist because it’s not tangible is a kid mentality. If I should agree to your point then Wi-Fi, softwares etc. including this thread of yours doesn’t even exist.

Reading the replies, however, made me realize that many people cannot grasp the basic ontological concepts on which the argument rests.

Bringing in “ontological” as a word cannot shield the fact that you’re absent in understanding when it comes to basic code. Nakamoto has not fooled any, that ledger is verifiable and public, even if your delicate ego and arrogance accepts it or not it doesn’t change anything.

That is why I rewrote the entire argument from scratch as a simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin. If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

https://medium.com/@mario.kb99/how-the-bitcoin-project-created-the-biggest-collective-delusion-ever-80705634ac2d

Believe me, no one is finding it difficult to get your point because it’s exceptional, they’re just pondering how such stupidity found its way to this era. You’re not misunderstood, you’re absolutely wrong and out of point but ego wouldn’t let you admit.


To those who might not understand the op, you might need to visit his first thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5590141.msg67003213#msg67003213

[ColdLava40]

In my previous thread, I explained why there are no "bitcoins" and how Nakamoto's project created perhaps the biggest collective delusion in history. Reading the replies, however, made me realize that many people cannot grasp the basic ontological concepts on which the argument rests.

That is why I rewrote the entire argument from scratch as a simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin. If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

It is absolutely fine not to agree with every other persons ideology but it will be wrong when you try to force your view on others.

Two people cannot have similar opinions and it is normal as we don't expect Bitcoin to be a perfect technology. Not today, it began long before and those who had the positive view of Bitcoin made the most of it.

Can Bitcoin be an actual delusion? Maybe but no. I mean what do you categorize as non delusional? The fiat currency which were supposed to be pegged to the real value of gold bars but are now printed out of thin Air?

Don't let it get into your head, believe in what you chose to and let other do same.

[Mariokb]

Reading these replies has been fascinating because they all demonstrate the very point of the article.

Not one of you has identified the thing that the recorded numbers supposedly count.

Instead, you've described the network, the software, the protocol, the nodes, the hash guessers, the electricity, the cryptography, the consensus, the UTXO model, the database, and the addresses.

I agree that every one of those things exists. My article explicitly says they do.

What none of you have identified is the thing whose quantity is supposedly represented by the recorded numbers.

That is the distinction almost everyone here keeps missing.

A record reading "10" is not 10 coins,  just as it is not 10 patents, 10 digital objects or 10 anything.

The fact that a number is stored in a sophisticated database rather than written on paper does not change what a number is.

The fact that thousands of computers agree on that number does not change what a number is.

The fact that cryptography protects that number does not change what a number is.

The fact that people pay money to have a different number assigned to their address does not change what a number is.

You keep describing the machinery that records and reassigns numbers, as though describing the machinery somehow brings a new kind of thing into existence.

It doesn't.

That is the collective delusion my article describes.

[Mrbluntzy]

Too bad how some persons who have never created anything that has helped a vast majority of people around the world end up criticizing and calling what has helped millions of people around the world a collective delusion. Realistically, I don't know if you have created anything that has helped millions of people just the way Bitcoin has done, especially in the aspect of helping them protect their money and privacy. Whether Bitcoin created a collective delusion or not, which I do not agree with, it is serving as a great advantage to millions of people around the world.

I expected this kind of theory to be pointed to local currencies, which the government can decide to print as much as they want with ease, and even while the purchasing power depreciates, some people still believe they can be saved by it. Meanwhile, inflation is increasing, the prices of things go up, and your local currency loses its purchasing power. I perfectly understand the point of your theory. It's not everyone who has to believe in the vision and mission of Bitcoin.

[Mariokb]

Too bad how some persons who have never created anything that has helped a vast majority of people around the world end up criticizing and calling what has helped millions of people around the world a collective delusion. Realistically, I don't know if you have created anything that has helped millions of people just the way Bitcoin has done, especially in the aspect of helping them protect their money and privacy. Whether Bitcoin created a collective delusion or not, which I do not agree with, it is serving as a great advantage to millions of people around the world.

I expected this kind of theory to be pointed to local currencies, which the government can decide to print as much as they want with ease, and even while the purchasing power depreciates, some people still believe they can be saved by it. Meanwhile, inflation is increasing, the prices of things go up, and your local currency loses its purchasing power. I perfectly understand the point of your theory. It's not everyone who has to believe in the vision and mission of Bitcoin.

Your reply illustrates exactly the point my article makes. You begin by asserting that "Bitcoin has helped millions of people." But that simply assumes the very conclusion under dispute. The Bitcoin project assignes and reassigns numbers according to a protocol. This cannot help anyone. Numbers do not provide privacy, feed people, build houses, create wealth, or enforce rights.

You claim that people benefit, yet you never identify any existing thing that provides those benefits. No company, no debt, no patent, no digital object, nothing that exists in the amount of 50 units when the number 50 is assigned to an address. Instead of addressing that question, you ignore the article and switch to inflation, fiat currencies, and adoption. None of that establishes that assigning or reassigning recorded numbers brings units of a new thing into existence. That's the point you've avoided.

[athanred]

no digital objects

Of course, the whole blockchain is physical, and you have hundreds of GB of data printed on paper, right?

[Mariokb]

no digital objects

Of course, the whole blockchain is physical, and you have hundreds of GB of data printed on paper, right?

So, are you saying that when someone pays $600,000 to have the number 10 reassigned to their address, they become the owner of 10 blockchains?

Of course not.

You know perfectly well what I meant by "digital objects." I was referring to documents, photographs, audio files, videos, software, and other digital things that actually exist.

The blockchain itself is simply the digital record maintained by the network. My article explicitly states that it exists.

What it does not do is bring ten units of a newly existing thing into existence merely because the number 10 appears next to an address.

So pointing out that the blockchain exists does nothing to refute the article. It simply describes the system that records and reassigns numbers.

[athanred]

software, and other digital things that actually exist

Do you think there is no software, which is used to push the whole network forward?

when someone pays $600,000 to have the number 10 reassigned to their address, they become the owner of 10 blockchains?

No, they simply have 10 coins. Each new coin has a cost of making it: currently, you need around 60k dollars, to create a single unit. If you think it is not worth that much, then you can easily prove it, by computing it cheaper, and selling it. Here, the cost is simply measured mathematically, by checking, how hard it is to find a partial preimage of the hash function.

If you think it is as easy, as writing the number "10" on a piece of paper, then try to print 10 dollars in the same way. Making money is hard, which is why they are valuable. If you think making new coins is easy, then you can quickly become wealthy, by producing coins, which other people would accept, no matter if it would be related to dollars, bitcoins, gold, or anything else.

[Mariokb]

software, and other digital things that actually exist

Do you think there is no software, which is used to push the whole network forward?

when someone pays $600,000 to have the number 10 reassigned to their address, they become the owner of 10 blockchains?

No, they simply have 10 coins. Each new coin has a cost of making it: currently, you need around 60k dollars, to create a single unit. If you think it is not worth that much, then you can easily prove it, by computing it cheaper, and selling it. Here, the cost is simply measured mathematically, by checking, how hard it is to find a partial preimage of the hash function.

If you think it is as easy, as writing the number "10" on a piece of paper, then try to print 10 dollars in the same way. Making money is hard, which is why they are valuable. If you think making new coins is easy, then you can quickly become wealthy, by producing coins, which other people would accept, no matter if it would be related to dollars, bitcoins, gold, or anything else.

You're still arguing against claims I never made.

My article explicitly says the software exists. In fact, it begins by describing the software, the protocol, and the network. So asking whether I think the software exists makes no sense.

The real problem is your next sentence:

"They simply have 10 coins."

That is the claim under dispute. You cannot assume it and then treat it as established.

You then explain how difficult it is to satisfy the protocol's proof-of-work conditions. I agree that it requires computation and electricity.

But difficulty does not create a new kind of thing. If I spend a year solving an extremely difficult mathematical problem, I have still not brought units of a newly existing thing into existence.

Likewise, the fact that the protocol requires enormous computational effort before it records a new number does not mean that recording the number creates ten units of something.

[athanred]

If I spend a year solving an extremely difficult mathematical problem, I have still not brought units of a newly existing thing into existence.

Why not? They are directly defined in the code as such. Do you think, that mathematicians, who can solve math problems, should not be rewarded?

Likewise, the fact that the protocol requires enormous computational effort before it records a new number does not mean that recording the number creates ten units of something.

It simply means, that if you want to change that information, and assign these coins to someone else, then you have to provide an alternative solution. And when new solutions are produced, roughly every 10 minutes, then it becomes exponentially harder and harder, to change that information.

"They simply have 10 coins."

I can ask the same question about dollars: how much is it worth? And who decided about it? What a single dollar represents? Is there any amount of gold, or anything else, that it is directly referred to? At least in case of Bitcoin, I can count all units, and verify mathematically the correctness of the system. In case of dollars, it is based entirely on trust, and nothing else.

[Kryptowerk]

In my previous thread, I explained why there are no "bitcoins" and how Nakamoto's project created perhaps the biggest collective delusion in history. Reading the replies, however, made me realize that many people cannot grasp the basic ontological concepts on which the argument rests.

That is why I rewrote the entire argument from scratch as a simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin. If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

https://medium.com/@mario.kb99/bitcoin-how-an-anonymous-programmer-created-the-biggest-collective-delusion-ever-789d1dd19cad

YOU are missing the point.

Currencies are always mass-illusions if you will. Or just an agreement of society to simplify trade - with an added abstract layer "without intrinsic value" aka fiat currency. USD, CNY, EUR, you name it.
It's an old story.

Bitcoin just rewrites this story with some amazing added properties the world had never seen before. Thanks to an ingenious combination of cryptographic mathematics.
Such as:
- decentralized consensus without government or central bank control
- censorship-resistance
- a protocol that allows for predictability instead of "random" inflation
- easy access from around the world
- etc. etc. which partly already mentioned by others in the thread.

I doubt you want to have a true discussion to actually expand your current state of mind. You probably just wanna troll or have some attention for your poorly written medium article.
However, if you really do, start with watching 6 or even 10 year old Andreas Antonopoulos videos.
gl, hf

[Mariokb]

In my previous thread, I explained why there are no "bitcoins" and how Nakamoto's project created perhaps the biggest collective delusion in history. Reading the replies, however, made me realize that many people cannot grasp the basic ontological concepts on which the argument rests.

That is why I rewrote the entire argument from scratch as a simple thought experiment requiring no technical knowledge of Bitcoin. If you don't understand the article, then I honestly don't know how to explain it any more simply.

https://medium.com/@mario.kb99/bitcoin-how-an-anonymous-programmer-created-the-biggest-collective-delusion-ever-789d1dd19cad

YOU are missing the point.

Currencies are always mass-illusions if you will. Or just an agreement of society to simplify trade - with an added abstract layer "without intrinsic value" aka fiat currency. USD, CNY, EUR, you name it.
It's an old story.

Bitcoin just rewrites this story with some amazing added properties the world had never seen before. Thanks to an ingenious combination of cryptographic mathematics.
Such as:
- decentralized consensus without government or central bank control
- censorship-resistance
- a protocol that allows for predictability instead of "random" inflation
- easy access from around the world
- etc. etc. which partly already mentioned by others in the thread.

I doubt you want to have a true discussion to actually expand your current state of mind. You probably just wanna troll or have some attention for your poorly written medium article.
However, if you really do, start with watching 6 or even 10 year old Andreas Antonopoulos videos.
gl, hf

The irony is that you begin by mentioning currency, a term that refers to units of an existing thing, regardless of what form that thing takes.

Throughout history, currencies have represented units of shells, precious metals, tobacco, salt, bank debt, central-bank debt, and other existing things.

Then you move on to the anonymous programmer's protocol and software, and the network of computers running them to maintain a shared digital file.

But none of that changes the one simple fact discussed in the article: when that system assigns or reassigns a number in the digital file, no units of a newly existing thing come into existence or are transferred. There is nothing to be currency.

It's remarkable how almost every reply follows the same pattern. Instead of addressing the Bitcoin project's claim about what happens when numbers are assigned to addresses, people immediately start talking about other things that unquestionably exist, as though describing those things somehow establishes the existence of "bitcoins."