Allegedly means that something is claimed to be the case, although there is no proof. Nakamoto claimed their system creates money, although it just simulates money via the record of numeric attributions. That's why they defined an electronic coin in terms of the chain. Because there's no money in the system. If there's no money, there's nothing to define, except the components of the simulator. The chain of digital signatures is one such component.

There's no need for me or anyone else to learn about the components of the simulator. Nor about how these components work. Because the whole point of the article is that there's no money in the system, no electronic coins pagged at 21 million. Coins are just simulated via numeric attributions recorded into the blockchain. It's like a stock simulator. It has numbers and names recorded but manages no real equities. It just simulates them via the record.

You're constantly missing the point of the article and respond to irrelevant things. Just try to accept the fact you participate in a simulation and that's it.


 

I am not claiming that the system, the simulator and its components doesn't exist. But money with units pagged at 21 million. That's non-existent. It's just simulated.
So I cannot claim that the Monopoly game simulates capitalist economy if I haven't bothered to study it? Your logic is pretty weak.
Yes, I know that people care about the simulator and its components because they play it with real money and thus need new players to get the money back. But that's irrelevant here.

snowshow now admits


so he admits he has not learned about bitcoin. or learned if it works as intended..

his whole premiss is about an article..

if he read bitcoin code he will learn soo much, real quick and realise how much he didnt know before

I believe it's not hard to know that fiat currency is a total failure but the government will never agree or want to accept the fact about it and in other for them t gain people's trust they have to say something bad about Bitcoin.
I read that someone said Bitcoin is backed with nothing which is not true because Bitcoin is backed with its community support, blockchain technology, and controlled supply.

Having said that, I don't think the number of people that didn't accept Bitcoin should matter to us because at the early stage of every innovative concept only a few people always accepted it and if we go back to the statement made by the OP we can also see that the author of the possible article she read to compose her post is never Bitcoin enthusiast

Money is not a simulation, but a resource. When you have no resource in a system, then you simulate it. Nakamoto did that by simulating a resource quantity via numeric attributions.

C'mon. You're like a child with this "you don't understand bitcoin" argument.
Fiat money is means to express quantity of debt. Debt is a resource traded on the markets just like a product or a service. In the Nakamoto's system you have no resource so it is simulated by mimicking the recording of quantity as explained in the OP.

Wrong! Blockchains provide a distributed ledger for making simulated transaction with realtime records.

The banking system makes real transactions, with debt.

You cannot compare a simulation with the real thing. It's ridiculous.

I agree, Monopoly is not complex enough. It's a simple simulation of capitalist economy.

Stop repeating those nonsense conspiracy theories about fiat money being just paper. Banknotes or bank accounts hold info about quantity of debt that the holders own. Debt is a resource that brings goods, services or labour when it is paid. The article explained this in pretty simple terms, so everyone can understand it. Try to read and educate yourself for a change, instead of being the sheep that follows the herd.

While I generally agree with the definition of economy as a concept and of money as a concept, it's not all that simple. For example, acceptability of local fiat can be very low in a different country, next to nonexistent. That means there's a limit to that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by uniformity as money is often banknotes and coins that aren't unoform at all.
As for the claim that it's a payment simulator, it sounds as it it means it isn't real, it's a fake etc. That certainly isn't it. You know what else is a payment simulator? When you pay by card in a shop, and your online banking tells you that you spent money there. The money will actually leave your account much later, so all 'transactions' we rely on aren't really happening, at least not at that moment. Bitcoin is real enough to work and be trusted.