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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.


"Potato, potahto"...

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.

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 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.

---

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.

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.

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 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.