• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

that’s not what they have in common and if you can’t figure out what i meant with that comparison then the comment wasn’t aimed at you.
 
no, what i said was it is similar in that a thin veneer of legitimate business is the only thing keep it legal. a few people make money by tricking more foolish people out of their money.
 
dirtywick said:
no, what i said was it is similar in that a thin veneer of legitimate business is the only thing keep it legal. a few people make money by tricking more foolish people out of their money.
Click to expand...
Ah! So something else is barely legal therefore bitcoin is barely legal. People are being tricked out of their money but there are no actual tricksters.
 
no, but its a means to facilitate scams. 30 year old tech and you can use it to buy fortnite skins, gamble on offshore crypto casinos, give it to scammers, or buy other crypto of which many are blatant scams. and not much else.
 
dirtywick said:
no, but its a means to facilitate scams. 30 year old tech and you can use it to buy fortnite skins, gamble on offshore crypto casinos, give it to scammers, or buy other crypto of which many are blatant scams. and not much else.
Click to expand...
All of your posts on this page have been shown to be nonsense. There is no need to repeat what I have already posted on this page about the "only uses" for bitcoin. You are just making things up.
 
i beg to differ. for example, "only uses" isn't the phrase i used. this whole page is you repeatedly getting things wrong to make your arguments work. and you can stop repeating yourself, that would be fine.
 
dirtywick said:
i beg to differ. for example, "only uses" isn't the phrase i used. this whole page is you repeatedly getting things wrong to make your arguments work. and you can stop repeating yourself, that would be fine.
Click to expand...
Pointing out the consequences of your faulty analogies doesn't mean that I am getting things "wrong". It just means that you have to backtrack each time. This is a consequence of your attempts to draw links between bitcoin and bad things where no such links exist.
 
i feel like we've been having a completely different interaction than the one you are describing
 
Bitcoin itself might not be a scam but everyone I see promoting and using it is a scammer or criminal
 
Bitcoin is a scam, but it's possible that it was created in ignorance, not malicious intent.

But there is a simple test: regulate it like any other financial asset, and see if it survives.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Bitcoin is a scam, but it's possible that it was created in ignorance, not malicious intent.

But there is a simple test: regulate it like any other financial asset, and see if it survives.
Click to expand...
Only bitcoin haters say that. Bitcoin is no more a scam than a piece of metal is. It is a digital asset that has some utility due to its unique properties.

What regulations exactly did you have in mind?
 
No, it's nothing like metal y and it's nothing like a currency - until a government says it is.

Money is only money once someone in power is willing to exchange it for something you need, like a way to pay your taxes and fines.
That's why governments issue their own money, so you have to pay it back to them.
Without some level of coercion, crypto is just a way for people to rip each other off.

If you want to make Bitcoin actually useful, you have to have the State run the exchanges.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
About 1), you could compare it to artworks that are sold for huge prices even though they may have practically no assets to back them. For instance the work ‘Comedian’ by Maurizio Cattelan that was recently recently sold for 6.2 million dollars. This work consists of a banana duct-taped to a wall, but the banana and the duct-tape is not what was sold: by buying the work you acquired the right to duct-tape a banana to a wall, and call it ‘Comedian’. Is this a scam? I think not, but for me it is worthless, in every sense of the word.

About 2), I don’t know anything about it, so you may have a point there.

ETA: ‘Comedian’ was bought by a crypto-millionaire. There is some irony in this.
Click to expand...
1) The modern art market is largely a tax dodge, a scam played by the ultra rich on the rest of us. Hence why you've got stuff with no artistic merit, thought or quality like the above named item going for astronomical sums or the career of Damien Hirst.

In terms of 2) five accounts hold over 51% of the bitcoins in existence, therefore they can dictate what goes on the blockchain, up to and including changing the number of bitcoins that can be mined.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
In terms of 2) five accounts hold over 51% of the bitcoins in existence, therefore they can dictate what goes on the blockchain, up to and including changing the number of bitcoins that can be mined.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this part. How can these accounts dictate anything. I thought that if somebody mines a new Bitcoin it will go on the blockchain if it comes first with the proof of work. Are you saying there is a vote, and the 51% win?
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
1) The modern art market is largely a tax dodge, a scam played by the ultra rich on the rest of us. Hence why you've got stuff with no artistic merit, thought or quality like the above named item going for astronomical sums or the career of Damien Hirst.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, I do understand that this can work as a tax dodge, but if we go down the price level I don’t think it is true. A lot of worthless art (I am a notorious philistine) is sold at rather high prices to museums and public offices simply because somebody genuinely thinks it is good. But I knew an artist who openly told his friends that for him it was a money-earning trick: he tore old posters in pieces, glued them to a canvas, and lo and behold, they fetched good prices at galleries even though he himself didn’t think it was anything but junk. But value is in the eyes that see, and I don’t think that the buyers primarily bought them as a tax dodge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom