• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

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.
This is just sheer nonsense! If a group of miners has enough mining strength then they can control which blocks get added to the blockchain and maybe even unwind the chain a block or two. That's it. Nobody can change the block reward. This is fixed by a formula.
 
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.

Really? Just five accounts hold half all btc? ...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding. (Admittedly, if they're new/newer/newish accounts that simply speculated right, then this specific argument won't work, that I've added to Gulliver Foyle's observation.)
 
Really? Just five accounts hold half all btc? ...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding.
* GROAN * Don't tell me that you are going to recycle another discredited argument from 2010!

Those who got in early are not scammers because they were not psychic and had no way of knowing if btc would ever be worth anything.
 
Anyway .. all crypto is crashing. 10-20% range. Yes, even $Trump. Is the tariffs ? Will the stock market follow ?
but it's a hedge against the market?

the stock market will follow and crypto will drop even more, people will pull money out of their beanie baby nonsense before rising actual dollars. these tariffs are disastrous.
 
* GROAN * Don't tell me that you are going to recycle another discredited argument from 2010!

Those who got in early are not scammers because they were not psychic and had no way of knowing if btc would ever be worth anything.

Your objection has already been addressed, very clearly, in my post that you quoted from. In the portion that you’ve gone out of your way to snip out there.
 
Your objection has already been addressed, very clearly, in my post that you quoted from. In the portion that you’ve gone out of your way to snip out there.

Maybe you meant something different when you posted "legacy accounts". I get that people who bought in more recently don't hold "legacy accounts".
...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding.
 
Maybe you meant something different when you posted "legacy accounts". I get that people who bought in more recently don't hold "legacy accounts".

Different than what? What is your understanding of the term "legacy accounts", that you brought to bear when reading my post?
 
Different than what? What is your understanding of the term "legacy accounts", that you brought to bear when reading my post?
I'm guessing that you meant something totally different to the wallets that were set up by the creators and early adopters (when mining rewards were the greatest). You might even mean an account at a bitcoin exchange rather than a bitcoin wallet.

Incidentally, Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator) originally set up several wallets and mined a bunch of bitcoins for himself. But he disappeared from the face of this planet and those wallets have never been touched since.
 
I'm guessing that you meant something totally different to the wallets that were set up by the creators and early adopters (when mining rewards were the greatest). You might even mean an account at a bitcoin exchange rather than a bitcoin wallet.

Incidentally, Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator) originally set up several wallets and mined a bunch of bitcoins for himself. But he disappeared from the face of this planet and those wallets have never been touched since.

No, I'm asking you what specific sense of the term you brought to bear when reading, and responding to, my post.

Like I asked, different than what? It's a simple straightforward question, perfectly reasonable given your posts addressed to me. And there's no honest reason why it shouldn't admit of a simple straightforward short one-sentence answer.
 
Why don't you read what I posted instead of doggedly clinging to a lie?

That doesn't sound like a sane response at all, to what was said and asked. At least not a sane response that is remotely honest.

(Neither the first response either --- although there was some possibility there of a reasonable explanation, which is what I was trying to explore. And most certainly not this present response of yours.)

*backs away very, very slowly*
 
You obviously don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever. That is the only way that you are able to constantly disagree with what I posted.
 
What a completely bizarre exchange this is, @psionl0 , even by your standards.

Here, let me just quickly recount it here, and maybe the completely bizarre nature of your responses might become evident even to you when you hear yourself now, just maybe.


---------------


So, I happen to see @Gulliver Foyle ’s post, this one:
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.


I found that observation interesting, the second paragraph specifically, and I responded to @Gulliver Foyle , saying this:
Really? Just five accounts hold half all btc? ...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding. (Admittedly, if they're new/newer/newish accounts that simply speculated right, then this specific argument won't work, that I've added to Gulliver Foyle's observation.)


At which point you mangle up my post in your quote, and respond to that mangled up version of my post, saying this:
* GROAN * Don't tell me that you are going to recycle another discredited argument from 2010!

Those who got in early are not scammers because they were not psychic and had no way of knowing if btc would ever be worth anything.


So I point out to you that that's already addressed in my post, except you cut it out yourself:
Your objection has already been addressed, very clearly, in my post that you quoted from. In the portion that you’ve gone out of your way to snip out there.


And you reply with this random attempt at mind-reading me, for no reason that I can discern:
Maybe you meant something different when you posted "legacy accounts". I get that people who bought in more recently don't hold "legacy accounts".


Not unreasonably, given your bizarre response, I ask you to explain yourself in my next post to you:
Different than what? What is your understanding of the term "legacy accounts", that you brought to bear when reading my post?


Whereupon, instead of answering my question, you respond to me with yet another bizarre and random mind-reading attempt, again for no reason that I can discern:
I'm guessing that you meant something totally different to the wallets that were set up by the creators and early adopters (when mining rewards were the greatest). You might even mean an account at a bitcoin exchange rather than a bitcoin wallet.

Incidentally, Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator) originally set up several wallets and mined a bunch of bitcoins for himself. But he disappeared from the face of this planet and those wallets have never been touched since.


So then I ask you, again, to clearly explain what on earth you’re babbling away incoherently about:
No, I'm asking you what specific sense of the term you brought to bear when reading, and responding to, my post.

Like I asked, different than what? It's a simple straightforward question, perfectly reasonable given your posts addressed to me. And there's no honest reason why it shouldn't admit of a simple straightforward short one-sentence answer.


At which point, another mysterious and apparently random post from you in response, this one:
Why don't you read what I posted instead of doggedly clinging to a lie?


I point out the completely incoherent and random nature of your response in my next post to you:
That doesn't sound like a sane response at all, to what was said and asked. At least not a sane response that is remotely honest.

(Neither the first response either --- although there was some possibility there of a reasonable explanation, which is what I was trying to explore. And most certainly not this present response of yours.)

*backs away very, very slowly*


At which point, you outdo yourself, by saying this to me:
You obviously don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever. That is the only way that you are able to constantly disagree with what I posted.


---------------


There. Do you see now why I’m starting to wonder if we should put up a ‘Beware of Crazy’ warning for this thread?

All of what you’ve been saying here is bizarre, incoherent. But let’s just take the time to focus on that last post of yours, that consists of these two apparently random statements:
“You obviously don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever. That is the only way that you are able to constantly disagree with what I posted.”


Do you really not see that your post is literally incoherent, that you're just saying random things here? Let me spell that out for you:

1. I was addressing @Gulliver Foyle , and commenting on what he had said. I wasn’t even addressing you at all here, nor anything you'd said. I only addressed you afterwards, and that was in response to your posts to me, and to find out why exactly you’d said what you did, and what you meant.

2. I didn’t either disagree or disagree with you about anything there, at all. How could I, since I hadn’t even addressed you or anything you’d said?

3. In as much as I didn’t disagree with you about anything, in these posts, then it is not very …sane of you, is it, to try to cook up weird theories about how and why I’m able to do what I didn’t even do.

4. Why and how the blazes is it “obvious” to you that I “don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever”? What on earth is that complete drivel?


--------------------


I don’t know what on earth’s up with you. If you’re just having a bad day, or a bad life, and would like to acknowledge your extraordinary behavior, and take it back: well then that’s cool, we can shake on this and put this behind us, like sane civilized human beings.

Else you can …well, keep doing you, I guess. Your call. If you choose the latter, despite my taking the time to clearly demonstrate your own …less than sane behavior just now, then I’m not going to be wasting any more time on you after this.
 
Last edited:
What a completely bizarre exchange this is,
That much I can agree with.

You started with "...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding". I presumed that you meant the original wallet holders and pointed out that they couldn't be scamming anybody (they aren't psychics).

Instead of debating the substance of this response, you demanded that I define what I meant by "legacy accounts" (your term). My response didn't satisfy you. You wanted a full legalistic definition with all of the i's dotted and t's crossed.

Why you are so fixated on this detail is anybody's guess but I suppose that you simply don't want to explain why "legacy accounts" (whatever you mean by that) holding more than 50% of bitcoin makes bitcoin a scam. You seem to believe that focusing on this detail will draw attention away from your claim.
 
The easiest way to stop this fruitless exchange may be to get Chanakya’s definition of “legacy accounts” and then start again from there,
 
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?
The blockchain is only ever changed if consensus is met. To achieve consensus, the owners of at least 51% of bitcoins* held must agree that a transaction occurred, including if a coin were mined.

*I believe it's actually a computer decision, but it's easy enough to rig your computer so that it's offline and uncontactable, never mind just writing a programme to only give agreements under conditions you specify.
 
The blockchain is only ever changed if consensus is met. To achieve consensus, the owners of at least 51% of bitcoins* held must agree that a transaction occurred, including if a coin were mined.

*I believe it's actually a computer decision, but it's easy enough to rig your computer so that it's offline and uncontactable, never mind just writing a programme to only give agreements under conditions you specify.
I see, thank you. This seems to imply that those accounts holding the 51% majority must keep buying up 50% of all newly mined coins to maintain their majority.
 
The blockchain is only ever changed if consensus is met. To achieve consensus, the owners of at least 51% of bitcoins* held must agree that a transaction occurred, including if a coin were mined.

*I believe it's actually a computer decision, but it's easy enough to rig your computer so that it's offline and uncontactable, never mind just writing a programme to only give agreements under conditions you specify.
If you don't know how it works then just say so. Don't make it up.

FYI the first computer that creates the next valid block (computes the correct 'nonce') adds the block to the blockchain and collects the block rewards (including transaction fees). There is no "consensus". It is just a race.
 
FYI the first computer that creates the next valid block (computes the correct 'nonce') adds the block to the blockchain and collects the block rewards (including transaction fees). There is no "consensus". It is just a race.
That was also what I had heard. I never understood how 51% could control the blockchain. But I am keen to learn.
 
So not a race after all? Or is it the consensus that determines the winner? What happens if some nodes are offline?
As far as I understand it when the node gets online, it checks other nodes it remembers from the last time, and it starts to compare and verify their ledgers. It's up to the new node at what point it will accept those ledgers and will start to work on them. It's in the node's interest to be part of the correct group, as if it starts to publish wrong ledger, other nodes will quickly notice the difference and will blacklist the node.

Typically the longest ledger is the correct one, as it's computationally hard to create it. So any smaller group of nodes would be unable to create longer ledger. That alone is simple majority mechanism. I'm just not sure if it's the only such mechanism.
 
Yeah, lets not only argue about bitcoin, lets also argue about arguing.

It's not true. It's consensus of NODES in the network. Not bitcoin holders.
You are misapplying the word "consensus". "Consensus" is limited to verifying that each transaction in a node's broadcast block is valid and that the nonce is correct. If either of these fail then the other nodes won't add the block to their copy of the blockchain.

You are right that the "longest chain wins". If a node receives a block whose block number is higher than the one it is currently working on then it has to find the missing blocks on the network and update its own copy of the blockchain. It is misleading to call this a "consensus" since there is no "voting" involved.

Where the 51% comes in is when a group of nodes has more than 50% of the power used in mining. Since in all probability, one of these nodes will generate the next valid block, they could collude to determine which transactions get added to the next block.
 
That much I can agree with.

You started with "...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding". I presumed that you meant the original wallet holders and pointed out that they couldn't be scamming anybody (they aren't psychics).

Instead of debating the substance of this response, you demanded that I define what I meant by "legacy accounts" (your term). My response didn't satisfy you. You wanted a full legalistic definition with all of the i's dotted and t's crossed.

Why you are so fixated on this detail is anybody's guess but I suppose that you simply don't want to explain why "legacy accounts" (whatever you mean by that) holding more than 50% of bitcoin makes bitcoin a scam. You seem to believe that focusing on this detail will draw attention away from your claim.

You presumed right.

Happy to debate. Happy to change my mind even, if warranted, why not. What we're here for. ...But are you so far gone that you cannot recognize the halfwittery, the sheer bizarreness, of your exchanges with me, even when it's clearly presented to you?

Only a true delusional can turn around and project their refusal to answer coherently, neither directly nor even when asked, and their general bizarreness, as my "fixation". Legacy accounts would mean legacy accounts. When you asked me if I was using it differently, I asked you differently than what. Reasonable question. Which is when you went off the deep end with bizarre accusations of lying to disagree with you, when I hadn't even engaged with anything of substance with you.

Do you really not see why you come across as a crazy person? Not everyone haunts this thread, hanging onto every post, and is aware of every argument made here since 2010. Some of us only visit occasionally, and engage with what catches our interest.

If you wish to engage with my post addressed to Gulliver Foyle, then happy to, but you'll have to do that with more than long-drawn out moans and groans, and reminiscences of this thread back in 2010, and random craziness. Rein those instincts in when with me, and behave sensibly; and we're good.

About my post responding to Gulliver Foyle, that sent you into extended groaning and moaning, as far as the substance of it:

1. Like I asked, is it true more than half BTC are owned by just five accounts, like he says?

2. Is it true that those are legacy accounts?

Those are the factual questions here. If you've anything of substance to contribute there, then go ahead, just do that.

If both those are true, then I agree with GF that it's a scam right there. Certainly in terms of the technicalities of vetting being discussed here. But that I'm not familiar with, and am happy to go with what's said here. But at a more fundamental level, and using the reference of stock, that I am familiar with, a promoter holding on to half the stock and making a killing by IPO-ing the rest would be a scam, but for the fact of the fundamental business itself. When there's no underlying business to this scam, then a scam is exactly what it is, quite apart from this technical aspect being discussed here. Whether the law treats it as such, is of course a separate matter, a matter of regulation. If this were stock, selling real estate on the Kuiper Belt, and sans any real business plan or execution beyond that, and stock prices based solely on trade of the stock itself, then a very strong case could actually be made to put its perpetrators away.

So yeah, happy to talk with you if you like on those three substantial points. As long as you leave you physical and mental ailments and you vocalized expressions thereof out of it, cause I just don't care about those.
 
You presumed right.

I am not interested in debating your claims about my "halfwittery" and "sheer bizzarreness".
If both those are true, then I agree with GF that it's a scam right there. Certainly in terms of the technicalities of vetting being discussed here. But that I'm not familiar with, and am happy to go with what's said here. But at a more fundamental level, and using the reference of stock, that I am familiar with, a promoter holding on to half the stock and making a killing by IPO-ing the rest would be a scam, but for the fact of the fundamental business itself. When there's no underlying business to this scam, then a scam is exactly what it is, quite apart from this technical aspect being discussed here. Whether the law treats it as such, is of course a separate matter, a matter of regulation. If this were stock, selling real estate on the Kuiper Belt, and sans any real business plan or execution beyond that, and stock prices based solely on trade of the stock itself, then a very strong case could actually be made to put its perpetrators away.
That doesn't explain why it makes a difference whether an account is a "legacy" account or not.

Your comment about "IPO-ing" makes a lot of this paragraph irrelevant. There is no IPO with bitcoin. Every coin in existence was mined. Similarly, bitcoin is not a business. It is an inaminate (digital) object. It is created by an algorithm and not by some shyster trying to fleece the gullible public.

In spite of this, the distribution of btc has some relevance to this debate but only in that unequal distributions of any commodity is not a good thing. The early miners got a lot of btc but there is no evidence that they did so because they were planning to fleece the public. They just happened to get in at a time when nobody else thought that btc would be of any use to anybody.
 
I am not interested in debating your claims about my "halfwittery" and "sheer bizzarreness".

Nor me. But given you started this, completely unprovoked, by refusing to answer simple straightforward requests for clarification of what you meant by your question to me, and compounded that with bizarre and indeed random accusations of “lying” in aid of supporting my “disagreement” with you --- when I’d not even said anything at all to you, that might amount to either agreeing or disagreeing with you, or that might be seen as either true or untrue --- then that’s completely, 100% on you and you alone.

No one is interested in your bizarreness. No one at all. If you aren’t either, then just refrain from descending into such in the first place. You cannot act like an ass, and then complain when your extraordinary conduct is clearly shown up by having it demonstrated back to you, by directly quoting your own posts --- regardless of whether such demonstration of your bizarre behavior “interests” you.

That doesn't explain why it makes a difference whether an account is a "legacy" account or not.

It would actually make a very substantial difference. Here’s why:

If a company is floated with a business that has zero intrinsic value to the business itself, but the promoters make lots of money simply off of appreciation of the stock price, that and nothing else --- in other words, distilled speculation value, with the intrinsic value of the underlying business that has always been and still is zero --- well then, while that would be actionable in and of itself, but still, if there are five large financing companies that specialize in high-risk speculative ventures, that were early buyers, and subsequently profited from their speculation: then that would amount to speculation, gambles, that have done well, is all, as far as these early investors. They couldn’t personally be held liable for the scam, even if the business is shown to be a scam --- not simply basis their having bought in early, and their gamble having paid off, not if they’ve not done anything else that is questionable. But if there are five individuals or entities that have themselves promoted that stock, and held on to half of it, before IPO-ing it off and that 51% stockholding has appreciated substantially off of nothing more than stock price appreciation: well then, when that business is pronounced a scam, then those individual promoters will definitely be candidates for personal liability for their role in this whole enterprise. Likewise this thing here.

Your comment about "IPO-ing" makes a lot of this paragraph irrelevant. There is no IPO with bitcoin. Every coin in existence was mined. Similarly, bitcoin is not a business. It is an inaminate (digital) object. It is created by an algorithm and not by some shyster trying to fleece the gullible public.

Same principle. An IPO lets an enterprise’s stock be available for investing in, to the public at large --- both during the IPO, and subsequently when it is traded. While in this case, BTC is made available for investing in, to the public at large --- whether directly by purchasing it, or indirectly by putting in the money and time and effort and expertise to mine it.

In spite of this, the distribution of btc has some relevance to this debate but only in that unequal distributions of any commodity is not a good thing. The early miners got a lot of btc but there is no evidence that they did so because they were planning to fleece the public. They just happened to get in at a time when nobody else thought that btc would be of any use to anybody.

Not what I meant. I wasn't referring to the early miners, or indeed the early purchasers (or early pizza sellers). Analogous to founder equity stock here, would be the crypto stock and the wallets belonging to or substantially associated with the founder/s of BTC. (Satoshi N, I guess, if that's clearly established --- I add this qualification because I understand there was some secrecy involved here, and I'm not fully clued in to those details. As well as any other person or entity or organization he may have been associated with, in connection with BTC.)
 
Last edited:
In spite of this, the distribution of btc has some relevance to this debate but only in that unequal distributions of any commodity is not a good thing. The early miners got a lot of btc but there is no evidence that they did so because they were planning to fleece the public. They just happened to get in at a time when nobody else thought that btc would be of any use to anybody.
Isn’t it also the case that the early miners got a lot of btc because in the beginning it didn’t take much effort to mine them?
 
If a company is floated with a business that has zero intrinsic value to the business itself . . . .
This is the corner stone of your entire post and it is totally false. Bitcoin was never "floated". The source code was placed in the public domain and anybody was free to download it and start mining. Markets for trading bitcoins didn't appear until much later when people started seeing a potential profit in mining/trading bitcoin.

And please stop using the term "intrinsic value". It is totally meaningless. Bitcoin has "utility" and that is worth something to some people.
 
This is the corner stone of your entire post and it is totally false. Bitcoin was never "floated". The source code was placed in the public domain and anybody was free to download it and start mining. Markets for trading bitcoins didn't appear until much later when people started seeing a potential profit in mining/trading bitcoin.

I would agree with this, if it is the case that the source code was placed in the public domain completely untouched, completely un-mined. That is, if Satoshi Nakamoto did not enjoy any advantage by virtue of creating the code, when compared with others who might want to mine or trade.

That would be analogous to the promoters not keeping back any stock for themselves at all, but instead IPO-ing it all out at near-zero price, and so enjoying no benefit over other speculators.

Is that the case? Should that be the case, then my analogy still works, but the specifics would then point to this not being a scam per those terms.

Happy to take that onboard, if that is the case.

So: Is it the case that everyone got to start mining at the same time, and after this thing was publicly announced? Without Satoshi Nakamoto (and whatever others he may have been associated with) having already mined some for themselves before having made this freely available to the public, to mine and/or trade as they liked?

A clear unequivocal answer to that question of factuality would settle the issue.

And please stop using the term "intrinsic value". It is totally meaningless. Bitcoin has "utility" and that is worth something to some people.

You don't seem to understand elementary investing terms. An equity stock, for instance, has an intrinsic value that represents the actual worth of that scrip, even in the absence of trading, even if the value it derived from speculation were zero.

It is true that BTC has no intrinsic value. But that is not because intrinsic value is a meaningless term. That is because BTC is intrinsically worthless. (Which is not a pejorative statement, but one of factuality. I'm not using the term "worth", or "value", or indeed "intrinsic value" in any moral or judgmental sense here.)

Please don't ever again say that, that intrinsic value is a meaningless term.
 
Last edited:
So: Is it the case that everyone got to start mining at the same time, and after this thing was publicly announced? Without Satoshi Nakamoto (and whatever others he may have been associated with) having already mined some for themselves before having made this freely available to the public, to mine and/or trade as they liked?
Yes. The history of bitcoin is well documented.
The domain name bitcoin.org was registered on 18 August 2008.[15] On 31 October 2008, a link to a white paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was posted to a cryptography mailing list.[16] Nakamoto implemented the bitcoin software as open-source code and released it in January 2009.[6] Nakamoto's identity remains unknown.[5] According to computer scientist Arvind Narayanan, all individual components of bitcoin originated in earlier academic literature.[11] Nakamoto's innovation was their complex interplay resulting in the first decentralized, Sybil resistant, Byzantine fault tolerant digital cash system, that would eventually be referred to as the first blockchain.[11][17] Nakamoto's paper was not peer reviewed and was initially ignored by academics, who argued that it could not work.[11]

On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block.[18] Embedded in this block was the text "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks", which is the date and headline of an issue of The Times newspaper.[6] Nine days later, Hal Finney received the first bitcoin transaction: ten bitcoins from Nakamoto.[19] Wei Dai and Nick Szabo were also early supporters.[18] On May 22, 2010, the first known commercial transaction using bitcoin occurred when programmer Laszlo Hanyecz bought two Papa John's pizzas for ₿10,000, in what would later be celebrated as "Bitcoin Pizza Day".[20]

Please don't ever again say that, that intrinsic value is a meaningless term.
Sorry, NCD. Something has value only if people are willing to pay for it. If bitcoin had no utility whatsoever then few people would have had any interest in it for long.

An income producing asset (eg shares in a farm or shares in a factory) or an asset that has practical applications other than as money means means that people are automatically going to value it but nothing has value in the absence of anybody willing to pay for it.
 
Yes. The history of bitcoin is well documented.


That seems clear. White paper released, made public, end 2008. And code released early 2009. Per my analogy, and the specific argument I’d initially implied and later on spelled out, that’s like the promoter keeping zero stock, and then buying it up from the market like anyone else might, that was so inclined. (Except here it’s mining, to begin with.)

Agreed, then. No scam, not per the specific argument I’d put forward. Happy to take this information onboard, that I hadn’t been aware of. :thumbsup:


Sorry, NCD. Something has value only if people are willing to pay for it. If bitcoin had no utility whatsoever then few people would have had any interest in it for long.

An income producing asset (eg shares in a farm or shares in a factory) or an asset that has practical applications other than as money means means that people are automatically going to value it but nothing has value in the absence of anybody willing to pay for it.

This matter is moot, as far as the specific we were discussing. And this is OT as well. But perhaps a brief post in clarification may not be out of place. This is a basic misapprehension you seem to be laboring under.

It might make sense, in this context, to think of intrinsic value, or fundamental value, of a scrip as the value it might derive completely independent of trading. So that, if you have a dividend paying stock, then the dividend payouts will form a floor for its intrinsic value, no matter what else. Of course, that’s just the floor, and there’s many other elements that go into making your valuation model --- as you’re no doubt aware --- but ultimately, it boils down to this: Should all trades cease tomorrow, then what will be the worth of my scrip? That’s kind of the bedrock of value investing. (Again, I’m pontificating on basics, but given that it is a basic misapprehension you’ve put forward, that may not be out of place.)

Should trades stop in BTC, then BTC will not have any value at all. By definition, then, it has no intrinsic value. Again, not in the judgmental sense, or a moral sense.

Sure, it has utility. But the point is, this utility is predicated squarely on its being traded. BTC is not a sovereign backed promissory note --- at least not so far, even despite Trump and Musk, not yet --- so that, should trades stop, its value plummets to zero.

I think the argument you put forward here, about BTC's utility, is best exemplified by the Pizza sale, which I think happened before BTC started being traded. If that is correct, that is to say if, in general, there’s enough people willing to use this as currency, even in the absence of trading per se: well then, its wide acceptance and usage (should that be the case) might give it an intrinsic value, completely as a function of that acceptability and that usage. Much like gold.

I don’t actually agree with that argument myself, not for BTC. But leaving that disagreement aside, what you seem to arguing for would, even if it did work --- and I don’t think it does, but regardless of that --- even if it did work, even so, what that would argue for is an intrinsic value at this point for BTC. In no case can you argue that intrinsic value is meaningless.

That statement, that intrinsic value is meaningless, is …well, it simply makes no sense. It’s so wrong that it’s nonsensical.

(In any case, though, and like I said: given the perfectly satisfactory resolution to our actual argument, basis which this sidebar came up, this question itself is moot now.)
 
Last edited:
This matter is moot, as far as the specific we were discussing. And this is OT as well. But perhaps a brief post in clarification may not be out of place.
This is probably just a matter of POV. To me, "intrinsic value" means that something can be given a monetary value even if it is never bought or sold. Something may have value based on its utility (as distinct from its speculative value) but even then, it needs to be traded so that its utility value can be established.

That was the case with bitcoin. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to measure the value of its utility since (like gold) endless speculation has driven its price far beyond what it would be worth based on its utility value alone.
 

Back
Top Bottom