Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566
Well, to (1) - the original purpose of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant. Bitcoin is a free protocol that has been further developed by many people. Bitcoin is what people make of it. If one of the participants - be it Putin - does not want Bitcoin for his goods, there will be no trade. Just like if he doesn't want euros. But if people produce something and want Bitcoin, a trade can very well come about.
Re:
"As additional miners produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for it, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with Bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they weren't accepted, Bitcoin would lose its transfer properties and lose trust."
I agree with you, but not completely. As I said, the miner is a service provider. If people no longer attributed any value to Bitcoin and no one could use Bitcoin to pay for the electricity that has to be used, then no one would mine it anymore. In this case, Bitcoin would have failed. However, as long as there are people who attribute value to Bitcoin and want something from it, this is not the case and the network regulates itself accordingly.
A Ponzi scheme would collapse without a constant influx of new members. This is not the case with Bitcoin. If the difficulty adjustment in mining did not exist, I would completely agree with you.
Re (2)
The share price is the result of supply and demand. The company behind it generates profits, that's correct - which is why the share price is far from reflecting the "intrinsic value" of the company. The more demand there is and the more buyers come in, the more my share will be worth.
Re (3)
Well, as explained, people assign a value to things. Also on the basis of characteristics. Just as we ascribe a value to gold that is far higher than its industrial use. And again: Bitcoin doesn't have to be what the white paper says it is. Satoshi has relinquished control and the network continues to evolve. But at a fundamental level, it is still just that: a P2P cash system. I can transact trustlessly without a third party.
Since you don't see a use case in Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no value for you. As described, value is subjective.
For me and other people, it has a real use and therefore also a value. And no, there is no distribution structure. It is completely normal for people to talk about something when they are enthusiastic about it. If I buy a kebab and am enthusiastic about it - and tell others about it, then that doesn't make me a sales representative of the kebab store :)
Re 2 (payments)
Of course Satoshi would benefit if he sold coins. But he also took a much higher risk than I did, for example. It was not foreseeable at the beginning that Bitcoin would become something.
Early gold investors also profited more than late investors. Early NVIDIA, Apple investors and the like did the same.
But the thing is: the newbies' money doesn't go to the earlier investors like in a Ponzi scheme. Instead, the price rises and falls based on supply and demand. There is no one who distributes money centrally.
Re(3)
Don't worry, I've read it. But the fact that he bought the cheapest coins is factually incorrect. He only mined together with others, which is why he did not profit more than these other early participants. And as I said, your assertion that he has enriched himself remains an assertion.
I don't even know what your problem is in this regard. He took an extremely high risk and was rewarded for it. Just like an entrepreneur is rewarded for founding a successful company and holding the most shares. However, you cannot accuse Satoshi of intending to enrich himself, as you cannot prove that he sold coins. And even if he were to sell coins at some point, Bitcoin would still not be a Ponzi scheme because the other points do not apply either. The founder's intention to enrich himself is not even a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme - even if it is of course a conclusion.
Re (4)
Nobody has to buy someone else's "product" at a higher price. After all, enough people have already sold their "product" at a loss. Why? Because Bitcoin is traded openly on the market.
Re (5)
As written, the network adapts dynamically to the number of users and miners. No exponential user growth is required, which is why this does not apply to Bitcoin either.
Thank you again for your contribution. I'm glad that we were able to have a constructive discussion at eye level after all - even if the topic is getting on my nerves by now😂 but you have to get through it. At least now people here can form their own opinions
Well, to (1) - the original purpose of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant. Bitcoin is a free protocol that has been further developed by many people. Bitcoin is what people make of it. If one of the participants - be it Putin - does not want Bitcoin for his goods, there will be no trade. Just like if he doesn't want euros. But if people produce something and want Bitcoin, a trade can very well come about.
Re:
"As additional miners produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for it, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with Bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they weren't accepted, Bitcoin would lose its transfer properties and lose trust."
I agree with you, but not completely. As I said, the miner is a service provider. If people no longer attributed any value to Bitcoin and no one could use Bitcoin to pay for the electricity that has to be used, then no one would mine it anymore. In this case, Bitcoin would have failed. However, as long as there are people who attribute value to Bitcoin and want something from it, this is not the case and the network regulates itself accordingly.
A Ponzi scheme would collapse without a constant influx of new members. This is not the case with Bitcoin. If the difficulty adjustment in mining did not exist, I would completely agree with you.
Re (2)
The share price is the result of supply and demand. The company behind it generates profits, that's correct - which is why the share price is far from reflecting the "intrinsic value" of the company. The more demand there is and the more buyers come in, the more my share will be worth.
Re (3)
Well, as explained, people assign a value to things. Also on the basis of characteristics. Just as we ascribe a value to gold that is far higher than its industrial use. And again: Bitcoin doesn't have to be what the white paper says it is. Satoshi has relinquished control and the network continues to evolve. But at a fundamental level, it is still just that: a P2P cash system. I can transact trustlessly without a third party.
Since you don't see a use case in Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no value for you. As described, value is subjective.
For me and other people, it has a real use and therefore also a value. And no, there is no distribution structure. It is completely normal for people to talk about something when they are enthusiastic about it. If I buy a kebab and am enthusiastic about it - and tell others about it, then that doesn't make me a sales representative of the kebab store :)
Re 2 (payments)
Of course Satoshi would benefit if he sold coins. But he also took a much higher risk than I did, for example. It was not foreseeable at the beginning that Bitcoin would become something.
Early gold investors also profited more than late investors. Early NVIDIA, Apple investors and the like did the same.
But the thing is: the newbies' money doesn't go to the earlier investors like in a Ponzi scheme. Instead, the price rises and falls based on supply and demand. There is no one who distributes money centrally.
Re(3)
Don't worry, I've read it. But the fact that he bought the cheapest coins is factually incorrect. He only mined together with others, which is why he did not profit more than these other early participants. And as I said, your assertion that he has enriched himself remains an assertion.
I don't even know what your problem is in this regard. He took an extremely high risk and was rewarded for it. Just like an entrepreneur is rewarded for founding a successful company and holding the most shares. However, you cannot accuse Satoshi of intending to enrich himself, as you cannot prove that he sold coins. And even if he were to sell coins at some point, Bitcoin would still not be a Ponzi scheme because the other points do not apply either. The founder's intention to enrich himself is not even a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme - even if it is of course a conclusion.
Re (4)
Nobody has to buy someone else's "product" at a higher price. After all, enough people have already sold their "product" at a loss. Why? Because Bitcoin is traded openly on the market.
Re (5)
As written, the network adapts dynamically to the number of users and miners. No exponential user growth is required, which is why this does not apply to Bitcoin either.
Thank you again for your contribution. I'm glad that we were able to have a constructive discussion at eye level after all - even if the topic is getting on my nerves by now😂 but you have to get through it. At least now people here can form their own opinions
•
44
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 Well, I put every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme on Bitcoin in the post and then argued accordingly why that doesn't fit. I don't know where I would go sideways.
The actual system, see my post, is not a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't fulfill the core elements or the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Now people here have two opinions and can decide for themselves what they think. It's clear that you and I are no longer on the same page on this topic. If you like, I can address your other points later, but unfortunately I don't have time now.
Regards zurück🙋♂️
The actual system, see my post, is not a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't fulfill the core elements or the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Now people here have two opinions and can decide for themselves what they think. It's clear that you and I are no longer on the same page on this topic. If you like, I can address your other points later, but unfortunately I don't have time now.
Regards zurück🙋♂️
•
11
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 There is a big difference between bringing people closer to a topic out of enthusiasm and trying to push something on people because you profit from it yourself through commissions or similar :)
•
44
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 Does the Gold Bug profit from presenting gold as better money and then selling it later at a higher price? Yes.
Does he profit because he has explained the advantages of gold? No.
I don't have to do anything at first.
It's my individual decision whether I buy, sell or hold Bitcoin.
I don't have to hope/wait for it to become a global currency either. It's enough if I find another trading partner who wants Bitcoin. I don't care what they do with it. That is his individual decision.
Does he profit because he has explained the advantages of gold? No.
I don't have to do anything at first.
It's my individual decision whether I buy, sell or hold Bitcoin.
I don't have to hope/wait for it to become a global currency either. It's enough if I find another trading partner who wants Bitcoin. I don't care what they do with it. That is his individual decision.
•
11
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 However, the "subsequent user" does not have to be a new person that you have to acquire, otherwise Bitcoin will collapse. If you want to spend Bitcoin, you have to find someone who wants it. It's the same with euros, by the way.
You can take my first two sentences as an answer to your question. I used gold as an example because it would be 1:1 the same.
But you can also apply that to any share
You can take my first two sentences as an answer to your question. I used gold as an example because it would be 1:1 the same.
But you can also apply that to any share
•
11
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted