What does Bitcoin actually do that other monetary systems do not do? For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya.
Bitcoin is like M-pesa except there is no single company that controls it. The people that use m-pesa must trust that Vodaphone won't go bankrupt or devalue their money.
In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?
Owning or using bitcoins does not require mining. Anyone that can use M-pesa can also use Bitcoin.
With the above in mind, is there any fundamental difference between a 'bitcoin miner' and a bank?
A bitcoin miner does not hold, loan, or transfer money. It validates transactions.
Below is a link to a mining simulation. In what way does Bitcoin differ from this? In what way do the virtual 'coins' that are 'mined' by 'miners' differ from the virtual 'materials' that are 'mined' in this simulation?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/321660/Is Bitcoin just a mining simulation? If it is just a mining simulation then why do we pretend that it is 'real'?
Why do we pretend that virtual 'coins' are scarce when they very obviously are not? Why do we pretend that they even have to be 'mined' or 'earned' in any conventional sense? For example, if I were to tell you that the system requirements for playing the above mining simulation are a warehouse full of ASIC processors and vast quantities of electricity then what would you say? Wouldn't you say "That's completely nuts! You're charging me to 'mine' something that doesn't even exist! I can do that on my own PC or device!"
"Mining" is just a metaphor. There is no actual mining of bitcoins.
Elsewhere on this board, I've been informed that 'trust' or 'confidence' can only be established via the "sanctity of the global ledger." Do you agree with this? Or is it the case that 'trust' and 'confidence' are values that are built over time by human interaction? Will someone 'trust' or have 'confidence' in Bitcoin simply by being presented with mathematical 'proof of trust' in the form of an algorithm or a few lines of source code? Or will they say "Actually, I'd prefer to use the system and determine for myself whether I think it's trustworthy or not"?
Bitcoin is 100% transparent. You can be sure that transactions have not been manipulated or forged because the all of the information is publicly verifiable.
"Bitcoin merely replicates the defects of existing monetary systems in pseudo-decentralised form". Do you agree with this statement? If not, why?
No monetary system can be without flaws because value is subjective. Furthermore, money isn't value, it just represents value.