Simply, what you have in your wallet is quantity of a fictional or nonexistent thing.
It does exist, it's just intangible. There's a huge difference, if we replace your word with mine. Bitcoin is a
digitally represented asset and it's being distributed as a “debt” to everyone using it. If someone gave me a digital signature saying that these units are now owned by BlackHatCoiner, it means that he just created a debt to me and it can be seen from what we call “block chain”, which is also a digital and hence, intangible chain.
Stating that Bitcoin doesn't exist should mean that Internet doesn't as well. But, being able to read this message thousands miles away is a clear proof that internet
does exist. It's just intangible.
You should picture it in another way. Imagine a 3D printer printing
tangible items called “bitcoins” every 10 minutes and whoever was near the machine could earn them. If some people (bitcoins' owners) started using these coins as a medium of exchange, you'd say that they do exist. What exactly would it change if instead of tangible items, we had a public ledger showing who owns what and that we knew that this ledger can't be censored or erased by anyone's will. It'd not make bitcoins non-existing, but rather intangible. And that's because that ledger wouldn't show an IOU, but a strong proof that you don't owe me anything. You
paid me.
Then, you convince people of your creation being digital, because nowadays, calling something “digital” implies that it is new, innovative and revolutionary.
If anyone is convinced that Bitcoin can be used as a medium of exchange through the internet, then why not using it? No one forced you to believe that being a debtor in this system will be beneficial to you. The whole system relies on the belief that people will use that censorship-resistant ledger as a way to transact their value.
And due to the above, I answer to that too:
Or How Satoshi Nakamoto Tells Lies To People
Satoshi never forced anyone to use Bitcoin. Whoever found it useful, could consider it a medium of exchange. (S)He never lied to anyone.
With all that said, it is obvious why the whole Bitcoin scheme is a ticking bomb that can go off at any time.
Sure, it may still be an experiment, who knows what's waiting for us in the next decades. I personally doubt if it's a ticking bomb.
Anyway, nice post, even if I disagree to lots of your arguments. It's nice to see people expressing their opinions upon this digital era.
Quantity written on the medium is always intangible. You cannot for example touch quantity on paper bills or on deposit account. But quantity is not an asset. Quantity is just a number that expresses the amount of an asset. In blockchain you have the amount, but the asset that this amount is supposed to express is nonexistent. So, Bitcoin is NOT a digitally represented asset. Bitcoin is nonexistent asset. And therefore it cannot be distributed as a “debt”. Granted loans are being distributed as debt and the amount of that debt is expressed with the quantity on paper bills or banking accounts.
Regarding your example. A 3D printer printing tangible items called “bitcoins” every 10 minutes means that the items exist and thus, we can use quantity on some medium to express their amount. But in the current bitcoin scheme you only have quantity on the didital medium but not the items themselves. Neither tangible nor intangible. The items are fictional and as such they are given name - Bitcoins.
So, if instead of tangible items, we had a public ledger showing what address has quantity, that means that there's nothing in the real world that has quantity expressed in the ledger. Wich makes the whole ledger just a giant storage of fake data.