Quote from: Snowshow on Today at 10:18:06 AM

By that logic you can sent "0.0001" 200,000 times by using Viber or other messaging applications. This would mean "using the number 2" by splitting it into 200,000 parts. Just like that guy can do in Nakamoto scheme. But... sending numbers is completely free. Why would anyone pay $40,000 or give their car just to be able to do something they are able to do free of charge?

What is printed on a bill? What is being sent when you do a wire transfer? Camels? Why wold anyone do wire transfers if they can send numbers on viber or other chat apps? Here i'll send you a 2000 now, lets hope it magically reaches your bank account number. Bitcoin is a payment system, not a random number, how will you design a payment system without numbers? How does what youre saying about numbers have any relevance?

Quote from: Snowshow on Today at 10:18:06 AM

Regarding the rest. You're pretty uneducated about how the banking system operates. You're just repeating nonsense conspiracy theories.

If there was something to correct with what I’ve said, you would’ve done so. I dumbed it down on purpose. Is fractional reserve banking a conspiracy theory? And the minimum reserve requirement the ecb set, too?

Quote from: Snowshow on Today at 10:18:06 AM

Debt that is paid to dollar holders at every loan repayment and that in that way provides utility to people.

This isnt relevant to people who deposit their money into a bank. What if there was negative interest rates and youre loosing money for depositing it, how is it still beneficial? Because this is already happening where im from.

Quote from: Snowshow on Today at 10:18:06 AM

Everything else is completely irrelevant. So here I am not going to educate you about the banking system. But even if I would try to do something like that, this would be a complete waste of time. You're unable to even comprehend the concept of utility in economics, let alone the operation of the banking system.

There is utility in the banking system, but the abuse got out of hand, that is the point. It could work perfectly, if trust wouldnt be abused again and again. In essence what i said was, that deposits arent fully covered/ insured anymore, ofc its more complicated than my previous post made it seem. In a bank run only the first few people will be able to withdraw their money fully, because its not fully backed. When a bank goes bankrupt the borrowers are still ofc obligated to repay, but there is a systemic risk now for any big bank going bankrupt, this would have snowball effects. Ever heard of the term too big to fail?