Quote from: tadamichi on July 15, 2022, 09:34:30 PM

Quote from: Snowshow on July 15, 2022, 06:22:01 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on July 15, 2022, 03:29:16 PM

You've deliberately missed this one:

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on July 14, 2022, 06:56:55 PM

False. Once property is stolen/destroyed/lost, fiat numbers suddenly represent non-existent resources. That's why the rich invest on the property, and not on the liability of that property.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

An interesting read : The Strange Case of Nakamoto's Bitcoin
https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/

Apart from the article being pure garbage and unproven accusation after unproven accusation that could fit to anything you apply to it. One example being this:

Quote from: https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/

The most important, and most novel mechanism in the Nakamoto scheme is the way in which Proof-of-work (PoW) is leveraged and combined with mining rewards. Originally, Hashcash’s PoW was proposed as a way to discourage e-mail spam or denial of service attacks by forcing senders to expend CPU time, and hence electricity. Electricity costs money, and while the cost is small, it will scale with the number of emails sent, or connection attempts made. This method of using PoW explicitly ties it to some type of utility being provided. In contrast to the ethical ethos of hyper-financialization found in crypto, this method was preferred to email micropayments as it avoided the administrative and moral issues related to charging for e-mail.

Sending email is utility, but sending value/ payments is not? The amount of mind bending is insane.

The author also has competing conflict of interests that he didnt explicity state, because he runs a company that sells OLTP Solutions¹. Making money on selling garbage, centralized fiat infrastructure, ofc this can be counted as a whole propaganda piece against Bitcoin then. From the writing style of providing no sources, the article already starting out with some wikipedia and the whole evaluation model already being completely unapplicable to have practical results(it can be applied to anything), we can already guess that this author has no practical experiences in academic writing, not a necessity but doesnt help his case either. The only piece of cred found was some shitty 399$ course on Blockchains². Why does it matter? If i used this shitty article as a reference in academia i would either get kicked out or cringed at heavily. Its no necessity to have a degree or anything to put out good information, but this one is a good example of why we have to analyze sources first. And again i dont care about his degree of education, as an academia degree isnt what defines education in the first place, but the quality of this article is a walking red flag and is unusable for any professional work.

And here as a end note, to make it obvious why stating conflict of interests matters and i didnt mention this for no reason:

Quote from: https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/

Using cryptographic hashing techniques to create an append only ledger is not in and of itself exploitative. However, creating a mechanism that enables economic transactions where value is exchanged for value can only serve as a vehicle for fraud. Bitcoin and all cryptocurrency systems as they exist in their present form are examples of harmful technology. They are dangerous and should not be allowed to exist. Value must be tied to the utility provided by a resource, and not to deception or an externality. By defining the unique characteristics of the Nakamoto scheme, we are better positioned to identify them so that we may act accordingly when they are encountered.

[1] https://ca.linkedin.com/in/salbayat
[2] https://101blockchains.com/academy/ https://www.credential.net/18134a57-15cd-4fea-b333-a8a93b453729#gs.g7utld

The author is right. Sending email provides utility because email has info about some aspect of reality that is of interest to the receiver. On the other hand, bitcoin that one receives provides no utility. It's just a token of investment in a Ponzi scheme. It's like if you would give me $100 and in return I would give you a paper sticker saying "Thanks". If you would give me $200 I would give you two such stickers. What utility can such stickers provide to you? None. Regardless if you see "value" in them. They not like casino tokens that you can redeem for cash. That's the difference between value and utility. Bitcoin is like a "Thanks" sticker in a digital form. It provides zero utility but people see value in it and that's why they purchase it.