Quote from: edgycorner on July 18, 2022, 05:22:52 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 18, 2022, 05:14:47 PM

Quote from: edgycorner on July 17, 2022, 11:48:21 PM

Quote

hat’s why Bitcoin system is not a payment system. And now, a fan fact. Not only that Nakamoto’s tokens cannot provide utility to their holders. But the holders cannot even show the tokens. All that they can show are numbers in their wallets that represent the amount of the tokens.

I have been doing freelancing gigs lately. Guess how people pay me? Through crypto [highlighted to help out edgycorner.. you can thank me later.]

Paypal has a 10% fee in my country, international bank transfer takes weeks, other payment methods are equally incompetent or riddled with unnecessary fees.
But bitcoins and crypto [highlighted to help out edgycorner.. you can thank me later.]? I get paid instantly, I can convert it to FIAT whenever need be or hodl or convert it into something more stable Tongue

Your arguments are flawed and outdated.

Fuck shitcoins.. we are not talking about shitcoins in this thread.

Bitcoin ain't shitcoin tho.

Do I need to highlight what you wrote? [ok.. I did. you can thank me later.]

Quote from: mynonce on July 18, 2022, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: Snowshow on July 18, 2022, 06:08:48 PM

You can put the following information on blockchain: "1+1=5", and in that way prevent it from being changed. But that doesn't mean one plus one equals five. It's false information. The same is true with bitcoin blockchain. Nakamoto's software writes false information into that database. According to this information, address holders have a specific amount of bitcoins, coins, tokens, asset, digital commodity, or whatever one calls that supposed digital resource. Yet, nobody is able to show that resource.

"1+1=5"<- you are here, see the full picture. In Bitcoin's system it's "1+1=5 ... - 3"

You're on the right track to understand Bitcoin.

First point: in regards to what truth the bitcoin blockchain can verify. Of course, it is not going to verify something that you put on there, except that you put it on there as of such and such block.. So you can prove that you put it on there, but not prove the underlying substance asserted. .which might have some applications regarding when it was put on the blockchain, but the underlying claim may well be a "so fucking what?" in regards to whether they are true.

On the other hand, if we are trying to confirm that x, y z transactions took place, these are real bitcoins, and these many fees and rewards were issued, then that is the truth that the bitcoin block chain is confirming every 10 minutes and reconfirming and verifying all of the coins on the blockchain whether they moved in the last 10 minutes or not. That kind of truth is very powerful when it comes to money, and so Snowshow continues to be disingenuine when he proclaims that bitcoin had been trying to verify truth to underlying claims that are put on the blockchain. .bitcoin cannot do that and only confused or disingenuine people believe it is trying to verify claims merely because those claims are placed on the bitcoin blockchain (timechain) from outside sources.

Edit: I see that tadamichi outlined these ideas pretty well (better than my own rambling on the topic) in his response to Snowshow.

Second point: in regards to Snowshow learning or making progress or on the right track: What an optimist you are mynonce!!!!!

If Snowshow were legitimately confused and/or stubborn, then you are probably correct that sooner or later, he would end up getting it..

The problem with Snowshow is that he somehow sold out and he is pumping bullshit that no person of his actual seeming intelligence could actually believe if they were really trying... so in that sense, the ONLY thing to really wish is that on a personal level he is actually protecting himself and has a stash..

Sure, it is possible that Snowshow is in a similar camp as Peter Schiff, but does anyone believe Schiff anymore, either? sure there are some folks who believe Schiff because Schiff is running a known business in the real world (some recent scandals with Schiff too).. .. maybe because Schiff is a bit less extreme than Snowshow (they are both pretty extreme)? or maybe because Peter is not anonymous (I am not bashing on anonymity.. most of us here are either fully or partially anonymous.. but so many of us here have way more credible and believable positions than either Snowshow or Schiff)..