Re: Bitcoins are Not Real Or how People Blindly Believe Nakamoto's Post

To OP - of course they exchange numbers. That's why it is a DIGITAL currency. If they exchanged something other than numbers, it would be analog.

I read op post and have discovered quiet a lot of things and I have arrived at a conclusion that ops is not ready to unlearn what he think and believe about Bitcoin and it creator Satoshi Nakamoto and ops havhase continually defended his point without making out time to read and absorb the views and data presented by others. That been said
What make Bitcoin real is:
A: Bitcoin is transferable from peer to peer
B: Bitcoin transactions is verifiable using the transaction ID on blockchain.
C: Bitcoin have a dollar value on exchanges
D: Bitcoin is decentralized that is Bitcoin does not have a central control and that is why it is a public ledger.
If with all this facts can not convince ops of the true nature of Bitcoin than I will leave ops to believe whatever he want to believe.makes

Nakamoto disagrees with you. In the Whitepaper they defined bitcoin as a chain of digital signatures. That chain is recorded as a common record and freely available to everyone. Nobody transacts with it. It has no dollar value. That what you call a transaction is attribution of numerical value to an address and adding of it to the chain. It's just playing with numbers, not transacting.

It seems that you are not actually analyzing Nakamoto's product (bitcoin) itself, but just the whitepaper. Of course the whitepaper has generalizations which let you do things like divide by zero, because he whole point of making a whitepaper is to give a summary to non-technical laymen like you.

The fact that you think the whitepaper is the only substance of the Bitcoin blockchain shows the flaw in your thinking. And no amount of "you're mistaken, bitcoin is just a balance on the internet"'s is going to change that.

So, what is BTC? When you got for e.g. 2 attributed to your address, what did you become the owner of? What thing, what resource in the quantity of 2? Well you know ... nothing. Nakamoto gave you a system where you play with numbers. And then you imagine you're trasactig with something in the quantity of that numbers, with this BTC. But there's no BTC. Hence the nonsensical definition of it in the Whitepaper.