Quote from: EarnOnVictor on Today at 06:39:18 AM

Quote from: JamesNZ on May 18, 2024, 03:59:17 AM

Quote from: EarnOnVictor on May 17, 2024, 10:35:36 AM

Quote from: JamesNZ on May 15, 2024, 06:01:47 AM

Quote from: EarnOnVictor on May 14, 2024, 08:32:53 AM

You are still moving around the same circle, but on one fault, and that is the fact that you do not accept Bitcoin for what it is, and neither do you agree/believe that there can be a digital asset. This is archaic!

Mind you, an asset is an asset whether you like it or not and in case you do not know, Bitcoin is being used as collateral these days, and maybe it will quench most of the questions you asked thus; "If I were to ask you what asset is held by the BTC unit what would you say? Debt? Equity of a company? A picture like Mona Lisa? A patent, copyright, software license? Wheat, silver, oil?" In as much as an entity can fulfil financial obligations, you do not call it empty anymore. Of course, unless you do not even know what you are talking about.

Fine, Bitcoin was created as an empty unit, which I so much agree with you, but the empty unit was later assigned /units/value, which makes it not empty again (digital or not). That value is the liquidity in Bitcoin which gives it the power to settle debts which you always buttress upon without showing concern that Bitcoin can clear debts as well. Just like a human being, you become dead when your spirit leaves you, but when the spirit enters you again, you are alive and have become a living creature that can function perfectly like any other human being.

All these fiat assets you called out are so (living as in my human example) because of people's relevance and liquidity, once that is withdrawn from them, they become irrelevant (dead as in my human example). The same is applicable to Bitcoin, people's liquidity makes an asset worthy, and the moment people withdraw their money, it becomes worthless. So why do you now want us to segregate Bitcoin even as it has the value of people's money and can fulfil financial obligations like fiat assets?

So basically, your argument is that an empty box that someone sold you for $70K is not actually empty. The trading act magically make a valuable product, an asset to appear in it?

Yes, the moment the box was assigned value and liquidity makes it stopped being empty. When you open it in the blockchain now, you will know what you called empty is no longer empty anymore as block values are constantly being assigned. Bitcoin is a complete system that will do all that fiats can do (if allowed) with no exception. This is possible because it is an asset, a digital one for that matter. But this digital/virtual denotation is where you are missing it, or perhaps you just do not want to accept it.

Whether you like it or not, there are classes of assets, and the digital asset is one of them, which will not do less of any asset if you operate it through the right channel. Bitcoin was empty, it is not empty anymore if that will suit you in the plain term and at this point I urge you not to rely on your understanding of this alone. For it to be digital/virtual doesn't make it less of an asset, it is indeed an asset, not until you see an asset physically before it can be valuable or be used for particular physical projects like what Gold, Diamond, Oil, etc are being used for. Once they can still purchase those physical assets (Gold, Diamond, Oil etc) that you mentioned, they are not less valuable regardless of the form they are.

Quote

Although when you open it you see with your own eyes it is still empty. You know how this is called? Being naive, gullible and delusional.

Nothing is empty in Bitcoin anymore, values and purposes are being signed regularly, you should go and learn how the blockchain works even if we try to neglect the trading aspect that proves it valuable. And this is a reality, my friend, it is never delusional.

Hahaha, this is crazy. So, you order and pay for an iPhone from Amazon, but receive an empty package. When you complain the sender replies that the package is not actually empty. Your payment act "assigned" iPhone to it. They also tell you that you should go and learn how crypto-delivery service works. Hahaha. I think you should seek professional help for mental health.

This is where you are actually getting it wrong and it will continue like this unless you change your overall thinking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created as an empty box (if your narration is to be followed) which I never disputed, but it was later filled with value (liquidity), which now makes it an asset. So, in what you cited, the sender never sent an empty box again in case you do not know and as long as it is Bitcoin we are talking about. How can I send Bitcoin to you and you are saying it's empty, how?

Take for instance, a box was created empty (initial stance), and the box was later filled with Apple products (value) and was sent to a receiver. Are you still telling me that the receiver will receive an empty box despite filling it with value which is the Apple products? It is you who will need to accept "digital assets" as it is and stop believing that all assets must have physical things that back them up. The world is revolving, so should we revolve with it as well?

Lastly, today, if I send you 1 BTC, am I not sending you more than $70,000? It is as simple as that. But I found it so troubling that a simple fact like that is difficult for you to understand. Does an empty box or anything that is valueless be able to deliver over $70,000 into your hand upon receiving it? And you still call it empty? C'mon!!!

Are you for real or are you playing dumb? If I pay you $70K for an empty box and you send it to me what I received is that empty box. I didn't receive $70K. I gave up that money. So, you must be playing dumb because no one can be that stupid to claim that they received $70K when they actually gave up that money.