How do you respond without sounding mad?

>>60579961 (OP)
if you owned all the cash in the world it would be worthless too

>>60579961 (OP)
If you owned all the farmland in the world you'd probably get murdered

if i had all the power in the warld i would be supermayng

If you owned all the bitcoin in the world you can't even collect the transaction fees earned by the network, that all goes to the group with $11B of hardware securing the network (no bitcoin needed).

If I had all the barely-legal ass I could fuck, I’d make Reddit niggers seethe.

I own 2 Btc btw

>>60579961 (OP)
Why the FUCK would I care about sounding mad, fuckwitt?

>>60579961 (OP)
not that it's possible to begin with, but there's nothing bad about there being an incentive to never own all the bitcoin in the world

>>60579961 (OP)
how many assets don't really produce anything but are just an ends to a means of extracting money?

>>60579970
Bankers pretty much own the entire planet and nobody is murdering them, you're working for their paper they make out of thin air just like everyone else.

>>60579961 (OP)
It's actually a fair point, but the reality is that no one does own all of it. Instead, it's turned out to be useful for transactions.

>>60579965
Walter Jon Williams wrote a great novel with that as a plot point, titled "This Is Not A Game". That book, the trilogy it's in, and his first Praxis trilogy were his absolute peak. His more recent books have him noticeably declining as an author, sadly.

>>60579961 (OP)
holy shit.
buffett i BOW!!!
i to wish to be a dinosaur aged mf to have been around when (((coca cola)))/(((disney))) etc etc were 0.5 a share!!
jfc HES SMART!!

>>60579961 (OP)
Ownership is a con word for
>allowance
desu. The entire world runs on a single currency from the literal physical inception to this moment
>force

>>60579961 (OP)
I just hold Monero

>>60579961 (OP)
BTC gongo up

>>60579961 (OP)
Firstly, the premise is retarded: Money isn't meant to produce anything. Does a gold bar produce anything? Does a stack of cash in a vault produce anything? No. Their value comes from their monetary properties: scarcity, divisibility, durability, fungibility. Bitcoin excels at all of these, far beyond gold or any fiat currency. Its production is its security and its immutable ledger, which is more valuable than any farm land when the government comes for your assets.
Secondly, the owning all analogy is fallacious for a monetary network: If you owned all the USD, the entire global financial system would collapse, and your trillions would be worthless because there's no one to transact with. Bitcoin's value comes from its decentralized network and distributed ownership, which creates its immutability and censorship resistance. If one entity owned it all, it would cease to be Bitcoin as a trustless monetary network. The analogy deliberately misrepresents what Bitcoin is and how it functions as a monetary system.
Thirdly, Buffett is a boomer asset manager. His expertise is in valuing companies based on their cash flow and productive assets within the existing fiat paradigm. He does not grasp the concept of a truly scarce, decentralized, digital monetary network that functions as a pristine store of value and settlement layer outside of corporate production. He's looking at it through the wrong lens, like trying to judge the internet based on a telegraph machine.
So no, your additional net worth wouldn't be zero. It would be a complete re-ordering of global wealth, and you'd own the very foundation of a new monetary system. But you wouldn't want to own it all, because its power is in its distribution.
This isn't not producing.This is producing censorship-resistant, perfectly scarce, digital wealth. Something his dusty old farmland sure as hell isn't doing

>>60579961 (OP)
I went all in on Pepe a while back and sold yesterday. Feels good to quadruple your money. Might buy a Porsche 911 with the big wing in back. My neighbor is a mechanic and he said do it, we will have some fun.

Land can be stolen and invaded. Bitcoin can't.

>>60580085
Yes, but it obviously doesn't do much in the single to low double digit percent range, because everyone loves Sat and Saylor Moon.

>>60580425
He is good. No question.

>>60580517
Well written, bot, I can not answer on that linguistic level. Nevertheless, I have a bit of doubt regarding censorship resistance. It is public, and therefore easy to censor by society, not the transactions, but the individuals doing them can be tracked down, or prevented from making use of that money.

And the additional net worth would be zero if one would hold a majority of it, this is clear. Imagine Saylor going to 5M coins. That alone would be enough to curb it. It's dangerous already, because people ask themselves, how many entities are behind all the active addresses? Could it be that a dozen people meet in a room every few month, deciding what they do with their absolute majority in Bitcoin. And game theory says that such a game always ends like that, so it's not easy to fix.

Bitcoin doesn't produce cash flow

>>60580092
except that's not true but it wouldn't make your argument

>>60580092
Banks actually hate to own estate because this usually means property tax and/or necessity to work the land out, what means more wage costs as they need a whole other department just to deal with estate development.

>>60579981
What transaction fees? You gonna trade yourself? Lmao.

>>60579961 (OP)
You can't own land. You have to pay the government every year for it, which is also known as renting. Owning all gold or cash would be a better analogy.

>>60580517
>Bitcoin excels at all of these
Bitcoin also excels in transparency, which basically destroys all its advantages if the issue is to free yourself from government-backed fiat tyranny.

>>60580632
"Censorship resistance" is the biggest cope maxis had come with. If globohomo makes BTC unlawful it immediately becomes a product like illegal drugs and annotating all your drug dealing in a worldwide public ledger is absolutely retard.

>>60579961 (OP)
No one wants to own all the bitcoin in the world, not even miners. Only ponzi schemers like Michael Saylor

>>60579961 (OP)
why would i drop to zero? you can still trade it with anyone that wants to trade it for other things in the real world

>>60579961 (OP)
He's right though

>>60579961 (OP)
>>60580517
Biggest risk for bitcoin is government. Most are moving sensibly towards integrating it into their financial systems, but Trump and the Republicans have very publicly indentified themselves with crypto. There's a genuine risk that when the Democrats next get in they pass various laws and taxes intended to hurt or outright ban it because of its association with orange man and his followers.

>>60580672
Demand for drugs completely outpaces a government's ability to stop them

that's exactly the point of bitcoin
they can't own it via central bank, so jews mad

>>60580720
Probably because I don't scream to the world every drug deal I just made as it happens with BTC.

>>60579961 (OP)
Isn't this the same problem with gold?
Buffet does index funds.

He would still buy bitcoin just not ALL of the bitcoin.

>>60580481
Is that the spooky girl?

>>60579961 (OP)
>own all the farmland and apartments in the world
>???
>profit

>>60579961 (OP)

If I owned all the Bitcoin in the world, I would just sell all of it for $100 each to exactly 21 million Americans, decentralizing the network and getting rich in the process.

>>60580810
>still centralized in one country

>>60580517
>Does a gold bar produce anything
Gold has uses even if not treated as a fiat currency. Electronics, jewellery, glassmaking, medicine etc

>>60580890

I don't care. I'll be rich.

>>60579965
that point doesn't help bitcoin though

>>60579961 (OP)
It's impossible unless you never consume anything. When you consume things, such as goods or the services others, you will depart with some of your Bitcoin. Thus a functioning economy would never have some one party owning all the money. So it's a retarded hypothetical.

>>60579961 (OP)
Money is worth exactly as much as people trading it conditionally believe it's worth.

>>60579961 (OP)
did he really need to put it like that to make people understand that bitcoin is inherently USELESS?

>>60581016
Yes it does. The redditor is trying to float some "gotcha" that depicts btc as somehow worthless just because in some impossible scenario it wouldn't hold its value. However when you point out that the same argument applies to cash, this renders the argument impotent, since redditors worship central planning and government oversight, so none of them would disavow it. Thus it exposes the glaring double standard that they have for different assets.
>but it's Warren Buffet's argument
It isn't. He may have said that, but he doesn't believe it is a real argument against bitcoin. He said it as a fill in argument for redditors and other plebs to parrot who can't formulate their own. It is literally too dumb to believe for anyone besides the most ignorant retards.

>>60579961 (OP)
False equivalency. If you owned all farmlands in the world, people would find a way to kill you and steal them.

>>60579961 (OP)
same goes for every currency

>>60579961 (OP)
What? If I owned all the bitcoin in the world the order books don't stop existing. I'd have $2.1T. What kind of jabroni fucked up logic is this?