Are Bitcoins Real?

Are Bitcoins Real?

Real:
Adjective:

  1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent:
  2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:
  3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary:

Noun:
the real.
something that actually exists, as a particular quantity.

According to the above definition, Bitcoins are real, i.e. real enough to be exchanged for any goods from any willing seller who is willing to accept Bitcoins.

But the point is dynamic reality of Bitcoins are only real and objective based on intersubjective consensus among those who are willing to accept whatever it is value.
Thus my point, objective = intersubjectivity.

Another critical point I want to make is realness and objectivity of Bitcoins whilst abstract are the same as the realness and objectivity of any concrete thing. The difference is just a matter of degrees of reality.

My point;
Bitcoins are objectively real as conditioned by intersubjective consensus and such realness is the same as as the objective realness of any physical thing.

Agree?

Does anyone has any other philosophical takes to the above?

No.

If the thing that you are talking about is dependent upon, or comprised of, subjective belief, then it becomes real only when such belief is established. The vast majority of the universe doesn’t depend upon belief in any way, thus is not “intersubjective”, consensus is irrelevant.

The reason to believe such is the vast evidence that it existed before I believed it, thus belief cannot be the cause of it.

Bitcoins exist since the belief is established to the extent it has a value and exchanged for goods between seller and buyer at present.
So it is real at present.

The vast majority of the universe is only real when cognized as justified true beliefs [JTB]. JTB is conditioned upon intersubjective consensus behind the scene. If not how else?

Another question in relation to the above.
Is the American Dollar real?

The American Dollar was once supported by a piece of gold of equivalent value in the Reserves.
But at present the American Dollar $ is no more supported by any gold equivalent.
The American Dollar at present is supported by beliefs and intersubjective consensus.

Views?

Yes, Bitcoins is real but it isn’t what most people think it is in that it is just electronic counterfeiting, money laundering, and greater fools money racket.

It’s also an experimental trial run for when they role out eventually the real global singular electronic currency. It’s amusing watching the value of Bitcoin these days go parabolic over the value of gold, I wonder how long that trend will continue.

Yes my bank account is real, but it has to be backed by real dollars.
So the more pertinent question is ‘are the dollars real.’
This is the same with the Statement of Account for one’s balance of Bitcoins.

Thus,

So you agree Bitcoins exist and they are real. They are also objective.

But the critical philosophical point here, the existence and reality of these Bitcoins are totally dependent of beliefs, faith, trust of the system, intersubjective consensus and nothing more.
Note this intersubjective consensus is subliminal, i.e. the people involved do not go about consciously and deliberately agree with each other. Somehow there is an invisible ‘force’ that compel and bind them toward enabling objectivity for these bitcoins.

My critical philosophical question is;
does anyone think these philosophical forces that is fundamental to Bitcoins [based on beliefs, faith and intersubjective consensus are the same as how we realize physical things exist and are real.
My answer is yes.

Agree?

It not only the ECB but exist in other countries and banks as well. But that is not the only reason, there are others.
In any case, this economic point is not for the OP’s epistemological philosophical issue.

My point is the essence of how Bitcoins and Dollars emerge, exists and are real is the same for the typical reality, e.g. physical things. This is the central point of contention between the Philosophical Realism versus the Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Noted you agree Bitcoins are real and they exist. It could have good intentions or it could be a scam but that is not my point.

Note my point;
The critical philosophical issue here is, the existence and reality of these Bitcoins are totally dependent of beliefs, faith, trust of the system, intersubjective consensus and nothing more. IF all these vanish so will the value of Bitcoins.

If the masses understand the existence and reality of Bitcoins are based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, then people will have the knowledge to be more wiser and carefully in investing and using Bitcoins.

Re God exists and is real:
I am also trying to raise awareness, this same fundamentals of making things [like bitcoins, Dollar, any paper currency] exist and real based on beliefs, faith, trust of the system, Emotions, intersubjective consensus and nothing more, is the same with the claim God exists and is real. Just as these flimsy things such as Bitcoins and Dollars are groundless other than beliefs, they and God alike are human-made [collectively and intersubjectively].

That is merely social solipsism. You actually think that the universe didn’t exist until Man popped out and looked around … at what exactly? And from where did he come?

Yes. It is called Proselytizing Atheism.

I have stated many times, solipsism is an incoherent theory.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

If any theory that is nearer to solipsism, it is your kind of beliefs, i.e. Philosophical Realism.
What is ‘real’ to you is only based on processed-sense-data [canned] in your mind.
You will never ever directly cognize and realize what is supposedly real which is totally independent of your self. What is real to you is as follows;

Note on the other hand, the Philosophical Anti-Realist like Kant and others asserted the self interacts and is entangled with the object/reality, not independent from the object and reality. How can this be solipsism if there is such a valid theory.

There are philosophical theories that assert the Universe did not “exist” before humans were around. This is based on very sophisticated philosophical arguments which in beyond your philosophical ken [narrow and shallow].
Note the terms used in this statement ‘exist’ ‘before’ ‘after’ ‘Universe’ are very complex terms with many philosophical views.
In your case, you are applying the Philosophical Realists’ theories on these terms and the whole of such reality is not tenable.

The fact is “I AM” [alive, living, - empirical-rational] so is every one, but I am not accepting your cheap philosophical explanation of “I AM.”

I didn’t disagree.

So you are still clueless as to what “Realism and Solipsism” mean.
Wow… =;

And you didn’t disagree that the universe just popped into existence after Man popped out and looked around.

Where is your justifications and arguments?

Your double negatives is confusing. Note I posted in there,

There are philosophical theories that assert the Universe did not “exist” before humans were around.

This is based on very sophisticated philosophical arguments which in beyond your philosophical ken [narrow and shallow].
Note the terms used in this statement ‘exist’ ‘before’ ‘after’ ‘Universe’ are very complex terms with many philosophical views.
In your case, you are applying the Philosophical Realists’ theories on these terms and the whole of such reality is not tenable.

You are giving the justification and arguments for us. The things that you quote are not saying what you seem to think they say.

Realism IS THE VIEW that there is an objective reality, independent of anyone’s perceptions or beliefs. It is A VIEW, A BELIEF, A PERSPECTIVE, AN ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION.

It doesn’t make the slightest difference whether anyone ever actually knows any truth about that reality. Realism is the BELIEF that it is there.

And your English could use some work.

Haha. Yeah right. And there are theories that homosapian came from outer space. And that Jesus is an alien.

Well, for the rest of us, “before” and “after” are pretty well defined and understood. It really took no special sophistication to learn about them (well … not for the rest of us). And when it comes to the word “exist”, you are seriously out of your league with me.

Truth do not matter? What kind of philosophy are you doing.

Btw, do you understand what is meant by ‘belief’ in the philosophical sense?

This is what I meant your philosophical knowledge is very shallow and narrow.
I suggest you read more extensively on philosophy.

Again,
this is what I meant your philosophical knowledge is very shallow and narrow.

Note we are discussing philosophy.
Note the philosophical ??? raised here,

Not too sure of your ‘valuing.’

This is what is Philosophy of Value;

I take it the question of existence, reality and truth precede the question of value.

I did not give you permission to quote me.

What I “understand” is that you appear to actually comprehend nothing of what you read. And what I suggest is that you learn to read far, far better than you currently do before continuing to proselytize your confusions.

And you keep confusing your own mental vagueness and ambiguity for sophistication and depth, whereas far more clear minded people are way beyond that low cloud of yours, not at all “shallow”.

Perhaps the Socratic method would be of help;
Merely ask a simple relevant question without explanation or preaching and wait for the replies. Use then the consensus of answers to your first question as a guide to what to ask next. If you cannot get a consensus or the answers are not going where you expected, perhaps ask a different question (or heaven forbid actually learn and change your mind). Continue such a procedure until the consensus agrees that your conclusion is unavoidable. Actually it is similar to Resolution Debating, although logic is not necessary for Socrates.

Everyone involved will be better off.

LOL

:laughing:
Yeah, that was good. =D>

I think this one is in the long run possibly more valid as a selfvalung than Bitcoin.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4chQrvNF5lg[/youtube]

It has the same codebase with some common sensical tweaking of the concept its network is inherently self-funding, and thus self-maintaining. Also it has instant payment with fees of fractions of a penny compared to Bitcoins 40/50 dollars.

“Dash is getting a higher usage vs speculation ratio than other cryptocurrencies.”