Marcel writes in reply:
Good post on the whole, but a few observations

1. Bitcoin has never been hacked. Exchanges and wallets yes, but not Bitcoin. So point number 4 is mute.
2. There is no way of getting unmined bitcoin. Even if you go through a Faucet, that bitcoin was mined at some stage. Point number 8 is also mute. Just because we as users do not need to mine to get a satoshi from a Faucet or the likes does not mean the Bitcoin was not mined.
3. The exchanges allowing sell trades of Bitcoin without owning it (like etoro for example), are using the same instrument used in forex. In other words, you are trading a currency pair. We are not buying and selling the pair (ex: USD/BTC) on their actual absolute value. We are simply speculating on which currency in the pair will move against the other.
4. I will not say it is impossible to forge a bitcoin, because I learned long ago that nothing is impossible. However, if such a thing, unlikely as it may be, had to happen, the fake bitcoin in question would never be able to get network consensus, and thus become immediately invalidated.

Reply to Marcel:
Thank you Marcel for pointing out 1 (being bitcoin has been hacked). Bitcoin has been able to be removed from a wallet, therefore the wallet, having be the vessel and the cargo, being bitcoin, has therefore been compromised, thus the meaning is that as the whole..but i thank you for the clarity..if one can move the bitcoin from a wallet, that ha is hacked, regardless, hijacked.., however may be the proper word, but again I'd stress by what level of authority could you prove the authenticity of it not being compromised? (You'd have to be greater than a condenses would you not? ) agreed with a lil clarification about where I'm going with this. Additionally thank you for pointing out the clarification for pairs but you're missing a point if when paired, the vessel and cargo..are now part of the very same and similar derivatives and financial products that make for dilution as a whole. So the point you make in your number is correct, and for perhaps much more of a trading audience...in this case the future interest and expectancy is in fact the problem, that which ultimately perpetuates a problem. Finally, for now, it is something must think about and that's all that it is..you can want to assist and say otherwise...after all this technology "lingo" is almost a redressing of the old, and some new terminology and lingo may just be that to which already existed in part or in full, digitally, which when bean counting, I was making a point to which in 2008 and an unbeknownst pseudonyms of the "inventor" may just be the shadow banking and/or it's coherts could be the lurking of a further methodology to regain confidence in a different fashion. You don't hear about that even nearly 10 years ago...the national and public debt being over 1.4 quadrillion dollars (in the states). Instead you may have only been aware of the roughly 16 trillion dollars, of course after the 8 trillion doubled during the northern rock run, and the libor break which provided for a Mark to the Market accounting (an effect which also may have been an advanced move and outside the scope of this response ), thus to which perhaps bitcoin was conveniently disruptively introduced. If you think that it was just an all of a sudden event, we both can agree bitcoin was years in advance of its launch. And we both applaud that. Thus the entirety of the writing of that article was just to address the questions of what is only still confidence with a NON-finate ability to be cross collateralized, insured, etc. That to which once divested questions the so called "scam" dimon makes. The parallel, in this reply, is that of the debt numbers, which was a mere example of what people know and what they don't, Along with the hidden...to which With the exchanged values being different across the board, and spreads moves further provide more dilution, of what could have been stored value Finally, the evidence is abundant about programmers, hackers, and possibilities..to which parallels with your number 4 response and the whole reason for the article.I thank you for your remarks and clarity.

Marcel replied:
Of course, any debate is always a healthy debate. The biggest, sole danger I see, though again unlikely, is that all governments or all the world decide to ban bitcoin, bitcoin wallets and exchanges altogether. This would indeed mean a total collapse of the currency at least in the mid term until a circumvention is found. Your theory cannot be proven nor disproven, so one would be wise to keep an open eye. However, I really do not see any possibility of a 'fake' bitcoin being the danger here. There are far too many checks and balances in place for it to be successful on any scale.

He Continues.:

As for the short selling, this is just like when people buy Gold. It is, I agree, a horrible travesty that companies are allowed to sell something they dont have and that there is not enough supply. Most people who think they own gold, in fact own nothing more than paper. For Bitcoin, I would not dream of recommending to anyone to buy into the coin without having the coin in a hardware wallet and backed up by a paper wallet. Likewise, I wouldnt own gold without having it physically present in my own safe.

My Reply:
That was the whole point of the article....it did not call it a fake..it merely brings about what may or may not be...and no one can prove one or another...and again a discussion topic. :)