Is the statement that Bitcoin is a private digital currency correct?

[Roy Asher]

For the first time, the People's Bank of China responded to the recent suppression of virtual currencies, emphasizing its opposition to central bank digital currencies and the threat of stable currencies. These relatively negative new formulations mean that the regulatory situation in the future does not seem to be relaxed.
Fan Yifei, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said that digital currency issuers can be divided into private digital currencies and central bank digital currencies. Typical representatives of private digital currencies are currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as various so-called "stable currencies."

Private digital currencies have no national endorsement, and central bank digital currencies have the state as a credit guarantee.

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

edit：In order to get a better understanding of my topic, I edited it a bit more deeply, thank you.

[cabron]

That is not why bitcoin comes to be decentralized, it's because it's the p2p. Although there is a creator satoshi, he already disappears and he didn't touch his coins too. Don't think about CSW. Why it's decentralized is that no one controls it because it's the network. Its not private but Public.

[pooya87]

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

The best term to describe bitcoin is as its paper calls it: a peer to peer electronic cash system.
It is decentralized meaning there is no "owner" or an "issuer" in the traditional sense of the word. There is a protocol that is enforced by the nodes (peers on the network) and in this protocol when you perform "work" you can be rewarded for that "work" with "new coins". The work is mining and the new coins are the block rewards that enter circulation.

[UKprod]

"The central bank responded to the recent suppression of virtual currencies for the first time, emphasizing its opposition to the central bank's digital currency and stable currency threats. These relatively negative new statements mean that the future regulatory situation will not be relaxed."
In the question answered by the deputy governor, he stated that digital currency issuers can be divided into private digital currencies and central bank digital currencies. Bitcoin is the representative of private digital currency.
If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

Bitcoin is not private digital currency. It is a public blockchain. The main difference in a private and public blockchain is when there is admin who manages as to who can access a blockchain or not. Bitcoin on the other hand does not have admins. It is decentralized and autonomous. Even the verification of transactions (mining) happens on the basis of an autonomous consensus mechanism.

Satoshi Nakamoto only set up Bitcoin public blockchain and thereafter he didn't have any other rights or admin powers over Bitcoin. (However, it is speculated that Satoshi had mined a large amount of Bitcoin in the initial days of Bitcoin).

[Nightz]

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

The best term to describe bitcoin is as its paper calls it: a peer to peer electronic cash system.
It is decentralized meaning there is no "owner" or an "issuer" in the traditional sense of the word. There is a protocol that is enforced by the nodes (peers on the network) and in this protocol when you perform "work" you can be rewarded for that "work" with "new coins". The work is mining and the new coins are the block rewards that enter circulation.

If anything, wouldn't we rather call Bitcoin a public digital currency? Private implies specific ownership and control, which is not the case for Bitcoin but for any other currency or CBDC. Even a CBDC is private in a sense. Not quite sure what the goal was with this statement by that central bank.

[dota2bestplayer]

That is not why bitcoin comes to be decentralized, it's because it's the p2p. Although there is a creator satoshi, he already disappears and he didn't touch his coins too. Don't think about CSW. Why it's decentralized is that no one controls it because it's the network. Its not private but Public.

Even without Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is decentralized. He opened a genesis block and published the news two months before the block opened.

[Ucy]

It's clearly a public network/currency and not owned by a single person just as natural resources like Gold and other precious metals is owned by all rather than being privately owned.
It definitely doesn't make sense to ban Earth's resources like Gold just as it does not make to ban Bitcoin. You could probably only ban it if it's privately owned

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

See how the Chinese government "twist" everything to fit their narratives? How can you call bitcoin private digital currency? Lol, I just shake my head here, this is just their justification to put a ban on everything related to bitcoin. It is obvious that even an average joe or newbie investors knows a thing or two about bitcoin and nothing is close to being describe as "Private".

[avikz]

For the first time, the People's Bank of China responded to the recent suppression of virtual currencies, emphasizing its opposition to central bank digital currencies and the threat of stable currencies. These relatively negative new formulations mean that the regulatory situation in the future does not seem to be relaxed.
Fan Yifei, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said that digital currency issuers can be divided into private digital currencies and central bank digital currencies. Typical representatives of private digital currencies are currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as various so-called "stable currencies."

Private digital currencies have no national endorsement, and central bank digital currencies have the state as a credit guarantee.

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

edit：In order to get a better understanding of my topic, I edited it a bit more deeply, thank you.

Example of private digital currency - Ripple (XRP)

Bitcoin is never a private digital currency. It is true that bitcoin was created by a person or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto but they don't control its mining network. Anyone with sufficient computing power can connect to the network and mine bitcoin. So that's not the characteristic of a private digital currency.

Digital Yuan is yet another example of private digital currency which is backed by PBoC.

[CryptoStar19]

Bitcoin had a fair launch as a cryptocurrency and with the original creator(s) now out of the picture, it's as public a currency as it gets --it's not tied to any backing body, whether individuals or organizations or country.

[ndalliard]

If anything, wouldn't we rather call Bitcoin a public digital currency? Private implies specific ownership and control, which is not the case for Bitcoin but for any other currency or CBDC. Even a CBDC is private in a sense. Not quite sure what the goal was with this statement by that central bank.

Bitcoin is never a private digital currency. It is true that bitcoin was created by a person or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto but they don't control its mining network. Anyone with sufficient computing power can connect to the network and mine bitcoin. So that's not the characteristic of a private digital currency.

if we think about it from the perspective of private property, then i think bitcoin is a private currency. the bitcoin you own (or have to key to unlock the utxos) are private in a sense no one other than you owns them. on the other hand ripple or cbdcs (actually any other currency other than bitcoin) are not private, you don't own them (you could make the case that someone else owns it). what these are is more like closed and not open, that would be better words to describe bitcoin and all the other currencies open vs closed. just my 2 sats.

i just realised, if we go this way, we even might ask ourselves if we own the property we are living on (if we are not renting)...  

[NeuroticFish]

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto?

There's one dirty rule I've heard about in many cases and it works in logic too. It's: garbage in - garbage out.
If you go by some arbitrary rules made by somebody who doesn't know nor care (especially politician or similar), it doesn't matter how good your logic is, the output will still be garbage. Sorry.

So you have to find out (or ask Fan Yifei) to express his statement in more clear terms, all well defined. (Not gonna happen, I know.) All I can say that his classification is incomplete at best.
So I'd simply ignore that... mumbling... and remain to the proper definition Satoshi himself gave: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

[ndalliard]

Is Bitcoin private? Not at all. This is a public domain.

hmm. maybe bitcoin the network is public and bitcoin the currency private? 

[Argoo]

For the first time, the People's Bank of China responded to the recent suppression of virtual currencies, emphasizing its opposition to central bank digital currencies and the threat of stable currencies. These relatively negative new formulations mean that the regulatory situation in the future does not seem to be relaxed.
Fan Yifei, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said that digital currency issuers can be divided into private digital currencies and central bank digital currencies. Typical representatives of private digital currencies are currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as various so-called "stable currencies."

Private digital currencies have no national endorsement, and central bank digital currencies have the state as a credit guarantee.

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

edit：In order to get a better understanding of my topic, I edited it a bit more deeply, thank you.

The People's Bank of China, after the latest attack on bitcoin and its mining, continues to clear the way and place for the activities of its digitized yuan. Even earlier, they prepared regulations in which they declared the digitized yuan to be the property of the state of China and prohibited anyone from using it as a justification for other stablecoins.
Now the Chinese government will try to regulate, or more correctly to put it, restrict or even prohibit the circulation of stablecoins, primarily those that were not issued by the central banks of states.

[Nightz]

If anything, wouldn't we rather call Bitcoin a public digital currency? Private implies specific ownership and control, which is not the case for Bitcoin but for any other currency or CBDC. Even a CBDC is private in a sense. Not quite sure what the goal was with this statement by that central bank.

Bitcoin is never a private digital currency. It is true that bitcoin was created by a person or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto but they don't control its mining network. Anyone with sufficient computing power can connect to the network and mine bitcoin. So that's not the characteristic of a private digital currency.

if we think about it from the perspective of private property, then i think bitcoin is a private currency. the bitcoin you own (or have to key to unlock the utxos) are private in a sense no one other than you owns them. on the other hand ripple or cbdcs (actually any other currency other than bitcoin) are not private, you don't own them (you could make the case that someone else owns it). what these are is more like closed and not open, that would be better words to describe bitcoin and all the other currencies open vs closed. just my 2 sats.

i just realised, if we go this way, we even might ask ourselves if we own the property we are living on (if we are not renting)...  

Yes ok we are looking at two different things. From the perspective of rights in rem you are right, it is a private currency from the perspective of a person holding a private key to unspent transaction outputs. I was rather referring to Bitcoin as a whole, so to say as a public good in its truest sense. Fiat isn't an enduring public good because that good could be destroyed overnight (Venezuela).

So from your perspective, correct, Bitcoin is probably the best form of private property we could ever imagine exactly because its underlying architecture is a public good that is almost indestructible. Does that even make sense what I am saying? I know you understand me, but is it theoretically/philosophically correct?

[ndalliard]

So from your perspective, correct, Bitcoin is probably the best form of private property we could ever imagine exactly because its underlying architecture is a public good that is almost indestructible. Does that even make sense what I am saying? I know you understand me, but is it theoretically/philosophically correct?

yes i understand and agree, if it is theoretically/philosophically correct you have to ask other people, i don't know that

bitcoin the currency = best form of private property
bitcoin the network = public good that is almost indestructible

my 2 sats again 

[mindrust]

For the first time, the People's Bank of China responded to the recent suppression of virtual currencies, emphasizing its opposition to central bank digital currencies and the threat of stable currencies. These relatively negative new formulations mean that the regulatory situation in the future does not seem to be relaxed.
Fan Yifei, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, said that digital currency issuers can be divided into private digital currencies and central bank digital currencies. Typical representatives of private digital currencies are currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as various so-called "stable currencies."

Private digital currencies have no national endorsement, and central bank digital currencies have the state as a credit guarantee.

If Bitcoin is a private digital currency. Then, the issuer is personal. Is this person Satoshi Nakamoto? Is he the owner of Bitcoin? However, Bitcoin is "decentralized." There is no issuer.

edit：In order to get a better understanding of my topic, I edited it a bit more deeply, thank you.

People tend to call it a store of value lately instead. It acts as a currency too but sometimes it is more practical to use a credit card instead because of its speed.

We currently do not know who created bitcoin. It is somebody who calls himself satoshi but this might be one person or a group. Nobody knows.

[DapanasFruit]

This definition or classification is coming from the bankers working for the China government and yes they have the freedom to classify Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency for that matter any way they like. Hell, they even have opposite opinions than us. it is obvious that any currency apart from those issued by the government or their foreign counterparts can be considered as private on the basis that it is not by the government. What is clear here is that for a long, long time we can never expect China to change its current stand on cryptocurrency...therefore we can say that the China case is now officially closed for good. Goodbye, China hello world.

[hatshepsut93]

Either this is a bad translation or the Chinese officials choose poor words to describe Bitcoin. Because "private" means something owned by one individual, and Bitcoin is not owned or issued by anyone. A private currency is a currency issued by company, like for example XRP. Bitcoin is decentralized currency. Maybe they didn't want to use the word decentralized when they compared it and CBDC, because they didn't want people to think that CBDC are not decentralized? That would explain their choice of words.
 

[Darker45]

This is simply a misunderstanding of what's truly private and public. In essence, Bitcoin is the genuine public currency. It is public in the strictest sense of the word. It is owned and controlled by nobody but the general public. There is no central authority from which control is exclusively emanating.

Governments often have a distorted view of what's public. Anything beyond their control they consider private. Anything created and issued outside their authority and power is private. Public is everything they control. That which is beyond is private.