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

[20kevin20]

They probably meant or wanted to mean that there are two types of digital currencies: created by public institutions or by individuals. This is the only thing that's private with BTC: its creator. Except Satoshi, I don't think we can call anything else "private" when it comes to BTC.

[1714620508]

1714620508

[1714620508]

1714620508

[1714620508]

1714620508

[1714620508]

1714620508

[1714620508]

1714620508

[1714620508]

1714620508

[GeorgeJohn]

<°°°°>

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.

Bitcoin is a private currency, for it to be private that's what made it decentralized, so no one can jumped into it for manipulation, so emphasising via Satoshi Nakamoto, asking if it's the owner of cryptocurrency, from my own experience i will say that Satoshi Nakamoto only induced or introduce the function or usefulness of cryptocurrency especially bitcoin to the world, so for he to bring up such ideas that is generally accepted by the people today, in think we can partially say that is owner of bitcoin with that fact he introduced it since 2009 with his colleagues that's unknown to everyone using bitcoin today, so in other hands bitcoin is not been regulate to anyone or control by anybody, i want us to understand such concept, it's decentralized right from the day one it was introduced.

[sapnu]

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.

With regards to Satoshi Nakamoto, his existence remains a mystery up until now. Bitcoin being considered as a digital currency can somehow be acceptable for some reasons. Just with the fact that it is not being used physically and is being transacted online makes it a digital currency already that can also be used to purchase stuffs that can be bought through through bitcoin. It has remained as a threat to the government and the economy of many country since it can disturb the current balance or system built by the government. Nevertheless, that system they built are mostly beneficial to them and crypto serves as a savior from the abuse they do to their citizens.

[Nightz]

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.

This pretty much reflects my thought process. Nevertheless it is an interesting discussion about what is truly private and what is truly public as Bitcoin puts this discussion to the test again. It is truly public because there can be nothing more public than a neutral network that grants everyone access in every single country around the world without interference from anyone.

Though I still think there is also a private perspective to be considered. I am not entirely sure how, but for the individual person... well, maybe I am wrong. The problem is that Bitcoin is still subject to superior power. Saying that Bitcoin is the best form of private property because it ensures you are entitled to your rights and claims in a superior way might not be correct. States could still do a lot of stuff to destroy the value of Bitcoin by force.

[perryxi2]

In my opinion this is not true, BTC is a decentralized cryptocurrency and it is clearly not managed by any organization, individual or central bank, not even the founder of BTC.  shatoshi also has no control over BTC, shatoshi is an alias and no one knows about him nor BTC forever no one knows has control.

[odolvlobo]

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.

If "private" means "not issued by a government", then Bitcoin is "private". Either way, there is no "issuer" regardless of any definition.

[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.

The problem is that Bitcoin is still subject to superior power. Saying that Bitcoin is the best form of private property because it ensures you are entitled to your rights and claims in a superior way might not be correct. States could still do a lot of stuff to destroy the value of Bitcoin by force.

Bitcoin, as a protocol, is public. Owning Bitcoin, the native currency of the network, is private ownership. Bitcoin as a private property is indeed superior than others. You may own a piece of land, a savings account in a bank, an apartment, and so on; the sense of ownership of all of this is inferior compared to owning Bitcoin.

However, as regards price value, it is beyond the control of any individual since the public aspect of Bitcoin comes in. The price value is always determined by the general public. No single entity like a central bank or a government determines or dictates its price. Since Bitcoin has no owner or issuer, its value under no one's control, everything depends on the public. As such, it is susceptible to the ills of the old system. But what else could we do? That's the price of freedom. That's the compromise Bitcoin has to take for being truly public.

[DOH!]

I don't agree with this statement, personally I think bitcoin is not just freedom left over, meaning it's available to anyone who loves and believes in it.  Let's clearly realize what kind of "private" is, in legal terms, private is fully protected by legal-based regulation, if in the abstract, personal and private sense, I think it is still  not entirely accurate.  Bitcoin needs success, not for ETFs, but for practicality and performance value in practice

[Dhoe]

Is the statement that bitcoin is a digital currency true? I think it's definitely not true, because bitcoin is clearly a public currency, it can't be owned by one person, if it's true that bitcoin is a private currency, I think everyone on this forum will definitely never adopt bitcoin, bitcoin isn't it personal digital money, but digital currency, must be controlled by yourself...

[cotton ball]

although there are those who say bitcoin is a personal currency, I personally would never agree with their words, I am very sure if someone says bitcoin is a personal digital currency, I think they are people who are not happy with its appearance. bitcoin, because we all here believe bitcoin is a public digital currency, which we can control ourselves without any third party..

[imstillthebest]

the statement is correct.
 btc is a private currency because it wasnt owned by banks but it was only created by a normal person .
 satoshi created btc but i think he isnt issuing it like what banks did to the fiat but we issued our own money when we mined our btc  .
or we can say that an exchange or the person that sells us his btc issues it if we are buying insead of mining.

[ropyu1978]

I personally dare to say it's not true at all, as far as I know bitcoin is a public digital currency, which everyone has the right to control over their digital bitcoin currency, because it is very unlikely that bitcoin is a private digital currency..

[sheryllmcnulty]

Bitcoin is a decentralized crypto currency and doesn't have a proprietor. Yes, it was created by a person who called himself Santoshi Nakamoto but that doesn't make it a private currency because it works on a public block chain network and is used as a reward for someone who completes and adds a block to the blockchain .
So calling Bitcoin a private currency is incorrect as there is no organization or a particular person involved controlling it .

[BlackHatCoiner]

Have you confused it with the privacy that it may offer you? I don't know about other digital currencies, but I know that no one ever referred to Bitcoin as a “private digital currency”. The transactions are transparent to it probably isn't that private.

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 task of issuing is being managed collectively by the network. So, the issuer is the network.

As said by ETFbitcoin, the way you use that term is ambiguous.

[Nightz]

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.

The problem is that Bitcoin is still subject to superior power. Saying that Bitcoin is the best form of private property because it ensures you are entitled to your rights and claims in a superior way might not be correct. States could still do a lot of stuff to destroy the value of Bitcoin by force.

Bitcoin, as a protocol, is public. Owning Bitcoin, the native currency of the network, is private ownership. Bitcoin as a private property is indeed superior than others. You may own a piece of land, a savings account in a bank, an apartment, and so on; the sense of ownership of all of this is inferior compared to owning Bitcoin.

However, as regards price value, it is beyond the control of any individual since the public aspect of Bitcoin comes in. The price value is always determined by the general public. No single entity like a central bank or a government determines or dictates its price. Since Bitcoin has no owner or issuer, its value under no one's control, everything depends on the public. As such, it is susceptible to the ills of the old system. But what else could we do? That's the price of freedom. That's the compromise Bitcoin has to take for being truly public.

Ok I agree that in terms of private property, Bitcoin is probably the best form of private property we can have. I say probably because there are still ways to attack Bitcoin from a government point of view. You could make the tax requirements so unfavorable that it's totally impractical to hold, use or buy Bitcoin. I still think it is superior to other assets given its unlimited cross border mobility and immunity against confiscation (if you do it right).

Concerning the price, I think that applies to all assets. When you have real estate or gold you are also as much exposed to the opinion of the general public as you are with Bitcoin.

[Shenzou]

Bitcoin is decentralized because it is not owned by any company or any individual it is a public network, therefore it is unable to be controlled or manipulated, it is a peer to peer method of doing transactions between two sides without having the need for any intermediate or any third party, all the transactions are visible and verified by all the users, so saying that is a private digital currency is a false statement

[Desmong]

Bitcoin is not private please! It's decentralized without any third party involved. I think what you meant by Bitcoin is private is because transaction only constitutes two participants without any external force. Bitcoin is private in the area of KYC, no barrier for holding need. Nothing like  law or principle that determines the number of coins one can have. No age restriction or approval from the government to hold Bitcoin which is the reason why government are kicking against it.