Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin is a crypto cause it is decentralized but not a security so it's not directly regulated by the SEC.

"Crypto" is not a sign of decentralization, most coins these days rely on a small team of developers and their network designs tend to be heavily centralized.

Satoshi never used the word "cryptocurrency" or "crypto" (aside from cryptography). This word got invented when altcoins started emerging. And altcoins are like parasites, they don't like to call themselves altcoins, they call themselves crypto, because crypto means "Bitcoin + altcoins", and it's hard to criticize Bitcoin.

So, stopping calling Bitcoin "crypto" is a good idea, it would separate Bitcoin from alts.

[lionheart78]

I haven't read or heard the full announcement relating to this but I don't think this is what the SEC is saying. Did the SEC say Bitcoin is not crypto? Or did it only say Bitcoin is not a security?

The beginning of the article stated about Bitcoin maximalist referring Bitcoin to be different from other cryptocurrency and stating the Bitcoin infact is not crypto at all.  I think this is where @OP become fixated when he wrote his thread title,

Talk to a bitcoin maximalist – someone who believes that bitcoin is the only digital asset with innate value – and, more likely than not, they’ll tell you the world’s oldest cryptocurrency is, in fact, ‘not crypto’ at all.

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. I guess that is obvious. I know there are many Bitcoin supporters, especially those who shun other cryptocurrencies, who avoid calling Bitcoin a cryptocurrency probably because they don't want it to be categorized with the rest of what they generally label as shitcoins or scam.

I don't agree with them. Bitcoin is a digital currency which uses cryptography for secured transactions. If there are others who created other cryptocurrencies that are of poor quality, it doesn't follow that Bitcoin ceases to be a cryptocurrency.

I agree, it was clear in the article that the topic title is just clickbait so that it gains more interest from the reader but the discussion in that article is more on Bitcoin being not a security and how it is different from other cryptocurrencies that is being labeled a security.

You are absolutely right in comparing Bitcoin to Gold, as both assets share common characteristic, such as scarcity and store of value with the potential to act as potential hedge against inflation.

Bitcoin and Gold do have similarities but most financial institutions believe that Bitcoin is weak as a store of value because of its high volatility.  this is also one reason why financial institution does not consider BTC as money because it fails in one of the properties of money which is stability.[1]


[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp

[skarais]

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency although some people want to classify it differently. I'm not sure why someone would say that bitcoin is not crypto, of course because I don't see bitcoin as something that can separate it from crypto. Just because bitcoin has a high market cap and is one of the pioneers of decentralized currencies, it does not fully qualify to call it non-crypto.

[WatChe]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Regardless of what SEC and other centralised institutes say about Bitcoin the reality is Bitcoin is truly a decentralised cryptocurrency that cant be controlled or manipulated by any centralised institute like SEC itself. The SEC has valid reason to show dis stress in Bitcoin since they are able to control it in its decentralised nature. I find my Bitcoin more secure then my fiat which is constantly going down in value.   

[DooMAD]

Satoshi never used the word "cryptocurrency" or "crypto" (aside from cryptography). This word got invented when altcoins started emerging.

I get the sense it was appropriated from an even earlier time than the onslaught of the alts.  I can find forum conversations in 2010 relating to Bitcoin where the parlance appears to be in use, but on first glance it may be more of a shorthand for "cryptography", rather than "cryptocurrency":  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115.0

Here's an archive.org link for the hardware linked in that 2010 post if anyone was curious.  They really did call their product "Crypto Accelerator 6000":  https://web.archive.org/web/20100324125628/https://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/networking/031146.htm

[coupable]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

I doubt that this is the best solution reached by the SEC to define a definition that is consistent with its vision, especially since it is unable to fit it with the centralization that characterizes its policies. In this way, it will be easy to contain Bitcoin and recognize its eligibility.
I also suspect that the same definition could include dollar-backed stablecoins.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

But this is supposed to include other cryptocurrencies that have the same characteristics. There are fully decentralized currencies that have the popularity that qualifies them to have an important place in the currency market. The first coin that comes to mind is a Dodge coin that could be included under the same definition.

[jeraldskie11]

They can't get anything with Bitcoin. If the SEC can target Bitcoin, they can easily attack new cryptocurrency projects. According to Op, the SEC does not intend to stop crypto, but rather manipulate the market on occasion. There is so much news about the SEC that it has a significant impact on market prices, similar to what happened previously with XRP. Binance has also faced numerous charges, yet it is still operational and capable of carrying out its normal functions.

[ChiBitCTy]

I have to deal with the SEC on a regular basis working in finance, and they are a bunch of fucks let me tell ya (not nearly as bad as FINRA however).  Anyways, finally they get something right.  It's true, bitcoin is very different from most coins.  Most coins (shitcoins) realize that they can't compete with bitcoin on any level when it comes to being a coin that has it's same features just better, so they have to do something to attract customers, and that's when they turn their coins in to securities.  Honestly regulation was well over-needed in this space.

[Pandu Geddon]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

it looks like the SEC is really taking cryptocurrencies seriously and especially Bitcoin. maybe they would talk about different views on Bitcoin if Satoshi wasn't anonymous. I mean Sam Bankman's FTT token (FTX). Vitalik with ETH. Justin Sun with TRX. and also BNB by CZ. The SEC may be very concerned about how the involvement of the founders as one of the reasons that allows market manipulation of the ownership of the assets of the owners.
I think the SEC is trying to think more rationally about their views on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies.

[buwaytress]

Bitcoin is a crypto cause it is decentralized but not a security so it's not directly regulated by the SEC.

"Crypto" is not a sign of decentralization, most coins these days rely on a small team of developers and their network designs tend to be heavily centralized.

Satoshi never used the word "cryptocurrency" or "crypto" (aside from cryptography). This word got invented when altcoins started emerging. And altcoins are like parasites, they don't like to call themselves altcoins, they call themselves crypto, because crypto means "Bitcoin + altcoins", and it's hard to criticize Bitcoin.

So, stopping calling Bitcoin "crypto" is a good idea, it would separate Bitcoin from alts.

Wanted to chime in, but you said all of the things I wanted to. Neither satoshi nor the white paper are guilty of hyperbole -- the hallmark of everything else (yes, including and in particular Ethereum earlier on).

I do think "crypto" (cryptocurrency) is a fair normie description for what Bitcoin is though, with the cabeat that Bitcoin really is different from the rest.

[hatshepsut93]

I get the sense it was appropriated from an even earlier time than the onslaught of the alts.  I can find forum conversations in 2010 relating to Bitcoin where the parlance appears to be in use, but on first glance it may be more of a shorthand for "cryptography", rather than "cryptocurrency":  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115.0

"Crypto" has been a shorthand for "cryptography" for a very long time, long before Bitcoin was created. And cryptographers started to get very annoyed when cryptocurrency enthusiasts appropriated their slang word.

Here's an archive.org link for the hardware linked in that 2010 post if anyone was curious.  They really did call their product "Crypto Accelerator 6000":  https://web.archive.org/web/20100324125628/https://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/networking/031146.htm

This is not Bitcoin- or cryptocurrency-related, just an example that "crypto" meant only cryptography back then.

I do think "crypto" (cryptocurrency) is a fair normie description for what Bitcoin is though, with the cabeat that Bitcoin really is different from the rest.

I think it's crucial that beginners and people from the outside should know right from the start that Bitcoin and altcoins have very different properties. And putting them together under the "crypto" umbrella is counterproductive for this purpose, because it creates a sense of equality between them.

[adaseb]

This title is misleading. Bitcoin is a crypto but it’s different compared to most other cryptos. Cryptos such as Bitcoin, Litecoin , Dogecoin, etc are pure POW coins. There was no premine and the way people got coins was by mining them instead of purchasing them unlike most tokens.

Since most tokens like XRP you couldn’t mine only purchase directly from the developer, they are considered securities. Most tokens listed on exchanges are like this. Back in 2015, most tokens were POW then when ETH erc20 came out everything changed.

[AprilioMP]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

Those who are members of the SEC consist of people with above average abilities who can distinguish the good from the best.
I am happy that the SEC can differentiate between Bitcoin and crypto. I'm also happy because the author of the article can explain to the reader the meaning of Bitcoin not crypto at the beginning.

From what I've read, the thousands of cryptocurrencies available on the market are those who want to develop their own system. Their thinking as the owner of thousands of cryptos cannot profit personally if they continue to be one idea with the basic idea of Bitcoin.

[m2017]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

So, if SEC considers bitcoin decentralized digital cash, what rules of regulation is ready to apply to this type of assets? I understand bitcoin is one of a kind due to this unique status.

The lack of a "safety" qualification means that there is no way for the regulator to control this, while all other "safe" currencies can be influenced by government agencies. In my opinion, this is like a quality mark for bitcoin.

They think bitcoin doesn't meet the security's criteria, which is good. The BTC-community can easily do without it.

[nutildah]

"Crypto" is not a sign of decentralization, most coins these days rely on a small team of developers and their network designs tend to be heavily centralized.

Satoshi never used the word "cryptocurrency" or "crypto" (aside from cryptography).

He absolutely did, one instance of this can be found in this forum:

Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency!  Bitcoin is a digital currency using cryptography and a distributed network to replace the need for a trusted central server.  Escape the arbitrary inflation risk of centrally managed currencies!  Bitcoin's total circulation is limited to 21 million coins.  The coins are gradually released to the network's nodes based on the CPU power they contribute, so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time.

The "cryptocurrency" aspect has nothing to do with the level of centralization/decentralization a coin has, but rather the use of cryptographic proof in accounting for a digital currency. Some cryptocurrencies are less centralized than others; Bitcoin being toward the very end of the least centralized. Furthermore, there are different ways to measure decentralization:

- node count
- miner count
- distribution of hash rate among mining pools
- geographic distribution of nodes/miners

[Kakmakr]

I think the main difference between Bitcoin and Alt coins are this....

There are not one identifiable "creator" of this technology, so there are no single authority that can claim ownership of it. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has not be "verified" and this "entity" (for the lack of a better description) ...cannot control it's destiny. (There is no leader or figure head to call the shots..)

There are also no pre-mine that benefited a small amount of "creators" of this technology. (Satoshi's coins are untouched)  

[lixer]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Did we really need a confirmation from the SEC about Bitcoin not being a security? Didn't we know it already as it has been decentralized since its inception? And how does that take Bitcoin out of the cryptocurrency race? It's a digital currency but since it works on cryptography, it's a cryptocurrency, how does that make any sense to not consider Bitcoin a cryptocurrency because it is not a security? Sure it's different from others, but it was the very first cryptocurrency.

I also don't think that we needed the SEC to make such an announcement for Bitcoin to skyrocket or keep moving forward, they've been attacking cryptocurrencies and exchanges for a long time, which might have caused problems for the platforms but it never created many problems for Bitcoin.

[KingsDen]

The SEC distinguishes Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies and considers it to be a decentralized digital cash, exempting it from the classification of "security" that applies to many other tokens.

Bitcoin, due to its decentralized nature, market cap, and lack of involvement by its founder, does not fit the criteria of a security according to them.

Strap in boys and girls. Space shuttle launch in T-minus 10 and counting...

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2023/07/31/bitcoin-is-not-crypto-the-sec-confirms/

Cryptocurrency = Bitcoin  + Altcoins.
Altcoins = Securities + non security tokens
Bitcoin =/ securities
SEC = confusion
SEC = regulation
Regulation = Cryptocurrency
Therefore, SEC is not for Bitcoin

[nakamura12]

If the information you have found is true that sec thinks that Bitcoin is not a crypto then let them think what they think about Bitcoin because it only means that they see Bitcoin as what it is therefore they will say that Bitcoin isn't a crypto. I am also interested to know how other people see Bitcoin if they also think it is a cryptocurrency or not. For me, Bitcoin is a crypto and the first one to have existed and have been used for many years.

[darkangel11]

If the information you have found is true that sec thinks that Bitcoin is not a crypto then let them think what they think about Bitcoin because it only means that they see Bitcoin as what it is therefore they will say that Bitcoin isn't a crypto. I am also interested to know how other people see Bitcoin if they also think it is a cryptocurrency or not. For me, Bitcoin is a crypto and the first one to have existed and have been used for many years.

Yes, it's true. The SEC doesn't consider bitcoin  a security, but it thinks that of most altcoins, not all though. For instance, they said that ETH is probably a security, but couldn't even begin to set up their case against it. The SEC also claimed that XRP is a security, but lost its first court case... The fact that someone is guilty is one thing, whether you can prove it is another. There are no clear rules here and with all this precedence, the cases are going to drag on for years.