Stop Misquoting SEC and Shun media propaganda, Bitcoin remains Cryptocurrency

[EarnOnVictor]

"Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms" was a heading from one of Forbes's recent articles, it's so unfortunate that similar interpretations are everywhere and some people have started believing the heresy.

It's high time people stop naivety and start thinking with their brains. Those people holding the power in SEC or have the most powerful media houses are equipped with human beings like you, they are no gods that warrant people to be taking their words as binding. The media is awash with the heresy that Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency, so suddenly? Common!!! Simply because SEC asked Coinbase to delist all cryptocurrency in their trading list except Bitcoin prior to court a suit. Should we now say that those who put their heads together to come up with the widely accepted name called Cryptocurrency are dummies?

Well, to me, the reverse is the case, it's those who are now trying to change their name that is Dummies. Our brains should serve us right before we start running our mouths like water.

Let me start by saying that SEC never withdrew cryptocurrency title from Bitcoin, it only tried to prove that Bitcoin and altcoins have too many dissimilarities to call them a single entity. But the media had their version of this that altered the initial conclusion. Is it that people are lame that they can't think for themselves even if the media says something, to the point that some people have started arguing with me offline on something that is so clear? And if you read the last Coindesk link posted above, you will realize that the SEC only made a "Recommendation," and not binding according to the Chairman of SEC Gary Gensler has. He maintained that 4 commissioners have their different opinions on this and doesn't reflect the institution's position. It's only a fraction of these commissioners aligning with such a recommendation and they couldn't even give a satisfactory reason when further questions were asked.

Should Bitcoin be stripped of the cryptocurrency title because of altcoins? That's ain't gonna happen, they should be the ones to excuse the name for Bitcoin.

By looking at some of Satoshi's Bios and Bitcoin development on Wikipedia, I discovered that two of the little anyone could say of Satoshi is that he's a software and cryptography expert, and the article further shows that "on 31 October 2008, he published a white paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing a digital cryptocurrency, titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

Satoshi used his cryptography knowledge to build a decentralized blockchain digit asset called Bitcoin, which is where the "Crypto" name came from. And for the reason that the digital asset could also serve people in many ways just like fiat currencies in payments, trading and investment, hence the remaining term "Currency."

Crypto + Currency = ? (In case critics and heretics don't know, it's Cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin is the first to fit in for the name, and the only one that has preserved the true need for that name). The rest gradually relinquishes theirs for the latter reason through more scalability and other possible projects that deviate from the purpose.

It's callous for the media to try to strip Bitcoin which is the pioneer and the most respected cryptocurrency of that famous name. I quite understand the position of the SEC, it's the media that went agog and misleading. But if at all, altcoins should be the ones relinquishing that name (cryptocurrency) for Bitcoin, not Bitcoin dropping the name for them.

Bitcoin remains cryptocurrency as far as I'm concerned and will always be, damn anything the media and SEC pass across. They can name altcoins anything they want for all I care.

Maybe they should call them cryptic coins...since they are not certain of what they are.

[Charles-Tim]

I saw that Forbes article like 2 days ago, I later found out that Forbes was referring to what has been discussed on this forum like 3 days ago:

All cryptocurrency are security asset except bitcoin - SEC
SEC asked Coinbase to halt trading in everything except BITCOIN, CEO says

That are news. Some do come with misleading title, which supposed not to be. But if you read further, you will understand where they are driving to, which is correct.

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

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.

The refrain can be confusing: clearly, bitcoin pioneered the use of cryptography – an ultra-secure type of encryption – with the aim of creating a digital currency. Bitcoin is the archetypal crypto.

Even so, the SEC’s lawyers will surely have done their homework on the design and distribution of cryptos before going to court. And, for now at least, they seem to be arguing that bitcoin – and bitcoin alone – has attained the status of decentralized digital cash; an autonomous currency beyond the control of vested interests. Well done Satoshi. Maximalists rejoice.

The title is very inaccurate, but where Forbes was driving at tells the correct story about to see bitcoin different from altcoins. But like on this forum, we refer bitcoin as bitcoin, while other cryptocurrencies as altcoins. But we do not dispute the fact that bitcoin is a cryptocurrency.

[Z-tight]

I don't see any propaganda in all of these, even in this forum it is common practice to see members say that 'BTC isn't crypto', not that it isn't a cryptocurrecy in itself, but just to separate it from altcoins, at least for people who don't know the difference. It is common to see people say that 'all crypto are scams', in that case bitcoiners reply that crypto may be a scam, but BTC isn't.

Nevertheless, people should not stop at the caption of an article, captions can usually be a clickbait, but they have to read the content of the article, and there is nothing wrong with the content of the article in your post. BTC isn't a security, but most altcoins are, and for easy interpretation, you could put it that all cryptocurrencies are securities, but BTC isn't.

[kryptqnick]

I agree with the op, of course, and I've mentioned it in a post earlier in another discussion. It was a clickbait title, and I wouldn't be surprised if a marginal outlet did it, but I think that the top media like Forbes should be above that and strive for a more accurate representation of events. The article itself is okay, but that doesn't justify making an inaccurate title. It might be just the author's style, though, as his most recent article at Forbes is named "Money Printer Go Brr" and then some.

[DaveF]

There are some people here who want to push a certain narrative.
There are others here that want to get clicks on their sites.
There are others who are tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
There are others that are activity working to push their alternative BTC (BSV, others)

Sometimes a statement by others all comes together to get them all pointing in the same direction since it's all they want to hear and promote.

And then we get the endless posts and discussion about what is happening which is what is going on now with this SEC thing.

-Dave

[EarnOnVictor]

I don't see any propaganda in all of these, even in this forum it is common practice to see members say that 'BTC isn't crypto', not that it isn't a cryptocurrecy in itself, but just to separate it from altcoins, at least for people who don't know the difference. It is common to see people say that 'all crypto are scams', in that case bitcoiners reply that crypto may be a scam, but BTC isn't.

I don't think you read what I wrote well, if you did and also followed some media houses and social media posts, then you would clearly see propaganda and deviations from the truth.

Also, the post has answered all that you wrote here already, the fact remains that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, you can't deny that, it's obvious by creation except you just choose not to accept which will still not change the fact, even judging by Satoshi's early work, he defined it as such (See the Wiki article). People only tend to prove things otherwise in a situation like this, I will never join this naivety. The fact remains that the first coin that qualifies for the name (Bitcoin) can't ever relinquish it to altcoins. Those who are talking should find something else others should bear, that's the basis of my post in case you did not understand.

Nevertheless, people should not stop at the caption of an article, captions can usually be clickbait, but they have to read the content of the article, and there is nothing wrong with the content of the article in your post. BTC isn't a security, but most altcoins are, and for easy interpretation, you could put it that all cryptocurrencies are securities, but BTC isn't.

First, the captions are unnecessary, it's a total deviation from the SEC's recommendation. It is also heretic that people are only capitalizing on the situation giving their different definitions just like you do now. As for the security you are talking about, don't let regulators and authors deceive you, Bitcoin and altcoins have more in common than what separates them whether you like it or not. SEC and regulators are only looking for a way they will disintegrate Bitcoin from altcoins that are more controllable before they will later pounce on it.

It's so gross that people are following for the bait, you might remember these words later.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

You know that definitely when some publications are made on social media, some people believe in everything they read without even having a symptom of doubt that compels them to visit other articles, because definitely those in charge of those news outlets are humans, and they can mistakenly publish some wrong information as well without realising it. It's just left for the readers to filter the information they have gotten and know if it's really correct or not. Perhaps should what the SEC of one country said affect all other citizens in other countries? Well, every investor who knows what they are dealing with will likely not believe all this false news.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

The clear picture must be painted here which is all about bitcoin and not other cryptocurrencies, am not saying bitcoin isn't cryptocurrency but in cryptocurrency, once you remove bitcoin every other things becomes altcoins, i don't know what the SEC sees that make them make this pronouncement to identify bitcoin as a currency and not anymore the way they used to call it in their own interpretation, should we say it's because of the recognition bitcoin is getting from institutions interested in spot bitcoin ETF through the SEC or because they are just waking up now from their slumber to identify bitcoin as a digital currency and not other cryptocurrencies.

There's much to say about altcoins because there are many scams in them and most people preferred calling altcoins shitcoins because of these, in cryptocurrency, bitcoin is the first and no other digital currency should be recognized as a reliable means of payment or legal tender than bitcoin

[Blitzboy]

Who could possibly blame them? Right? The media can't resist a juicy tale. Alter the facts as you see fit...Boom! You've got a headline there: "Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency"...or have you? In addition, the SEC is only providing "recommendations," not actual policy changes. Really, what's the point then? Recommendations...pfft! They're so nonjudgmental and diplomatic that it reminds me of my grandmother giving me life advise.

Satoshi...At this crucial juncture, where have you disappeared to? To help us navigate these challenging times? I take it that the  in cryptocurrency refers to the use of encryption? Or am I completely misinterpreting the situation? Dont even get me started on altcoins; they're like a bunch of spoiled brats wanting to usurp their parents' money. Why cant they just calm down? That, though, wouldnt exactly make for a riveting narrative.

[serjent05]

Indeed the article got the wrong title since according to the article SEC stated that Bitcoin is not a security, not the title stated that it is not a crypto.  I do not know why such title is created when it was the Bitcoin maximalist that refers Bitcoin as being not a crypto and not the SEC.

It can be seen in the initial paragraph of the article, I wonder why people missed that sentence though, and continue to think that SEC is the one who stated that Bitcoin is not crypto.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

For me, Bitcoin is Bitcoin and Altcoins are Altcoins, Bitcoin, Altcoins together are all referred to as Cryptocurrencies,  Bitcoin on its own is a cryptocurrency, and so also is any altcoin singled out, putting all of them together, they are cryptocurrencies, there is no need bitcoin relinquishing that title for altcoin and there is no need altcoins doing the same for bitcoin.

Misleading headlines is something that has become very common and rampard amongst media houses, news outlets, and the only reason I think they do this is just to catch peoples attention, that is to draw attention to that article, just how Forbes have managed to get OPs attention by that false headline saying Bitcoin is a not cryptocurrency, and the annoying part i think is them going ahead to include in the headline that Sec confirmed that Bitcoin not to be a cryptocurrency, if bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency, then what is it?

[Antonas1]

Forbes and the contributor don't care about Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies; the key is to attempt to control the market.
In my opinion, the titles are written with speculators in mind and represent the common people's comprehension. For them, bitcoin is equivalent to other well-known altcoins on the market, such as Doge, BNB, and Shiba. Then they attempt to frighten the market by using the news.

[Husires]

With a little thought, you cannot deny that altcoins are cryptocurrencies, but we can argue whether they are decentralized or centralized cryptocurrencies?
It does not matter that we focus with the description of the SEC or any other party. Several years ago, some described Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme, or that it is a fraud, or that it is a bubble, or that it is used for crime and to buy drugs, or that internet geeks use it to buy things on the dark web. Bitcoin will be Bitcoin, and if there is a benefit from these statements, it is to reduce investments in altcoin due to their high risks and the uncertainty of their future.

[yudi09]

On the topic mentioned by kryptqnick I have conveyed that it depends on the point of view of the mind in interpreting it.
Within the entire contents of the Forbes article, the author explains how people take an understanding of bitcoin as bold print in the contents of the article made by Charles-Tim. The refrain can be confusing.

OP, I agree with you on the part where we have to filter every submission published by someone and any party, don't let propaganda happen just because they say something that seems to be true even though the truth is not necessarily true.

At the end I also want to say, you are a critical type of person. I like.

[Fiatless]

I don't think anybody can claim that Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency. But this misconception is coming because of SEC's position as a regulator. The SEC sees Bitcoin as a commodity and not a security. It sees other cryptocurrencies other than bitcoin as securities which means they fall under its jurisdiction of supervision. That was why they mandated Coinbase to delist every cryptocurrency except Bitcoin. This is because bitcoin as a commodity like gold, silver, and some other major agricultural products can be regulated only by Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The insinuation that bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency is just a means of separating Bitcoin as a commodity from other cryptocurrencies that are termed as securities by the SEC.

[BenCodie]

"Bitcoin Is Not Crypto, The SEC Confirms" was a heading from one of Forbes's recent articles, it's so unfortunate that similar interpretations are everywhere and some people have started believing the heresy.

It's high time people stop naivety and start thinking with their brains. Those people holding the power in SEC or have the most powerful media houses are equipped with human beings like you, they are no gods that warrant people to be taking their words as binding. The media is awash with the heresy that Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency, so suddenly? Common!!! Simply because SEC asked Coinbase to delist all cryptocurrency in their trading list except Bitcoin prior to court a suit. Should we now say that those who put their heads together to come up with the widely accepted name called Cryptocurrency are dummies?

Well, to me, the reverse is the case, it's those who are now trying to change their name that is Dummies. Our brains should serve us right before we start running our mouths like water.

One thing that I have learnt in my time, is that people only learn when it's too late. Those who can think for themselves, like you and I, can see through the veil and of course we either quietly snicker at the bullshit or try to alert others. I've also learnt that trying to share the word yields less results than one would hope, but your post was extremely well made and I am sure this has helped some people in seeing the truth.

Let me start by saying that SEC never withdrew cryptocurrency title from Bitcoin, it only tried to prove that Bitcoin and altcoins have too many dissimilarities to call them a single entity. But the media had their version of this that altered the initial conclusion. Is it that people are lame that they can't think for themselves even if the media says something, to the point that some people have started arguing with me offline on something that is so clear? And if you read the last Coindesk link posted above, you will realize that the SEC only made a "Recommendation," and not binding according to the Chairman of SEC Gary Gensler has. He maintained that 4 commissioners have their different opinions on this and doesn't reflect the institution's position. It's only a fraction of these commissioners aligning with such a recommendation and they couldn't even give a satisfactory reason when further questions were asked.

If anything, they should focus on the clarification of altcoins & tokens (two different things) and their regulations, and create a standard to achieve non-security altcoins and non-security tokens, in comparison to what would be classified as one. There are already distinctions out there, though it needs to be made concrete.

As for Bitcoin - we all already know what it is - Peer to Peer Decentralized Digital Cash - there is no owner, board, central power...it can't be regulated. SEC and the media will probably never say it officially or publicly of course, as it would cause not only a huge rally for BTC but would destroy the cash system. Instead, the truth of what Bitcoin is will remain mixed with propaganda, misinformation and fear to hold it back for as long as they can.

Should Bitcoin be stripped of the cryptocurrency title because of altcoins? That's ain't gonna happen, they should be the ones to excuse the name for Bitcoin.

By looking at some of Satoshi's Bios and Bitcoin development on Wikipedia, I discovered that two of the little anyone could say of Satoshi is that he's a software and cryptography expert, and the article further shows that "on 31 October 2008, he published a white paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing a digital cryptocurrency, titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

Satoshi used his cryptography knowledge to build a decentralized blockchain digit asset called Bitcoin, which is where the "Crypto" name came from. And for the reason that the digital asset could also serve people in many ways just like fiat currencies in payments, trading and investment, hence the remaining term "Currency."

Crypto + Currency = ? (In case critics and heretics don't know, it's Cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin is the first to fit in for the name, and the only one that has preserved the true need for that name). The rest gradually relinquishes theirs for the latter reason through more scalability and other possible projects that deviate from the purpose.

It's callous for the media to try to strip Bitcoin which is the pioneer and the most respected cryptocurrency of that famous name. I quite understand the position of the SEC, it's the media that went agog and misleading. But if at all, altcoins should be the ones relinquishing that name (cryptocurrency) for Bitcoin, not Bitcoin dropping the name for them.

Bitcoin remains cryptocurrency as far as I'm concerned and will always be, damn anything the media and SEC pass across. They can name altcoins anything they want for all I care.

Maybe they should call them cryptic coins...since they are not certain of what they are.

I agree with all of this 100%. Very well said!