Bitcoin was created to reform money and provide financial freedom

[we-btc]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

[Mate2237]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

[GreatArkansas]

(....)
I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

The process you mentioned, where banks and other big money places gather up Bitcoin to support things like ETFs, shows how things are changing. But, the world of cryptocurrency is full of changes and different parts.

The problems you've pointed out also mean there are changes for new ideas and solutions that come from the community itself.

[thecodebear]

Nothing wrong with using Bitcoin as an investment, ETFs, entities besides individuals owning Bitcoin. That's all natural because Bitcoin is money.

But for sure it would be good if we could development a much larger ecosystem of decentralized exchanges. The ones I know of have almost no volume compared to crypto exchanges and so you don't get good prices on them. Also they are naturally harder to use.

I think getting a DEX movement going and getting people on LN is the way to go.

LN allows payment to be cheap and instant, which is the only way payments are going to get popular. Even if at first its just used how Venmo is used to pass money between friends, rather than pay at merchants which requires merchant adoption. Though taxes are of course a problem if you're passing bitcoin between friends that's all taxable. Though it'd be a a pretty small use of bitcoin (not like selling lots of bitcoin) and the IRS wouldn't even be able to track it so maybe that's the sort of thing that could slide under the table without any real issues, sorta like when workers get paid in cash.

And then if DEXes could get popular enough to get real volume their prices wouldn't be so far away from the spot price and they'd become more useful. And then you can keep your bitcoin privacy. But its hard to get to that point because crypto exchanges are just so much easier to use.



Realistically I think building p2p connections happens at the local level. There are small communities in various places in the world who regularly use Bitcoin because they have a weak currency or don't have easy access to digital banking services and stuff like that, so it benefits everyone in the community to use Bitcoin. I think p2p usage gradually spreads out from those places to encompass a wider and wider net. The average person in a first world country and lots of non-first world countries don't have a huge need for p2p payments. For those populations growing one's wealth and wealth sovereignty I think are currently the main use cases. Though of course eventually being able to easily spend the wealth, including in p2p ways rather than just customer-merchant ways, would be ideal.

[DooMAD]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  

It's a shame, but I don't think people, for the most part, are going to learn.  The longer I'm a part of this, the more I become cognisant that most people don't truly appreciate what any of this is really for.

The option is certainly there for people to use Bitcoin in the correct manner if they wish to.  They'll be the rare fortunate ones to gain the privacy and security benefits.  I'll always advocate for taking this approach.  But I think the number of people actually doing it will remain relatively small.  Even if it is safer and more beneficial.

However, if the majority want to piss that gift up the wall and use Bitcoin in a way that completely sacrifices the security and privacy, that's their choice.  When the coins get stolen, or the exchange disappears, or all their personally identifiable data gets leaked, they better be aware of the fact that they have no one to blame but themselves.  

You get exactly what you choose with this.  On your head be it.

[Distinctin]

If I’m not mistaken, bitcoin was created not to replace fiat but to act as a reserved currency and serve as another option for people who prefer to use bitcoin more than fiat. Bitcoin brings freedom not actually to spare us from using banks but to open new opportunity for digital currency payment system. And I think for now, we can see a lot of people doing transactions with bitcoin but for those countries who are not yet legalizing bitcoin, they see bitcoin as an investment tool that can provide excellent profits.

[Maus0728]

As much I'd love what you're saying about bitcoin, that's not what it's for, @Mate2237's purpose of bitcoin is much closer to the bitcoin whitepaper and if you read the abstract of the whitepaper, it didn't say there anywhere that Satoshi wants financial freedom or something, maybe it was down the line but bitcoin was made so we can do a trust less transaction and cut off the middleman. Maybe that purpose of financial freedom just got interpreted by other people and now it's the norm that we believe to be the reason why bitcoin was created, Satoshi didn't have it in his mind that bitcoin would grow this high so I don't believe that it's made because of the 2008 financial crisis, it's just a convenient coincidence.

[seoincorporation]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

You are right, a decentralized project is slowly becoming centralized, the fact that police can size all your coins at any time if they decide your activity is an illicit one is a dead end for the game. But we still have the freedom to use our own nodes, our own wallets and trade it pear to pear.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

That's cool, it would be nice to know more about those projects if you can tell us more. Maybe that way you get more developers interested on it.

[Darker45]

I think Bitcoin isn't really a project that came into Satoshi Nakamoto's mind simply because of the financial crisis in 2008. The development of electronic money or digital cash has been in progress already for decades before that global economic crisis hit. Satoshi's work is but a part of this progress. If you look back at Bitcoin's forbearers and inspirations such as eCash, Hashcash, and others, they were already there prior to the crisis. So I think Bitcoin isn't a response to it.

[crypto_panther]

Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

Bitcoin has a decentralized use case.  More money means more freedom.  Satoshi's vision requires more adoption.  Higher price means more attention.  Attention drives adoption.

[PrivacyG]

The option is certainly there for people to use Bitcoin in the correct manner if they wish to.  They'll be the rare fortunate ones to gain the privacy and security benefits.  I'll always advocate for taking this approach.  But I think the number of people actually doing it will remain relatively small.  Even if it is safer and more beneficial.

One problem.  Due to every body else happily abiding to Know Your Customer and all other sorts of policies and regulations, us who choose to benefit from Privacy and Security are starting to suffer.  The option to use Bitcoin as it was meant to be used is still there.  But this option is slowly becoming not an option any more if only few of us can spend and receive without giving up personally identifiable information.

By restricting us, every body else kind of enforces the Know Your Customer way into every body.  Realistically speaking.  How difficult is it today to buy and sell Bitcoin with no Know Your Customer compared to five years ago?  The people who were abiding before and who did not care is not affected in any way today.  On the other end of the stick, we are affected enormously.

It is nice that we still get a chance to use Bitcoin the way we want.  But while that is due to the lack of Censorship in Bitcoin, restrictions make it almost impossible to use it the way we really want nowadays.

[Easteregg69]

The option is certainly there for people to use Bitcoin in the correct manner if they wish to.  They'll be the rare fortunate ones to gain the privacy and security benefits.  I'll always advocate for taking this approach.  But I think the number of people actually doing it will remain relatively small.  Even if it is safer and more beneficial.

One problem.  Due to every body else happily abiding to Know Your Customer and all other sorts of policies and regulations, us who choose to benefit from Privacy and Security are starting to suffer.  The option to use Bitcoin as it was meant to be used is still there.  But this option is slowly becoming not an option any more if only few of us can spend and receive without giving up personally identifiable information.

That is if you also want a piece of the kings crown on top of the bitcoins. As Fiat.

Tell me. Who pays the roads? What have the Romans ever done for us?

[avikz]

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

Bitcoin was created to provide financial freedom - that's true! But do you disagree to the fact that it has it's disadvantages as well? It can't scale up to handle the volume of transactions required for global adoption. LN solved the problem to a certain extent but the reach of LN is still low and it's a sidechain. A lot of Bitcoin puritans may oppose my comments, but Bitcoin is a bad payment method if we compare to the traditional payment methods we have available in the market.

Bitcoin is a great investment asset which has outperformed every other investment asset in the market. But as a payment processor, we have better options available.

[reagansimms]

Satoshi idea was to create the latest breakthrough called "BITCOIN" which is decentralized and has a limited supply due to his concerns about fiat currency issued by the government "Central Bank". Satoshi felt that there was inequality or no fairness in the public's trust in the banking system which often lends money in the form of credit bubbles with very little reserves. Abuse of trust from banks is considered to be detrimental to society in terms of being vulnerable to identity theft and account draining.

Satoshi criticized the system built by the government by launching Bitcoin to the public. With Bitcoin he hopes to provide justice to society. The presence of Bitcoin can bridge society back to using rare assets that are considered valuable because of their scarcity.

The hope is that Bitcoin can be used as a better alternative to fiat currencies which are vulnerable to devaluation and abuse of trust. Bitcoin which is very limited in quantity and cannot be regulated by any authority, makes most of its value come from people's trust in its supply and demand. Bitcoin has provided financial freedom for people who have always been in the grip of a government that always abuses trust.

[we-btc]

It can't scale up to handle the volume of transactions required for global adoption.

Bitcoin is the only decentralized, peer-to-peer system we currently have and it needs to scale to handle more transactions per second.  For some reason this issue is being ignored by the developers and community when it should be the main focus.  The changes that have been made to Core recently would indicate that the developers and community want it to be slower and more expensive.

LN solved the problem to a certain extent but the reach of LN is still low and it's a sidechain.

Lightning is fast but NOT peer-to-peer or decentralized.  This introduction of multiple intermediaries in every transaction will cause additional fees and transaction monitoring.  Unfortunately channel liquidity provides an issue for merchants as well.  They must provide inbound liquidity or pay a recurring fee for a 3rd party to provide it who can monitor their transactions.

The main point here is that over time the channel providers will consolidate and become the future banks.

Bitcoin is a bad payment method if we compare to the traditional payment methods we have available in the market.

Bitcoin has solved several problems traditional payment methods have not.  It is decentralized, peer-to-peer and has a limited supply to name a few. The only thing we need to fix is the speed of transactions.  Lets focus on that.  The solution shouldn't make it slower and more expensive. Don't centralize it. Don't add 3rd party intermediaries, and don't increase the supply limit of 21,000,000.

[blckhawk]

If I’m not mistaken, bitcoin was created not to replace fiat but to act as a reserved currency and serve as another option for people who prefer to use bitcoin more than fiat. Bitcoin brings freedom not actually to spare us from using banks but to open new opportunity for digital currency payment system. And I think for now, we can see a lot of people doing transactions with bitcoin but for those countries who are not yet legalizing bitcoin, they see bitcoin as an investment tool that can provide excellent profits.

Yes it wasn't created for that, it was supposed to be a system of online payment where the actors are the buyer and the seller, there's no middlemen like the bank, that's what's in the abstract of the whitepaper that @Maus0728 shared, at least that's what I understand from that abstrac but it didn't say that it's supposed to be doing any kind of giving us freedom but from what it did over the years, I guess you could say that it's what bitcoin gives the people, the freedom from the banks.

To me though another thing that bitcoin has given me besides the freedom is the fact that I've had my eyes opened on things that I'm otherwise blinded if bitcoin didn't lead me to believe in them.

[we-btc]

Yes it wasn't created for that, it was supposed to be a system of online payment where the actors are the buyer and the seller, there's no middlemen like the bank, that's what's in the abstract of the whitepaper that @Maus0728 shared, at least that's what I understand from that abstrac but it didn't say that it's supposed to be doing any kind of giving us freedom but from what it did over the years, I guess you could say that it's what bitcoin gives the people, the freedom from the banks.

To me though another thing that bitcoin has given me besides the freedom is the fact that I've had my eyes opened on things that I'm otherwise blinded if bitcoin didn't lead me to believe in them.

Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized with a limited supply.  In addition, it can be transacted with peer-to-peer.  This is unlike the current fiat systems which require a trusted third party.
The purpose is no person or group can enrich themselves while devaluing the currency.  Decentralization and privacy are preserved with no third party transactions. This is a better form of electronic cash than the existing fiat systems we currently use. The US dollar is 98% digital now.

When a person works and that value is converted into a store of value (currency), the worker should custody and control this money without a 3rd party taking control.  In our current fiat system the value is immediately transferred to a bank who controls your access to it.

Money is power and the banks now control all of it. This power is used to elect politicians, create laws and influence the masses through propaganda.

If Bitcoin is adopted as a currency every system we have will be impacted in a way that gives individuals back their sovereignty.

[thecodebear]

The option is certainly there for people to use Bitcoin in the correct manner if they wish to.  They'll be the rare fortunate ones to gain the privacy and security benefits.  I'll always advocate for taking this approach.  But I think the number of people actually doing it will remain relatively small.  Even if it is safer and more beneficial.

One problem.  Due to every body else happily abiding to Know Your Customer and all other sorts of policies and regulations, us who choose to benefit from Privacy and Security are starting to suffer.  The option to use Bitcoin as it was meant to be used is still there.  But this option is slowly becoming not an option any more if only few of us can spend and receive without giving up personally identifiable information.

By restricting us, every body else kind of enforces the Know Your Customer way into every body.  Realistically speaking.  How difficult is it today to buy and sell Bitcoin with no Know Your Customer compared to five years ago?  The people who were abiding before and who did not care is not affected in any way today.  On the other end of the stick, we are affected enormously.

It is nice that we still get a chance to use Bitcoin the way we want.  But while that is due to the lack of Censorship in Bitcoin, restrictions make it almost impossible to use it the way we really want nowadays.

True. But there are good reasons why KYC rules have been enforced. It's the reason why those rules exist in the first place.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that exchanges run by companies have to comply with financial laws. Only reason that didn't used to be the case for crypto exchanges is because the industry was new enough and small enough that govt wasn't even paying attention.

But for sure as a community we need to get more/better options of keeping privacy through decentralized exchanges and stuff. Though then you get into the quandry that if Bitcoin DEXes actually grew large enough to be very useful for people, that means they'd have enough volume to be useful to criminals and terrorists and the like who want to sell large amounts of money. So then, any moral creator of a decentralized exchange has to be like ok how do I stop bad people from using what I made to be used by regular law abiding people who just want to take advantage of bitcoin's privacy. But it's literally KYC/AML laws that do that, which are what take away privacy haha.

I don't know what the win-win answer for that quandry is. It's the age old privacy vs security question. People want both, but kind of like blockchain's decentralization vs capacity issue, increasing one tends to weaken the other. Only thing I can think of would be local bitcoin networks spread all over the world so you can exchange fiat-to-bitcoin and vice versa locally instead of having global large volume DEXes that are beacons to criminals. I guess that's basically what LocalBitcoins was back in the day but I'm pretty sure they closed up shop years ago.

[we-btc]

True. But there are good reasons why KYC rules have been enforced. It's the reason why those rules exist in the first place.

Only thing I can think of would be local bitcoin networks spread all over the world so you can exchange fiat-to-bitcoin and vice versa locally instead of having global large volume DEXes that are beacons to criminals. I guess that's basically what LocalBitcoins was back in the day but I'm pretty sure they closed up shop years ago.

US dollars are used in criminal activity way more than Bitcoin and remember Bitcoin is a public ledger.  Because of this Bitcoin is not an ideal choice for criminals. Also ask the question, if Bitcoin is used in crime less than fiat currencies are, why are the powers that be claiming otherwise?

The question is should we take peoples right to privacy and sovereignty away because there are criminals in the world?  Find another way to fight crime other than taking peoples freedoms.

[Asiska02]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

Nobody is giving up on bitcoin’s dream as a Bitcoin enthusiast. Since inception, we have seen how it has evolved and having a wide adoption and use today. Although, the main purpose of its creation must have been deviated from by many people but it still stands its ground as a means of financial freedom, free from the non-privacy of financial holdings. Exchanges came and are also serving their purposes even though it is not advisable to bank on them with your funds with them. Without them, we wouldn’t have had a lot of bitcoin holders today as the use of non-custodian wallets have become very difficult for some people to use and will always want to use the simplest way to acquire some bitcoin. Overtime, since you’re already in the space, there’s need to learn how to use and operate your non-custodian wallets for the safety of your funds in bitcoin.

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

The early adopters of bitcoin are the ones that have shown more concern to the use of bitcoin for the purpose it was created for, just like the man you set example to have bought some pizza with his bitcoin. People have now transgressed to explore other benefits of holding the cryptocurrency which is using it as a means of investment because of its volatility nature. I don’t have any issue but to support the all means people use the cryptocurrency for, since they all serve a purpose which has helped in the massive number of users that have embraced and are now using bitcoin for different purposes and to their own advantage.

[dunfida]

If I’m not mistaken, bitcoin was created not to replace fiat but to act as a reserved currency and serve as another option for people who prefer to use bitcoin more than fiat. Bitcoin brings freedom not actually to spare us from using banks but to open new opportunity for digital currency payment system. And I think for now, we can see a lot of people doing transactions with bitcoin but for those countries who are not yet legalizing bitcoin, they see bitcoin as an investment tool that can provide excellent profits.

Yes it wasn't created for that, it was supposed to be a system of online payment where the actors are the buyer and the seller, there's no middlemen like the bank, that's what's in the abstract of the whitepaper that @Maus0728 shared, at least that's what I understand from that abstrac but it didn't say that it's supposed to be doing any kind of giving us freedom but from what it did over the years, I guess you could say that it's what bitcoin gives the people, the freedom from the banks.

To me though another thing that bitcoin has given me besides the freedom is the fact that I've had my eyes opened on things that I'm otherwise blinded if bitcoin didn't lead me to believe in them.

If you are really that someone who do able to read up that Bitcoin whitepaper on the time that you did step your foot into this space then you wont really be able to say up such things on which it is really just that something that cant be just right on having that kind of approach on which telling that Bitcoins existence or purpose was really that for the purpose of providing financial freedom. Well, it could potentially be able to make someones life to be changed up in terms of investment side of things but we know that not all would really be that lucky enough on making themselves that financially freed. It would be also still mattering on how well you do make out
such decisions because not all crypto investors do really ends up on successful.

Once you do able to check out the WP then you would really be able to understand on what it is all about. Its not something that do talk about financial freedom
but rather this is something that do talks about anonymous p2p transaction or simply just that talks about decentralization.

[Dunamisx]

We are also expected to adopt bitcoin and use it for our own financial benefit, this gives us the financial desires we want to have or see come through with the use of a digital network being made accessible to everyone for their privacy, its so what a pity as well seeing others not getting it right with the use of bitcoin, thinking otherwise on why it was created, those using it already knows what they stand to benefit from it which they are already seeing.

[Blitzboy]

Bitcoin emerged as a hope after 2008's financial crisis. My optimism is tempered by realities as I contemplate its voyage. Bitcoin threatened established finance. The current landscape deviates greatly from its original intent.

Also, I mourn the irony. Bitcoin is now part of the structures it wanted to overthrow. Our goal was to escape centralization, yet exchanges, third-party wallets, and speculative investment have increased. However, this challenge drives me.

Though I love Bitcoin, critical thinking is essential. Can Bitcoin reform money when it's a currency and an asset? Perception, not potential, matters. Bitcoin's decentralized currency potential stays unrealized as long as the public regard it as an investment.

[nakamura12]

I think that one of the reason why bitcoin is created is to prevent a third party take or have a control over it like banks and other similar third parties. When bitcoin become known worldwide, even banks now are even finding a way to take part into it like making a wallet that requires you to submit personal documents before you can use the wallet. To tell you honestly, it already happened in my country. There are several companies have made a wallet and being regulated by the central banks. One of it is privacy and yet even some casinos now ask KYC.

[legiteum]

The goal of Bitcoin--and now, generally, the blockchain architecture--is to evade government oversight into transactions.

That's it. That's all was made to do. If you wanted to do anything else, blockchain would be a massive waste of time and resources since a good centralized architecture is a thousand times easier, safer, cheaper, and faster.

(This is why "centralized blockchain" is so pointless).

(This is also why using blockchain for a CBDC is really dumb).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system.

I frequently see this being brought as a con, but it seems more of a pro to me. When people just want to make financial transactions, they choose fiat over bitcoin, not because it is inherently better. It's just because they prefer spending their de-valuated fiat rather than their scarce bitcoin. Being "better money" doesn't equate to being better at completing transactions.

And I'd argue that when people want to complete a transaction in private, via the Internet, cryptocurrencies are took into serious consideration now more.

By restricting us, every body else kind of enforces the Know Your Customer way into every body.  Realistically speaking.  How difficult is it today to buy and sell Bitcoin with no Know Your Customer compared to five years ago?  The people who were abiding before and who did not care is not affected in any way today.  On the other end of the stick, we are affected enormously.

Here's a thing though. Five years ago, decentralized exchanges were undeveloped. Currently, Bisq takes the first place with over a thousand of trades per week.

What matters isn't the enforced Know Your Customer on many more CEX than before per se. What matters is the legislating framework of your country that forbids you from trading decentrally. If you're forbidden to trading decentrally, and have to pass through this KYC nonsense, then that's a problem.

The goal of Bitcoin--and now, generally, the blockchain architecture--is to evade government oversight into transactions.

It has been told to you quite a lot of times already that this is only partly true.

[we-btc]

Also, I mourn the irony. Bitcoin is now part of the structures it wanted to overthrow. Our goal was to escape centralization, yet exchanges, third-party wallets, and speculative investment have increased. However, this challenge drives me.

Though I love Bitcoin, critical thinking is essential. Can Bitcoin reform money when it's a currency and an asset? Perception, not potential, matters. Bitcoin's decentralized currency potential stays unrealized as long as the public regard it as an investment.

Great points.  Banks have adopted it for the express purpose of controlling it within the current financial paradigm. If Bitcoin is not used as a currency then its value is simply to provide a tool to banks and centralized financial institutions to siphon off some of each persons value.

[legiteum]

The goal of Bitcoin--and now, generally, the blockchain architecture--is to evade government oversight into transactions.

It has been told to you quite a lot of times already that this is only partly true.

Not according to the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

It is now used mainly as an investment instrument, using mostly centralized brokerages, which are contrary to its original goal, but the original intent of Bitcoin was to create a system out of the reach of any government.

For probably 99% of Bitcoin users this goal has failed since they use a brokerage and/or they don't use a mixer to hide their transactions--making them easily tracked by central governments.

Hence where we are today doesn't resemble where Bitcoin started. But that doesn't change how it started.

[acener]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

It was supposed to be like that but most of us now see Bitcoin as an investment tool not as a currency.
It was created to be used as a currency and be decentralized but now it is mostly viewed as an investment tool and only few use it for what it has been designed for.

[Sanitough]

I think that one of the reason why bitcoin is created is to prevent a third party take or have a control over it like banks and other similar third parties. When bitcoin become known worldwide, even banks now are even finding a way to take part into it like making a wallet that requires you to submit personal documents before you can use the wallet. To tell you honestly, it already happened in my country. There are several companies have made a wallet and being regulated by the central banks. One of it is privacy and yet even some casinos now ask KYC.

Bitcoin is created so we can finally gain freedom from banks and other financial entities. That way, we can take full control of our funds without having interrupted by the government and monitor our finances through banks. This is probably the reason why it’s hard for the government to legalized and accept bitcoin as a currency since they have been thinking that bitcoin will personally overtake fiat and will go against fiat currency system, but in reality only unknowledgeable about bitcoin think that way.

[Assface16678]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

It was supposed to be like that but most of us now see Bitcoin as an investment tool not as a currency.
It was created to be used as a currency and be decentralized but now it is mostly viewed as an investment tool and only few use it for what it has been designed for.

That's what financial freedom for, maybe yes bitcoin is created so it can be replacable for fiat currency but the thing is over alot of years bitcoin become the tool so that many people and its investors will become financial freedom, and because the community of bitcoin made by investors, made bitcoin still as powerful as now, because if they think bitcoin as tool for profit only then bitcoin should not be able to survive or not having high value right now, meaning those OG investors and newly investors taking care of bitcoin so that it will not lose its value, they make things balanced, so I disgree that people only think bitcoin as investment because for those who are already investors cared for bitcoins starus in the market that's why we are having high rewards, notice those only aim for profit in bitcoin, they are the short holders who just aim to lash out profit from bitcoin.

[iBaba]

We are also expected to adopt bitcoin and use it for our own financial benefit, this gives us the financial desires we want to have or see come through with the use of a digital network being made accessible to everyone for their privacy, its so what a pity as well seeing others not getting it right with the use of bitcoin, thinking otherwise on why it was created, those using it already knows what they stand to benefit from it which they are already seeing.

I personally believe that starting Bitcoin has been one of the greatest milestones in my financial journey. Bitcoin has granted me the financial freedom, profit, and privacy that I yearn for as a human being.

Another remarkable aspect of Bitcoin is the confidence it instills in me. Unlike the uncertainties I faced in the fiat market, Bitcoin offers a sense of comfort. Its decentralized nature ensures that neither certain people nor governments can manipulate its value arbitrarily, providing a sense of security.

However, for those of us engaged with the Bitcoin community, there are currently rewarding opportunities, such as the ongoing bull run. Failing to capitalize on this favorable market trend may result in missed financial gains. As Bitcoin's value continues to soar, investing a substantial amount now could yield significant returns.

Nevertheless, I advise my friends to adopt a Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) approach rather than investing a lump sum. This strategy helps mitigate the risks associated with unforeseen market fluctuations, ensuring a more stable investment journey.

[Mrbluntzy]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions.

Bitcoin transactions may be running through third parties exchange or wallets but most of those centralized exchange have also made it easy for fast accumulation of Bitcoin in some part of the world like in my country. It have helped some people to even buy Bitcoin more faster. I don't know how to express everything I wanted to say but in a short word my country people are using centralized exchange to buy their Bitcoin and they are more familiar with its use. Most of those exchange have aid a wide adoption of Bitcoin. How many non third party exchange do you recommend for use and how popular are they?

[The Cryptovator]

Bitcoin wasn't created to solve the financial crisis; rather, it was born to resolve the traditional financial system through centralised control. Bless Bitcoin that we can become our own bank when it's been held in a non-custodial wallet. So I agree with financial freedom. Bitcoin gives us full control of our money. We can move or spend it worldwide without any third-party involvement. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

It is now used mainly as an investment instrument, using mostly centralized brokerages, which are contrary to its original goal, but the original intent of Bitcoin was to create a system out of the reach of any government.

I must have misinterpreted "oversight" then. I thought you said that the goal of Bitcoin was to create untraceable (from the government) transactions, to evade taxes mostly.

Sure. The original intent was to detach money from the state. In fact, given that Satoshi was a bit of an anarchist, and there were a lot of crypto-anarchists around that niche at that time, I believe he was profoundly with that philosophy in mind.

For probably 99% of Bitcoin users this goal has failed since they use a brokerage and/or they don't use a mixer to hide their transactions--making them easily tracked by central governments.

But, has it really failed if these people choose to forfeit custody? I mean, if you personally don't care about self-custody, does that alter Bitcoin's goal or my interaction with Bitcoin? Bitcoin is all about freedom of choice in the end. It allows you to mistreat it.

[bitzizzix]

In my opinion, Bitcoin was created to take control of power away from banks and other financial entities, and aims to return it to people who can use it with the freedom they can control themselves.
And to have a decentralized currency that is accepted throughout the world without third party interference, quickly, safely and conveniently and transparently. And everything turned out so perfect. The payment process, sending and receiving payments will be very easy and no other party can prevent it, and it can also change someone's life to be better than before in financial terms if done wisely.

[Rabata]

I think P2P use-case is interrupted is because of the government's hostile attitude towards Bitcoin. Although some governments are taking a positive view towards it. However, this barrier must be overcome in extreme circumstances. Since governments have tried hard to reduce people's interest in Bitcoin, they will never be able to suppress the potential of Bitcoin by law. In fact, this is the reason why P2P is still not widely used in all place of the world. However, Bitcoin has already made a significant place in the world as a tool of trading. But now, even though there are various disagreements about it in some places, gradually everyone will come under Bitcoin. Bitcoin payment method is already being used in many purposes and its use is increasing tremendously.

[we-btc]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions.

Bitcoin transactions may be running through third parties exchange or wallets but most of those centralized exchange have also made it easy for fast accumulation of Bitcoin in some part of the world like in my country. It have helped some people to even buy Bitcoin more faster. I don't know how to express everything I wanted to say but in a short word my country people are using centralized exchange to buy their Bitcoin and they are more familiar with its use. Most of those exchange have aid a wide adoption of Bitcoin. How many non third party exchange do you recommend for use and how popular are they?

The issue I am trying to shine a light on is that transactions with a 3rd party intermediary defeat the purpose of Bitcoin being a peer-to-peer network.  If centralized exchanges provide easier access to Bitcoin that is great but if you want Bitcoin to provide the decentralized freedom it was designed to facilitate then you have to use your own node.  Will people transition away from these centralized 3 party transactions after their initial purchases? Only if they understand why this is important.  It is important to understand that it is not in the best interest of the 3rd party to promote peer-to-peer transactions.  

All 3rd parties, whether it is a wallet, exchange or bank will attempt to keep their customers using their service. This propaganda is what is driving adoption of these trust based bitcoin transactions.  

[blckhawk]

~

If you are really that someone who do able to read up that Bitcoin whitepaper on the time that you did step your foot into this space then you wont really be able to say up such things on which it is really just that something that cant be just right on having that kind of approach on which telling that Bitcoins existence or purpose was really that for the purpose of providing financial freedom. Well, it could potentially be able to make someones life to be changed up in terms of investment side of things but we know that not all would really be that lucky enough on making themselves that financially freed. It would be also still mattering on how well you do make out
such decisions because not all crypto investors do really ends up on successful.

Once you do able to check out the WP then you would really be able to understand on what it is all about. Its not something that do talk about financial freedom
but rather this is something that do talks about anonymous p2p transaction or simply just that talks about decentralization.

That's why I said that it wasn't created for that, if you actually read my post, I've talked about the financial freedom part in a sense that it's the people are the ones that have thought it's what bitcoin gives them and not the other way around. You're asking what way could it give financial freedom, are you new to bitcoin or something like that? Because I think the fact that there's no middleman between transactions is a freedom in of itself so what are you talking about? That it's not written in the whitepaper? Sure it's not but that's besides the point don't you think? Anonymity is the same as being free right?

[Bananington]

~

If you are really that someone who do able to read up that Bitcoin whitepaper on the time that you did step your foot into this space then you wont really be able to say up such things on which it is really just that something that cant be just right on having that kind of approach on which telling that Bitcoins existence or purpose was really that for the purpose of providing financial freedom. Well, it could potentially be able to make someones life to be changed up in terms of investment side of things but we know that not all would really be that lucky enough on making themselves that financially freed. It would be also still mattering on how well you do make out
such decisions because not all crypto investors do really ends up on successful.

Once you do able to check out the WP then you would really be able to understand on what it is all about. Its not something that do talk about financial freedom
but rather this is something that do talks about anonymous p2p transaction or simply just that talks about decentralization.

That's why I said that it wasn't created for that, if you actually read my post, I've talked about the financial freedom part in a sense that it's the people are the ones that have thought it's what bitcoin gives them and not the other way around. You're asking what way could it give financial freedom, are you new to bitcoin or something like that? Because I think the fact that there's no middleman between transactions is a freedom in of itself so what are you talking about? That it's not written in the whitepaper? Sure it's not but that's besides the point don't you think? Anonymity is the same as being free right?

I would dare say that most government in many countries these days have opted to somehow control crypto currency like BTC, since it wasn't created by them or have any reserve banks or gold reserve backing it up.
They have done this by regulating and taxing anyone or exchanges who use a currency like Bitcoin because of the financial freedom it has indeed granted the citizens.

Still, it doesn't change the idea that Bitcoin was created to provide much more than privacy and freedom to complete financial transactions across borders with as little fees as compared to what regular banks would offer. It has also proven to be a good store of value overtime and currently it is every potential investors dream of acquiring.

[YUriy1991]

Great points.  Banks have adopted it for the express purpose of controlling it within the current financial paradigm. If Bitcoin is not used as a currency then its value is simply to provide a tool to banks and centralized financial institutions to siphon off some of each persons value.

Of course OP, if the adoption of Bitcoin is forced by the banking sector, of course the value of this enthusiasm will fade and conflict with basic principles because like it or not, all customers are required to have strict KYC identification and of course the bank will also provide special services for those who are already well established. finances in this area of course. As we currently see, those who have a lot of large assets always get a special route when withdrawing fiat at a bank.

Even if they try to integrate Bitcoin into their operations, I think it will take time to balance and address the unique aspects of cryptocurrencies such as scalability, transaction speed, and security in their operations.

[Ale88]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future.

You are talking about mass adoption, I'm not sure if Satoshi (or someone else) ever made like a diagram of all bitcoin's theoretical step but I'm pretty sure that mass adoption would be the last step, or one of the very last. Let's not forget that it's been created only 15 years ago and the achievements that it reached are pretty insane. I'm pretty happy with all the goals we've already reached, let's see what happens in the next 5 years now.

[btc78]

I think the purpose of bitcoin was mainly so we do not need to go through third parties just to make transactions. With the rise of centralized exchanges these days, I think it is just natural and part of innovation and development. Even though not exactly the actual purpose of bitcoin, we can not stop or prevent people from using centralized exchanges for whatever reason.
Rather I would like to see bitcoin to be used for everyday transactions. Now proves that to be quite impossible. With the high transaction fees and most people wanting to hold. I do understand it because I really do see bitcoin as a valuable investment but it makes me wonder until when it would be?

[legiteum]

But, has it really failed if these people choose to forfeit custody? I mean, if you personally don't care about self-custody, does that alter Bitcoin's goal or my interaction with Bitcoin? Bitcoin is all about freedom of choice in the end. It allows you to mistreat it.

Well, there's no practical reason to invest in Bitcoin if you aren't interested in decentralization.

But the investors who don't care about decentralization are probably responsible for 95% of Bitcoin's market cap.

In other words, if there were no central brokerages and all investors of Bitcoin were forced to mess around with private keys, keeping those keys on their physical person, then only a tiny few would invest, and almost nobody would want to invest anything significant lest their life savings end up in a landfill. Unless we're talking about the cash in your wallet, most people want to keep their holdings in their name.

So yes, the fact that most people don't use Bitcoin in the way Bitcoin was intended surely affects everybody's use of Bitcoin since those people make it a wildly appreciating asset and not just a curiosity for a few tech folks like us.

And seriously, in real life, do people here actually use Bitcoin for their daily transactions? Do they put their entire life savings into Bitcoin? (God I hope not lest it lose 75% of its value again like it did only 18 months ago).

[Volimack]

These coins can be used to make financial transactions online. Since cryptocurrency transactions are conducted through the blockchain network there is no proof of origin. That's why bitcoin reaches where money or dollars don't. Common people as well as governments have started taking help of these coins to conduct their secret financial transactions. The more it is used the more the market value of bitcoin increases.

[AVE5]

The potentials and the aims of bitcoin is at it best utilizations whereas every bitcoin holders has an aim for the holding, either for exchange for payments in place of the fiats or holding for investments with the aim of making profits.
But Op, bitcoin is not to equalize the fiat currencies rather bitcoin is a unified crypto currency which can be exchanged with any fiats currency.

[davis196]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

AFAIK, most BTC transactions are run on the Bitcoin Core blockchain, so you are wrong about this.
You are right about most of the things you've mentioned, but you didn't clarify what exactly is your dream. Bitcoin can give financial freedom, but only if you use it the right way(without centralized exchanges and third parties). Most of the people don't want freedom, they want profits. Obviously Bitcoin is too scarce to become an actual currency. The high price volatility is what stops mass adoption.
Bitcoin ETFs and the flood of institutional investors in the Bitcoin/crypto world can be a double edged sword, but so far, most of the Bitcoiners are enjoying the bull run, so they aren't against the money coming from the big banks and investment funds.

[lizarder]

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

There is no control and no government can interfere so Bitcoin stands alone without being controlled. Peer-to-peer transactions are its advantage and make bitcoin a source of freedom. This is a solution even though most countries only allow bitcoin as an investment asset.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

This has been achieved because almost everyone involved in bitcoin investment gets the benefits of financial freedom compared to the previous fiat money system. Each individual can represent himself in bitcoin whether it is an investment or uses it as a transaction tool that accepts bitcoin. The legitimacy of bitcoin can be seen from the number of adoptions which continues to expand, making bitcoin increasingly popular with many people.

[bayu7adi]

It is true, inflation can be prevented by limiting the supply of currency, but can this limited currency really be a solution and can it take over FIAT's current role? Of course I doubt that.

Bitcoin now and in the future may be more inclined to be used as a digital asset where many people will speculate on the price of Bitcoin and think about the profits when converted into FIAT. This limited supply is what triggers the psychology of many people to take advantage of Bitcoin as a profit generator, not as a transaction tool.

As an icon of financial freedom, perhaps this can be seen in Bitcoin. I also feel the same way when sending Bitcoin p2p without any interference from other parties. IMO Bitcoin has great potential as a freer currency of value.

[CageMabok]

These coins can be used to make financial transactions online. Since cryptocurrency transactions are conducted through the blockchain network there is no proof of origin. That's why bitcoin reaches where money or dollars don't. Common people as well as governments have started taking help of these coins to conduct their secret financial transactions. The more it is used the more the market value of bitcoin increases.

In the end, everyone will be aware of this after researching the benefits that can arise from using Bitcoin and its transactions, because Bitcoin has become better than any currency in the world so that everyone cannot deny that the use of Bitcoin will continue to increase accompanied by at the price too. Now large companies have also seen the benefits of using Bitcoin, so now there are companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin if they want to buy a product that they sell on the market.

[moneystery]

but that is the development of bitcoin, you cannot change that because that is the negative side of the decentralized system, where no one person controls the bitcoin ecosystem.

moreover, from the beginning, satoshi nakamoto developed bitcoin to provide people globally with a transaction system that is non-interventionist, decentralized, accessible to everyone, fast and secure. it does not aim to replace the role of banking or currency, but rather as an alternative that can be used by everyone.

the idea itself is mature and developing now, but if there is a negative side to it, we must be able to understand it and improve it as much as possible, because nothing is perfect in this world.

[Plaguedeath]

In the end, everyone will be aware of this after researching the benefits that can arise from using Bitcoin and its transactions, because Bitcoin has become better than any currency in the world so that everyone cannot deny that the use of Bitcoin will continue to increase accompanied by at the price too. Now large companies have also seen the benefits of using Bitcoin, so now there are companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin if they want to buy a product that they sell on the market.

I disagree, Bitcoin is only better in terms of borderless payments and decentralized if you use Bitcoin as currency, you will say Bitcoin isn't a good currency because you're always spend more than what you should (the product/service price + fee).

But, Bitcoin is better than any asset in the world because there are no other assets that can perform better in terms price and security than Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In other words, if there were no central brokerages and all investors of Bitcoin were forced to mess around with private keys

If by "investors" you mean everyday laymen who wanna make a quick buck and saw a "Binance" ad in YouTube, then yes. But, if you don't, then I think you underestimate serious investors. I believe every serious investor in Bitcoin is capable of protecting a seed phrase. Not only that, but I believe they are aware of what happens to their money if the central broker goes out of business.

Speaking out of experience with my interaction with serious investors, they don't invest into stuff they don't understand. Buying bitcoin and keeping it in an centralized exchange means you don't understand it.

Unless we're talking about the cash in your wallet, most people want to keep their holdings in their name.

Sure, but you can't keep bitcoin in your name, whether you like it or not.

[legiteum]

If by "investors" you mean everyday laymen who wanna make a quick buck and saw a "Binance" ad in YouTube, then yes. But, if you don't, then I think you underestimate serious investors. I believe every serious investor in Bitcoin is capable of protecting a seed phrase. Not only that, but I believe they are aware of what happens to their money if the central broker goes out of business.

Speaking out of experience with my interaction with serious investors, they don't invest into stuff they don't understand. Buying bitcoin and keeping it in an centralized exchange means you don't understand it.

But serious investors invest serious money which most people wouldn't trust to physically hold in their hands where it can be lost or stolen. Most people invest their life savings in an account in their name so it can't be taken from them no matter what.

(And let's get real here: the "big boys" of investing of Bitcoin right now are playing with a placeholder they see having market momentum leading to increases in the selling price--they don't care about the technical details. It might as well be Teldar Paper to them).

Any institution can lose your money, and consumers know that, but even with the occasional problems, they still trust institutions who make it their job to safeguard people's money instead of their own physical guard.

Not too many people bury their life savings in the backyard or under the mattress, and not many hold their own private key they could lose when there's serious money on the line.

(My article, The Anon Paradox, points out the seeming paradox between wanting anonymity for "small" amounts of money like the cash in your wallet versus "big" amounts e.g. your savings, car or house wherein anonymity is actually a bad thing for most people).

[we-btc]

AFAIK, most BTC transactions are run on the Bitcoin Core blockchain, so you are wrong about this.
You are right about most of the things you've mentioned, but you didn't clarify what exactly is your dream. Bitcoin can give financial freedom, but only if you use it the right way(without centralized exchanges and third parties). Most of the people don't want freedom, they want profits. Obviously Bitcoin is too scarce to become an actual currency. The high price volatility is what stops mass adoption.
Bitcoin ETFs and the flood of institutional investors in the Bitcoin/crypto world can be a double edged sword, but so far, most of the Bitcoiners are enjoying the bull run, so they aren't against the money coming from the big banks and investment funds.

One thing that I have found most people don't understand about Bitcoin is that in order for a transaction to be "purely peer-to-peer" each party to the transaction must run their own node. Bitcoin Core was designed to run on basic computers so everyone could run a node.  I want to say this again - for a Bitcoin transaction to be peer-to-peer you must use your own node.  When using  your own node the transactions goes directly into the memory pool and no third party is required. If you use a wallet where you are sharing a node with other users (Hardware Wallets included) then you have created a central point of failure that can be audited and controlled.  Bitcoin was designed to be used with private nodes run by individuals not organizations.  This is what will keep Bitcoin secure and decentralized.

Exchanges and banks add a custody issue on top of the centralization.  ETFs take this centralization to a whole new level in that the buyer of Bitcoin doesn't even own the coin.  The Bank does.  The supplier of the capital merely owns a share in the fund and the Bank owns the Bitcoin.  You can't get any farther from Bitcoin's intended purpose than the ETFs.

I would like to see everyone who invests in Bitcoin running their own node.  The issue is we are not developing the hardware and software for this to be an option. This is what I want to work on because I believe it serves everyone with financial freedom and sovereignty.

The price of Bitcoin going up because banks are taking ownership only serves to confuse people because it feels good to have more money.  But don't forget the cost of that money is - Bank control.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But serious investors invest serious money which most people wouldn't trust to physically hold in their hands where it can be lost or stolen. Most people invest their life savings in an account in their name so it can't be taken from them no matter what.

Right. So, serious investors are given two choices. Either ignore this financial and technological innovation, or invest with that risk. I believe that a serious investor can spend a few of their valuable hours on setting up a wallet and maybe even for having some extra security, educate themselves about multi-sig.

Any institution can lose your money, and consumers know that

And they're fine with it, because they are secured. If a bank goes bankrupt, the state will protect its customers. But if a centralized exchange goes bankrupt, customers get no cent back. I expect from serious investors to have this knowledge and not blindly trust a business with their money.

(My article, The Anon Paradox, points out the seeming paradox between wanting anonymity for "small" amounts of money like the cash in your wallet versus "big" amounts e.g. your savings, car or house wherein anonymity is actually a bad thing for most people).

It's good that we have some new controversy over the space. I'll read your article once I find the time. And, if I haven't told you already, welcome to Bitcointalk! 

[legiteum]

But serious investors invest serious money which most people wouldn't trust to physically hold in their hands where it can be lost or stolen. Most people invest their life savings in an account in their name so it can't be taken from them no matter what.

Right. So, serious investors are given two choices. Either ignore this financial and technological innovation, or invest with that risk. I believe that a serious investor can spend a few of their valuable hours on setting up a wallet and maybe even for having some extra security, educate themselves about multi-sig.

They are not investing in "technological innovation", they are investing in an instrument they think will go up in value in the short run. I can almost guarantee that most big investors don't give a crap why it's going up--they just invest because they think it's going up.

And they're fine with it, because they are secured. If a bank goes bankrupt, the state will protect its customers. But if a centralized exchange goes bankrupt, customers get no cent back. I expect from serious investors to have this knowledge and not blindly trust a business with their money.

Yes, they know that, and look for institutions that have good infrastructure and processes, like any major bank has. And there are insurance companies involved securing the investment in some cases based on processes like 27001 compliance. I guarantee you that a line investor at Goldman Sachs doesn't have his firm's billion dollar investment in Bitcoin locked in the top drawer of his desk.

(My article, The Anon Paradox, points out the seeming paradox between wanting anonymity for "small" amounts of money like the cash in your wallet versus "big" amounts e.g. your savings, car or house wherein anonymity is actually a bad thing for most people).

It's good that we have some new controversy over the space. I'll read your article once I find the time. And, if I haven't told you already, welcome to Bitcointalk! 

Thank you very, very much. This is a most excellent forum to discuss ideas, which is actually unusual for the internet these days.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yes, they know that, and look for institutions that have good infrastructure and processes, like any major bank has.

None of which can be accurately compared with centralized exchanges, which run under no promise for fund safety (beyond trusting their word, lol). Not only they are caught having insecure setups, but they even engage in illegal activities like practicing fractional reserve banking with your money.

I guarantee you that a line investor at Goldman Sachs doesn't have his firm's billion dollar investment in Bitcoin locked in the top drawer of his desk.

So where does he have it? Inside the corp, in a locker? Maybe in a bank's vault? Maybe in multiple places using multi-sig? As I've already said, you can't keep your bitcoin to your name, it is simply not recognizable, neither by the state, and neither by the Bitcoin network. You either have the choice to be aware of your funds safety yourself (by protecting a seed phrase, and practicing security), or by trusting a provably incompetent stranger with no compensation in case their business goes bankrupt or gets hacked. I believe that a serious investor will go with the former.

They can choose to not participate in this innovation that is rapidly increasing in value. But, I'm sure that's not an option for a serious investor.

I read your article. What's the problem with buying bitcoin and tiding it to your name? You explain why large amounts of money cannot / must not be kept anonymously, but you do not explain why they cannot be kept under your name, but with self-custody. When you buy bitcoin from a KYC exchange, you're giving up enough information to not be considered anonymous. However, nobody forces you to forfeit your custody. You can withdraw them to your wallet normally.

[Z-tight]

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.

BTC was truly created as p2p electronic cash, but BTC is a decentralized currency and there is freedom in the network, i don't think it was ever going to be possible for BTC to have exactly followed Satoshi's visions from creation till now. BTC is now investment for people, a hedge, money, 'digital gold', etc, i think this is the beauty of BTC, permissionless, nobody needs your permission or mine on how to use their BTC.

However, there are p2p exchanges, you don't have to use centralized exchanges, you can run your own node, you don't have to connect to third party nodes, there are open source and self custodial wallets, you don't have to use custodial wallets, there are also privacy solutions, it is not as if people cannot protect their privacy when they use BTC, or use it in the way it was designed, it depends on the individual and not the network.

[BD Technical]

When Bitcoin was created, it didn't know that the value of Bitcoin would be this way in 2024, and Bitcoin itself didn't know that Bitcoin would rise so much because it was priced when Bitcoin launched in 2008.  At a very low speed, which is not to say that a bitcoin could not even buy a chocolate.  And now you can make your dream come true with Admit Coin.  In all cases, the value of Bitcoin is slowly increasing in the case that everyone did not know that Bitcoin would actually increase in this way.  As Bitcoin is spreading around the world in such a way that it seems like the future of people with Bitcoin.  Electric wallets will become the demand for yogurt because they will not keep their transactions as pockets, they will buy and transact all their products by exchanging their bitcoins on mobile or electronic wallets.  One thing you will notice is that no one knew this bitcoin even five years ago no one knew this bitcoin but now you can almost hear the price of this bitcoin by word of mouth.

[Iranus]

These coins can be used to make financial transactions online. Since cryptocurrency transactions are conducted through the blockchain network there is no proof of origin. That's why bitcoin reaches where money or dollars don't. Common people as well as governments have started taking help of these coins to conduct their secret financial transactions. The more it is used the more the market value of bitcoin increases.

In the end, everyone will be aware of this after researching the benefits that can arise from using Bitcoin and its transactions, because Bitcoin has become better than any currency in the world so that everyone cannot deny that the use of Bitcoin will continue to increase accompanied by at the price too. Now large companies have also seen the benefits of using Bitcoin, so now there are companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin if they want to buy a product that they sell on the market.

But can you tell me which companies or organizations have seen the benefits of using bitcoin and using it as a currency or payment method to replace fiat? Because from what I've seen, we're all just using bitcoin as an asset, a profitable investment. I don't see anyone talking about bitcoin as a currency or using it instead of fiat currency on a daily basis, how can you say that bitcoin is better than any other currency?

Let's ignore the original purpose of bitcoin and look at what is happening, bitcoin is being considered a highly volatile commodity and we take advantage of it to speculate for profit. It is no longer a currency and with the bull season approaching, I hardly see any topics or anyone talking about using it for payments anymore. What I'm seeing is price, new ATH, bull season, profits...

[Solosanz]

But can you tell me which companies or organizations have seen the benefits of using bitcoin and using it as a currency or payment method to replace fiat? Because from what I've seen, we're all just using bitcoin as an asset, a profitable investment. I don't see anyone talking about bitcoin as a currency or using it instead of fiat currency on a daily basis, how can you say that bitcoin is better than any other currency?

Let's ignore the original purpose of bitcoin and look at what is happening, bitcoin is being considered a highly volatile commodity and we take advantage of it to speculate for profit. It is no longer a currency and with the bull season approaching, I hardly see any topics or anyone talking about using it for payments anymore. What I'm seeing is price, new ATH, bull season, profits...

Because currently Bitcoin isn't enough to be use as currency.

We can send Bitcoin with cheaper fee using lightning network, but lightning network isn't friendly to use, people can choose stable coins runs in cheap network.

We can protect our privacy using Bitcoin, but Bitcoin isn't completely anonymous, Monero is better in this case.

The biggest advantage of Bitcoin is the decentralization, but people won't give a shit with decentralization when it comes to a currency.

[CageMabok]

I disagree, Bitcoin is only better in terms of borderless payments and decentralized if you use Bitcoin as currency, you will say Bitcoin isn't a good currency because you're always spend more than what you should (the product/service price + fee).

But, Bitcoin is better than any asset in the world because there are no other assets that can perform better in terms price and security than Bitcoin.

I also don't expect you to agree with my opinion on this one, mate, and if you start to misunderstand what I said, try reading what I said again. I don't even say bad things about Bitcoin because I know that Bitcoin is already doing better than any asset in the world which has outperformed many other currencies in the world. So regarding usage, I also have a principle of taking my own measurements when I want to use Bitcoin for something because if it can still be obtained with fiat money, of course I will not sacrifice the Bitcoin that I hold.

But can you tell me which companies or organizations have seen the benefits of using bitcoin and using it as a currency or payment method to replace fiat? Because from what I've seen, we're all just using bitcoin as an asset, a profitable investment. I don't see anyone talking about bitcoin as a currency or using it instead of fiat currency on a daily basis, how can you say that bitcoin is better than any other currency?

It turns out there was one more person who misunderstood what I said, okay, fine. Did I mention companies replacing fiat with Bitcoin in my opinion above? Try reading again because I only said about several companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin when someone is willing to buy a certain company's product with Bitcoin, which means that any company will still accept fiat currency. Even though companies are also willing to accept Bitcoin when someone wants to buy their product and if you still don't know which companies are willing to accept Bitcoin, don't ignore fiat currency when someone wants to buy a product. You can read it on the following three sites:

• https://www.bolt.com/thinkshop/online-stores-that-accept-bitcoin
• https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/
• https://milkroad.com/accept-crypto/

Let's ignore the original purpose of bitcoin and look at what is happening, bitcoin is being considered a highly volatile commodity and we take advantage of it to speculate for profit. It is no longer a currency and with the bull season approaching, I hardly see any topics or anyone talking about using it for payments anymore. What I'm seeing is price, new ATH, bull season, profits...

I will not ignore Bitcoin's initial goals even though I am also hoping for profits and a new ATH in Bitcoin this year, because I also know that Bitcoin is a commodity asset which is more suitable as a long-term investment with a level of risk that is quite commensurate with each investors. So understand it well before you comment, even though I like the question you asked, mate.

[legiteum]

Yes, they know that, and look for institutions that have good infrastructure and processes, like any major bank has.

None of which can be accurately compared with centralized exchanges, which run under no promise for fund safety (beyond trusting their word, lol). Not only they are caught having insecure setups, but they even engage in illegal activities like practicing fractional reserve banking with your money.

Yes, you have to trust some entity to hold your wealth. This is what people have been doing for hundreds of years, and sometimes they trust the wrong institution and get harmed by this.

But the fact is that almost everybody trusts an institution more than they trust themselves to physically hold their life savings.

I guarantee you that a line investor at Goldman Sachs doesn't have his firm's billion dollar investment in Bitcoin locked in the top drawer of his desk.

So where does he have it? Inside the corp, in a locker? Maybe in a bank's vault? Maybe in multiple places using multi-sig? As I've already said, you can't keep your bitcoin to your name, it is simply not recognizable, neither by the state, and neither by the Bitcoin network. You either have the choice to be aware of your funds safety yourself (by protecting a seed phrase, and practicing security), or by trusting a provably incompetent stranger with no compensation in case their business goes bankrupt or gets hacked. I believe that a serious investor will go with the former.
[/quote]

Huh? The Bitcoin of probably about 95% of retail investors is kept in their own name by some broker like Binance or CoinBase or the others.

I serious investor won't keep his life savings under his mattress, or in some iPhone that could end up in a landfill. Most people simply don't want to do that.

And my example above of Goldman Sachs was a bad example since a firm like that has a billion dollar IT budget and is a certified financial institution in their own right with carefully defined processes and tracking to handle money in their organization. But most average investors--even big ones--don't have the infrastructure. They have to rent that from somebody else e.g. a financial institution.

I read your article.

Thank you  .

What's the problem with buying bitcoin and tiding it to your name? You explain why large amounts of money cannot / must not be kept anonymously, but you do not explain why they cannot be kept under your name, but with self-custody. When you buy bitcoin from a KYC exchange, you're giving up enough information to not be considered anonymous. However, nobody forces you to forfeit your custody. You can withdraw them to your wallet normally.

There's no "problem" with keeping an account representing Bitcoin in your name, and I didn't say that large amounts "cannot / must not" be kept anonymously, but rather most people don't want to do that.

Consumers simply don't trust themselves to keep their life savings, or their home, or their car etc. physically in their possession as their sole means of possessing their major wealth. They would rather trust an institution who makes it their business to guard that for them 24/7. Yes, they can pick the wrong one, but the fact is that most Americans don't worry, on a daily basis, that somebody in the county records office is going to switch the name on their house deed making them lose their house. It's obviously quite possible the central institution can fail, and they often do, but for 99.9% of consumers, the system works fine for them.

I have lots of worries in my life, but my brokerage account at the major broker I use suddenly losing track of my portfolio account--my life savings--isn't one of them. However, if I had my private key with my entire wealth hidden somewhere--or worse, kept physically on my own person at all times--I would be constantly worried it would be stolen a gunpoint, or lost, or dropped in a well, or whatever.

Other people might have different personalities, but I think I'm correct in saying that most consumers are like me, given that, for instance, almost nobody buys Bitcoin anonymously with only a private key, but instead they use a broker with KYC.

This is very different, however, than the way I treat the $87.50 in physical cash I have in my personal wallet right now, which I absolutely want to use anonymously--and I'm willing to take the risk of losing that cash in exchange for this anonymity. There is a place for anonymity for most average consumers for "small" amounts (the definition of "small" will depend in the person). My observation is that people want a "cash wallet" with some small slice of their wealth to spend on a day to day basis anonymously, but they want to keep the big stuff safe with somebody else.

Again, that's not everybody, but just observationally, you can see that most consumers want to treat their money that way.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But the fact is that almost everybody trusts an institution more than they trust themselves to physically hold their life savings.

Huh? The Bitcoin of probably about 95% of retail investors is kept in their own name by some broker like Binance or CoinBase or the others.

Can you back these claims up? An investor who puts millions into FTX, Voyager or Celsius (as recent examples of collapsed crypto firms) isn't a serious one.

But most average investors--even big ones--don't have the infrastructure. They have to rent that from somebody else e.g. a financial institution.

Except that almost every "reputable" centralized exchange to this date has experienced cyberattacks that resulted in loss of funds. So, they don't just trust a financial institution; they trust an entity that is a matter of time until it is hacked or bankrupt. Given that information, I'd consider it obtuse to trust my money in such a firm.

There's no "problem" with keeping an account representing Bitcoin in your name, and I didn't say that large amounts "cannot / must not" be kept anonymously, but rather most people don't want to do that.

They don't want to do that, because they must report their earnings / investments / properties to the government. That's why I used "cannot" and "must not". If you buy a house and hide it from your government, you're in big trouble. Otherwise, I'm sure most people wouldn't want to report their properties anywhere.

Yes, they can pick the wrong one, but the fact is that most Americans don't worry, on a daily basis, that somebody in the county records office is going to switch the name on their house deed making them lose their house.

This is a very bad analogy. If some random stranger switches the name of your house to theirs, you can sue them and get it back. Same goes for banking. If a random stranger compromises Binance and steals your deposit, then it is outside's the police's and the law's power. Your last resort is the evidently inaccurate blockchain analysis. The coins are pretty much theirs now. The end.

Other people might have different personalities, but I think I'm correct in saying that most consumers are like me, given that, for instance, almost nobody buys Bitcoin anonymously with only a private key, but instead they use a broker with KYC.

I agree that 99% of the userbase would buy from a KYC-ed broker firm, but I'd argue that quite a lot of them would withdraw the coins to their wallets.

[Iranus]

But can you tell me which companies or organizations have seen the benefits of using bitcoin and using it as a currency or payment method to replace fiat? Because from what I've seen, we're all just using bitcoin as an asset, a profitable investment. I don't see anyone talking about bitcoin as a currency or using it instead of fiat currency on a daily basis, how can you say that bitcoin is better than any other currency?

It turns out there was one more person who misunderstood what I said, okay, fine. Did I mention companies replacing fiat with Bitcoin in my opinion above? Try reading again because I only said about several companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin when someone is willing to buy a certain company's product with Bitcoin, which means that any company will still accept fiat currency. Even though companies are also willing to accept Bitcoin when someone wants to buy their product and if you still don't know which companies are willing to accept Bitcoin, don't ignore fiat currency when someone wants to buy a product. You can read it on the following three sites:

Maybe I misunderstood you when I heard you say "bitcoin is better than any other currency", but in reality we don't use bitcoin as currency, so how can we say it is better? I also know that there are already some organizations and companies that accept bitcoin as a payment method.
But my question is, how many bitcoin payment transactions have been done or are they just doing it just to bring attention to their company. What I mean is that companies that accept bitcoin only use it as a promotional tool for their reputation instead of seriously wanting to promote the popularity of bitcoin as a means of payment.

Let's ignore the original purpose of bitcoin and look at what is happening, bitcoin is being considered a highly volatile commodity and we take advantage of it to speculate for profit. It is no longer a currency and with the bull season approaching, I hardly see any topics or anyone talking about using it for payments anymore. What I'm seeing is price, new ATH, bull season, profits...

I will not ignore Bitcoin's initial goals even though I am also hoping for profits and a new ATH in Bitcoin this year, because I also know that Bitcoin is a commodity asset which is more suitable as a long-term investment with a level of risk that is quite commensurate with each investors. So understand it well before you comment, even though I like the question you asked, mate.

The purpose of bitcoin is to be a peer-to-peer currency but I don't see anyone mentioning that anymore and instead we just see bitcoin as a commodity.

[Luzin]

The purpose of bitcoin is to be a peer-to-peer currency but I don't see anyone mentioning that anymore and instead we just see bitcoin as a commodity.

The development of the industry has made Crypto veer away from Satoshi's original goal. In addition, Satoshi's original goal is very contrary to the government's financial system. The orientation has also changed, the government cannot abolish it so now the world government provides space and takes advantage. They give Crypto space as a Commodity. They make regulations to take advantage through taxes. In addition, world institutions such as ETFs have also made Crypto a trading commodity. So right now the orientation is a profitable business.

[adpinbr]

Yes, it was indeed freedom and the most sweetest thing ever on it is that your transaction is controlled by you no matter the amount you put into your wallet is responsible to take care of it. If you lost the access to your wallet, your money is gone that is the truth so as much as the risk is big for you don’t have the capability to store such money because sometimes some people also might have much money in their wallet, but if you of not feeling like it’s save enough you may be making your password more easier or trying to keep your phrase it could not get missing and you may expose yourself. yes, Doller has been strongest force in the currency aspect that has been the top people trade dollars, in the foreign exchange Dollar is more more recognized, not most people are using bitcoin in their day today online trades as a digital assets but one thing you have to know that companies and businesses have not yet decided hundred percent of using just Bitcoin as their own exchange, instead of using fiat to accept payment, for now yet is still what is accepted in businesses. so businesses is still using the local currency to accept payments, and sometimes they also use bitcoin

[legiteum]

But the fact is that almost everybody trusts an institution more than they trust themselves to physically hold their life savings.
[...]
The Bitcoin of probably about 95% of retail investors is kept in their own name by some broker like Binance or CoinBase or the others.

Can you back these claims up? An investor who puts millions into FTX, Voyager or Celsius (as recent examples of collapsed crypto firms) isn't a serious one.

No, those investors didn't do their research into those companies and/or were swindled by criminals. But nobody serious puts giant portions of their large portfolio in the top drawer or their desk. They rely on an institution that has (or says they have) multiple layers of security and processes e.g. like a bank).

But most average investors--even big ones--don't have the infrastructure. They have to rent that from somebody else e.g. a financial institution.

Except that almost every "reputable" centralized exchange to this date has experienced cyberattacks that resulted in loss of funds. So, they don't just trust a financial institution; they trust an entity that is a matter of time until it is hacked or bankrupt. Given that information, I'd consider it obtuse to trust my money in such a firm.

Every single one? Really? If that's the case (and it isn't), then that would simply add to the cost of holding Bitcoin in the form of a risk premium.

At the end of the day, you either physically hold your own private key (for yourself or your firm), or you trust some firm to do that for you. Both have risks.

For the average consumer who doesn't have a billion dollar IT department at their disposal, they are more or less forced to trust somebody to do it for them. Nobody wants to hide their life savings under their mattress

There's no "problem" with keeping an account representing Bitcoin in your name, and I didn't say that large amounts "cannot / must not" be kept anonymously, but rather most people don't want to do that.

They don't want to do that, because they must report their earnings / investments / properties to the government. That's why I used "cannot" and "must not". If you buy a house and hide it from your government, you're in big trouble. Otherwise, I'm sure most people wouldn't want to report their properties anywhere.

Most people don't want to risk being prosecuted and imprisoned for tax evasion.

If you buy a house and don't report it to the government, somebody can come steal your house and you will have no recourse.

While we all watch lots of TV shows where criminals live the crazy life they live with a gun at their side protecting their immediate physical assets, most people... don't want that. They don't own a gun and instead have assets in their name and institutions to do the protection for them.

Yes, they can pick the wrong one, but the fact is that most Americans don't worry, on a daily basis, that somebody in the county records office is going to switch the name on their house deed making them lose their house.

This is a very bad analogy. If some random stranger switches the name of your house to theirs, you can sue them and get it back. Same goes for banking. If a random stranger compromises Binance and steals your deposit, then it is outside's the police's and the law's power. Your last resort is the evidently inaccurate blockchain analysis. The coins are pretty much theirs now. The end.

Correct. That is all possible because you put those assets in your own name and didn't purchase them anonymously. Most people want that kind of security. Hardly anybody would want to buy a house with an NFT that can be physically stolen or robbed at gunpoint (because there is no "you" when there's no identity).

This backs up into the fallacy that anarcho-libertarians often espouse, e.g. wouldn't it be great if there was "no government". Actually, it would be rather terrible because everything you own would be a gunfight away from being taken from you. Institutions are helpful, as are governments. They obviously have a lot of problems themselves, but as a whole they are still better than the alternative.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Can you back these claims up? An investor who puts millions into FTX, Voyager or Celsius (as recent examples of collapsed crypto firms) isn't a serious one.

No, those investors didn't do their research into those companies and/or were swindled by criminals. But nobody serious puts giant portions of their large portfolio in the top drawer or their desk. They rely on an institution that has (or says they have) multiple layers of security and processes e.g. like a bank).

So, you can't back these claims up.

Every single one? Really?

Not "every single one", that's why I said "almost". Here's a documented timeline of hacked exchanges: https://chainsec.io/exchange-hacks/. Note that this isn't "complete", as it says. It misses important incidents like Binance getting hit by $570M hack. Here's another list of bankrupt crypto exchanges: https://www.hedgewithcrypto.com/crypto-bankruptcies/. What matters to me, is that these were someday referred to as "secure" and "safer than guarding your private keys", whereas they were huge targets for hackers and lacked the regulatory framework to compensate the customers' funds instead. I expect from a serious investor to see the big picture here, and choose to be responsible for their own wealth instead of the former.

Correct. That is all possible because you put those assets in your own name and didn't purchase them anonymously.

Am I noticing a contradiction here?

If you buy a house and don't report it to the government, somebody can come steal your house and you will have no recourse.

It is simply possible because Bitcoin works outside the government's supervision. It doesn't matter the slightest whether you report your Bitcoin holdings or not. If a thief compromises your keys, you cannot resort to any institution.

[Rufsilf]

Without the need for established banking institutions, users can send and receive money anywhere in the world, and I believe this would be advantageous for areas with unstable economies or no access to banking services. For example, we may govern our wealth and transactions more effectively and enjoy financial freedom thanks to bitcoin. However, it's possible that some groups or individuals have contradictory opinions about this since they question whether bitcoin will endure into the future generation or if it was only created for our own time. I think that it is reasonable that we could use third parties in order to get some bitcoin so that we can be avoided as targets by people who do bad deeds.

[kentrolla]

Without the need for established banking institutions, users can send and receive money anywhere in the world, and I believe this would be advantageous for areas with unstable economies or no access to banking services. For example, we may govern our wealth and transactions more effectively and enjoy financial freedom thanks to bitcoin. However, it's possible that some groups or individuals have contradictory opinions about this since they question whether bitcoin will endure into the future generation or if it was only created for our own time. I think that it is reasonable that we could use third parties in order to get some bitcoin so that we can be avoided as targets by people who do bad deeds.

Yes it was created for P2P transfer globally without involvement of any third party but now it is used for P2P only for higher fund transfer as low level transfer are done through Altcoins as the transaction fee for Bitcoin is on higher side for low level transfer.

That's one side of story wherein Bitcoin is users for the purpose it was created and the second aspect is looking at Bitcoin as an investment and more users are interested in this part of Bitcoin wherein they just wants to invest into it.

[Mauser]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

There are definitely some people who managed to achieve financial freedom through bitcoins, but I would expect that the majority of bitcoin investors are still using the FIAT monetary system heavily and didn't achieve their financial freedom yet. It's nice to see another rise in bitcoin prices and hopefully we are going to see a new ATH this year. Unfortunately, the higher the bitcoin price will be the harder it will be for new investors to acquire bitcoins. The lucky ones are the investors that bought bitcoins 16 years ago, but the majority only learned about it much later. We can't turn back time so we are stuck with the current bitcoin price. It's a good currency for people that live far from each other and in different countries, because they can send money quickly online and don't have to worry about the high fees’ banks would charge for cross border transactions. In case bitcoin is only meant to reach financial freedom, then I am not sure how anybody could achieve this today. Buying bitcoins around 60,000 USD means that there is only a very limited upside potential for now. To make a 100% return on your investment the price would have to reach 120,000 USD and I am not sure how quickly that could happen. Bitcoins are definitely a great investment that should be part of any portfolio, I am just not sure if the majority of the world can achieve financial freedom through it.

[legiteum]

Can you back these claims up? An investor who puts millions into FTX, Voyager or Celsius (as recent examples of collapsed crypto firms) isn't a serious one.

No, those investors didn't do their research into those companies and/or were swindled by criminals. But nobody serious puts giant portions of their large portfolio in the top drawer or their desk. They rely on an institution that has (or says they have) multiple layers of security and processes e.g. like a bank).

So, you can't back these claims up.

Except that every person I know invests in Bitcoin using a broker, and brokers do billions of dollars in transactions every single day and are billion dollar concerns, and the idea that most large investors would physically hold their investment on their iPhone is rather ridiculous to me, then yes, I suppose this is just my own opinion about the market. I could be wrong.

But I'm personally betting everything I have on being right about this...

Not "every single one", that's why I said "almost". Here's a documented timeline of hacked exchanges: [...]

Shall I google all of the stories about people who have physically lost their private keys?

There's obviously no perfect solution, and everybody can make their own decision about this, but the existence of large banks and brokers in the civilized world that hold most consumer wealth tells me that most people want to trust somebody else to guard their major wealth, not do it themselves.

Correct. That is all possible because you put those assets in your own name and didn't purchase them anonymously.

Am I noticing a contradiction here?

If you buy a house and don't report it to the government, somebody can come steal your house and you will have no recourse.

It is simply possible because Bitcoin works outside the government's supervision. It doesn't matter the slightest whether you report your Bitcoin holdings or not. If a thief compromises your keys, you cannot resort to any institution.

You either put something in your name, e.g. your home, car, savings account or brokerage account, or you keep your wealth physically on your person secretly without the government's knowledge and fend for yourself. I think we're saying the same thing.

My thesis here is that most consumers don't want to live in this world when it comes to their "large" assets (the opposite of what they want with the "small" cash in their wallet). They have other things to do besides guard their major wealth like they would living in feudal times.

[BlackHatCoiner]

the idea that most large investors would physically hold their investment on their iPhone is rather ridiculous to me

I never said that they should hold their private keys in an iPhone, but in a properly airgapped device, by backing up their seed phrase in some strong material like washers, or in paper inside a locker. You should never hold private keys of significant value in an Internet connected computer.

Shall I google all of the stories about people who have physically lost their private keys?

Go on. Find me incidents of people who used reputable, open-source software in airgapped devices, like Passport or SeedSigner and got ripped off. Or beyond these. Find me incidents of people who simply got ripped off by holding their keys in an airgapped environment.

There's obviously no perfect solution, and everybody can make their own decision about this, but the existence of large banks and brokers in the civilized world that hold most consumer wealth tells me that most people want to trust somebody else to guard their major wealth, not do it themselves.

I agree, but what I'm trying to tell you is that there is no regulatory framework for centralized exchanges, so it is a bad analogy. You're practically handing over your coins to a stranger with no compensation, trusting nothing but their word. In a civilized world, you do not only have the bank's and broker's word to rely on.

[Rufsilf]

Without the need for established banking institutions, users can send and receive money anywhere in the world, and I believe this would be advantageous for areas with unstable economies or no access to banking services. For example, we may govern our wealth and transactions more effectively and enjoy financial freedom thanks to bitcoin. However, it's possible that some groups or individuals have contradictory opinions about this since they question whether bitcoin will endure into the future generation or if it was only created for our own time. I think that it is reasonable that we could use third parties in order to get some bitcoin so that we can be avoided as targets by people who do bad deeds.

Yes it was created for P2P transfer globally without involvement of any third party but now it is used for P2P only for higher fund transfer as low level transfer are done through Altcoins as the transaction fee for Bitcoin is on higher side for low level transfer.

That's one side of story wherein Bitcoin is users for the purpose it was created and the second aspect is looking at Bitcoin as an investment and more users are interested in this part of Bitcoin wherein they just wants to invest into it.

In addition, there are others who use it solely for bitcoin investments, and they can only make money from it if they can hold onto it for the long run and resist being lured in by the fluctuations in price over time. I mean, how many years do we have to hold onto our bitcoins and keep them there? Because of the benefits that bitcoin offers, I can honestly state that it has a meaningful impact on and changes the lives of other people. However, because of its price volatility, there are drawbacks as well. 

[legiteum]

the idea that most large investors would physically hold their investment on their iPhone is rather ridiculous to me

I never said that they should hold their private keys in an iPhone, but in a properly airgapped device, by backing up their seed phrase in some strong material like washers, or in paper inside a locker. You should never hold private keys of significant value in an Internet connected computer.

Who has access to the safe? Why do they have that access? Who is monitoring that access? Who is monitoring that person for compromise by foreign or domestic criminals? Who made the safe? Who else could have the keys to it? How long would it take somebody to break into that safe? Who controls who has access to the safe, and under what procedures?

And what is the overall risk, in terms of analytics, that this safe is compromised?

Most people are probably not aware that the above items--and much, much more--are done every day by reputable large financial institutions, who follow standards like 27001 compliance and lots of other standards and practices. Employees of those institutions are background checked, fingerprinted, and so on.

What average consumer can rival this?

Large institutions sometimes fail--especially very new ones ala FTX and Binance and so on. And crypto brokers initially have existed with less regulation that helps ensure they correctly care for people's money.

Shall I google all of the stories about people who have physically lost their private keys?

Go on. Find me incidents of people who used reputable, open-source software in airgapped devices, like Passport or SeedSigner and got ripped off. Or beyond these. Find me incidents of people who simply got ripped off by holding their keys in an airgapped environment.

Find me the last time a major US financial institution like Citibank lost their customers bank accounts.

Again, your average consumer does not want to engage in trade craft just to hold on to their savings. Most people don't do this for a living, they do other things.

And "airgapped" won't help you if a thief breaks into your house, takes your airgapped device, and then uses a form of cryptanalysis that has thus far never failed to break even the strongest encryption.

There's obviously no perfect solution, and everybody can make their own decision about this, but the existence of large banks and brokers in the civilized world that hold most consumer wealth tells me that most people want to trust somebody else to guard their major wealth, not do it themselves.

I agree, but what I'm trying to tell you is that there is no regulatory framework for centralized exchanges, so it is a bad analogy. You're practically handing over your coins to a stranger with no compensation, trusting nothing but their word. In a civilized world, you do not only have the bank's and broker's word to rely on.

I agree with that, and I suspect that you'll see a massive shift to people using the ETF route to expose themselves to Bitcoin and other cryptos because they can use their larger and more trustworthy financial institutions e.g. their stock broker like Charles Schwab or whatever. These are companies that consumers have trusted for years and they stake their entire business on not losing customer data.

The existence (and fails) of companies like Binance and the others who have lost customer data speaks, I think, to the fact that crypto investing is basically brand new. As this market matures, the "pros" will come in and do it right--and there will be government regulations resulting from massive losses of consumer money. (My hope is that they leave the market open enough that it's optional for consumers e.g. FDIC insured or not, their choice).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Most people are probably not aware that the above items--and much, much more--are done every day by reputable large financial institutions, who follow standards like 27001 compliance and lots of other standards and practices. Employees of those institutions are background checked, fingerprinted, and so on.

For the second time, there exist no such institutions in cryptocurrencies. The investor has to choose to either do this themselves by taking responsibility of the security of their coins, or trust a stranger that does not follow the aforementioned standards (like 27001 compliance). Or just not invest into cryptocurrencies.

Again, your average consumer does not want to engage in trade craft just to hold on to their savings. Most people don't do this for a living, they do other things.

I thought we were talking about serious investors, who will buy large quantities, i.e. Michael Saylor. Not "average consumers".

Find me the last time a major US financial institution like Citibank lost their customers bank accounts.

Again, bad analogy!

And "airgapped" won't help you if a thief breaks into your house, takes your airgapped device, and then uses a form of cryptanalysis that has thus far never failed to break even the strongest encryption.

That's why we have multi-sig. To guard funds under divided possession. The investor could save two keys in his house, another two in his companies and/or into the bank's vaults. They could then decide how many keys are required, from the total, to spend coins from the wallet. Depending on that configuration, a thief will have to break into both their house, the bank and/or their company simultaneously!

The existence (and fails) of companies like Binance and the others who have lost customer data speaks, I think, to the fact that crypto investing is basically brand new.

I disagree. The reason why they cannot be trusted with your coins is that they promise to safeguard something that is outside their control. If a thief compromises your bank's account, you just report it to the police and to the bank accordingly. Depending on the time it takes you to realize it, you will likely not experience losses, and might even have their potential transactions reversed. If a thief breaks into your Binance's account and makes a withdrawal, you're finished. The Binance can't help you, the police can't help you etc. That's the fundamental difference between debit money and hard cash.

[legiteum]

Most people are probably not aware that the above items--and much, much more--are done every day by reputable large financial institutions, who follow standards like 27001 compliance and lots of other standards and practices. Employees of those institutions are background checked, fingerprinted, and so on.

For the second time, there exist no such institutions in cryptocurrencies. The investor has to choose to either do this themselves by taking responsibility of the security of their coins, or trust a stranger that does not follow the aforementioned standards (like 27001 compliance). Or just not invest into cryptocurrencies.

I am not as apprised how every institution handles crypto, although I know PayPal allows you to buy crypto, and are a mainstream financial player.

Of course all of this is moot now, since you can bet on Bitcoin using any major brokerage in the world using the ETF. As I said, I suspect much of the market will move to that if they haven't already (is there some way we can tell how much has been moved to the ETF?).

Again, your average consumer does not want to engage in trade craft just to hold on to their savings. Most people don't do this for a living, they do other things.

I thought we were talking about serious investors, who will buy large quantities, i.e. Michael Saylor. Not "average consumers".

[/quote]

Well, I guess there's a continuum of investors from "large" to "small" and sophisticated to less so. Lots of people with, say, $1m+ to invest may well be unsophisticated investors. Probably the ones in the billions can afford their own infrastructure, but as I said before, this infrastructure is not at all cheap to create and maintain.

Find me the last time a major US financial institution like Citibnk lost their customers bank accounts.

Again, bad analogy!

Again, I agree with today's brokerages (as far as I know, and with the above caveat about PayPal), but the ETF changes this conversation entirely.

And "airgapped" won't help you if a thief breaks into your house, takes your airgapped device, and then uses a form of cryptanalysis that has thus far never failed to break even the strongest encryption.

That's why we have multi-sig. To guard funds under divided possession. The investor could save two keys in his house, another two in his companies and/or into the bank's vaults. They could then decide how many keys are required, from the total, to spend coins from the wallet. Depending on that configuration, a thief will have to break into both their house, the bank and/or their company simultaneously!

That's a good next step, and would probably thwart a next level of attacks, and it might be safe defending on other factors e.g. the dollar amount in question, the determination of the attackers, and probably the overall crime environment (e.g. in the US you are probably a lot safer than say a third world country).

But can we just skip ahead in this discussion a few steps to the point where you are describing the security governance infrastructure of your average large financial institution? What you're doing here is building a business case for a truly safe and dependable institution to store your crypto investment (and if I were in investor scrutinizing such a plan I would say sorry, too late, there are ETFs now so this need has been drastically reduced if not almost eliminated).

The existence (and fails) of companies like Binance and the others who have lost customer data speaks, I think, to the fact that crypto investing is basically brand new.

I disagree. The reason why they cannot be trusted with your coins is that they promise to safeguard something that is outside their control. If a thief compromises your bank's account, you just report it to the police and to the bank accordingly. Depending on the time it takes you to realize it, you will likely not experience losses, and might even have their potential transactions reversed. If a thief breaks into your Binance's account and makes a withdrawal, you're finished. The Binance can't help you, the police can't help you etc. That's the fundamental difference between debit money and hard cash.

If the bank guarantees your deposit (e.g. like an insurance company), for instance, then you don't care because you are made whole no matter what happens (and surely you'll pay higher fees for such a service).

Although I don't know how all of the contracts work, I know that brokerages are on the generally on the hook to provide a certain level of diligence lest they be sued for the stuff they lose (and again we're talking traditional brokerages, not the new crypto brokers).

And as a side note, while you are probably right about the state of the pure crypto brokers right now, I would have to think, with tens of billions of dollar in prize money waiting for them, that some companies with trusted brand names will step up and solve the problem. (Again, with the caveat that about the ETF already solving the problem notwithstanding).

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am not as apprised how every institution handles crypto, although I know PayPal allows you to buy crypto, and are a mainstream financial player.

I have never used it, but I know that it does not work like exchanges do. You cannot withdraw it to your wallet, and I don't think PayPal has proof of reserves, so I don't know even if these coins exist in the first place and aren't some sort of IOU.

is there some way we can tell how much has been moved to the ETF?

Sorry, I have no damn clue.

Again, I agree with today's brokerages (as far as I know, and with the above caveat about PayPal), but the ETF changes this conversation entirely.

Indeed. And that's because it introduces some regulatory convenience. Let's see how this goes. Still, though. Someone has to safeguard bitcoin, which is not really different from a crypto exchange. The only difference is that there is more regulatory ground to base it. If an anonymous hacker compromises the infrastructure, I wonder what will happen to investors' money.

And as a side note, while you are probably right about the state of the pure crypto brokers right now, I would have to think, with tens of billions of dollar in prize money waiting for them, that some companies with trusted brand names will step up and solve the problem

I don't think that the solution is "reputation". The problem comes from the fact that knowledge of a private key can alter ownership, which is fundamentally different than the traditional model where there are lots of documents and procedures involved to change the ownership of a car, house etc. Attempting to falsely alter the ownership of a property can also result in imprisonment, which discourages thieves further.

However, even if regulations become more strict, and crypto firms must be held accounted for financial losses, and / or maybe even if the state compensates them, the problem still remains. Ownership changes with the knowledge of a number, anonymously, with no disincentive for imprisonment.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

Not trying to be pessimistic but in all honesty, I don't think there is any project you are buliding right now that will ever succeed bitcoin, as long as it's crypto currency related, except you are bringing an entirely new concept to the table.

I would on my own, tell you that, what bitcoin has achieved so far is not far from what Satoshi himself or their self wanted for it, Satoshi may not have mentioned any of this in the bitcoin white paper, but the honest truth is that, he or they created bitcoin to actually become a store of value, and that bitcoin is today, for there is no way something will be a store of value without being an asset peoople can invest in to make profit.

And a headsup I am going to give you is, whatever project you are building, if it's not like bitcoin, then you hardly will find people who are or will be interested in investing and holding the coin, people wanna put money on things they can profit from, most especially if such product is internet based.

[AakZaki]

In the end, everyone will be aware of this after researching the benefits that can arise from using Bitcoin and its transactions, because Bitcoin has become better than any currency in the world so that everyone cannot deny that the use of Bitcoin will continue to increase accompanied by at the price too. Now large companies have also seen the benefits of using Bitcoin, so now there are companies that are willing to accept Bitcoin if they want to buy a product that they sell on the market.

But in my country that will never happen, Bitcoin is only used as an investment, not for full adoption. Bitcoin may have a price that is increasing at the moment but it will only be a speculative asset and not in accordance with the main purpose of Bitcoin being created. The more new investors who enter, of course the volume of Bitcoin will be greater, they want multiple profits, so Bitcoin is only a tool for trading and investing.

[Synchronice]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Fast forward 16 years and almost all Bitcoin transactions are run through third parties.  To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on. To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.  Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

Bitcoin wasn't created as a response to the 2008's financial crisis. It was created to offer you purely p2p version of electronic cash that would also offer you non-reversible transaction and would save you mediation costs. Bitcoin simply wasn't meant and designed for massive usage because otherwise there wouldn't be 1MB block size in the first case. Also, high blocksize requires high space and makes it expensive to run bitcoin nodes. The difficulty and expansivity of running a bitcoin node would lead to a centralization instead of decentralization.

Bitcoin was created solely for making ecommerce better than it was, that's all. Many people stick different labels to it but during that moment, it was the aim. It wasn't created to bury USD and save the world from riches.

[EarnOnVictor]

Bitcoin was created as a response to the financial crises of 2008.  The idea was to create a decentralized electronic cash system that had a limited supply.  The current fiat currencies used worldwide are both centrally controlled and have no limit on how much the issuer can create.  The US dollar, as an example, has lost 98% of it's purchasing power since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was granted the power to print US dollars.

I don't think you are correct in saying that Bitcoin was created in response to the financial crisis of 2008. As a matter of fact, if terms should be defined well, it is an economic crisis, and it lasted between 2007 and 2009. But this is not in any way the reason why Bitcoin was created and I like you to know that Bitcoin is not powerful enough to solve the economic problems of the world or any nation, it can only be an edge against inflation,, just like any other assets, nothing more.

However, in my opinion, the main motive of Satoshi in creating Bitcoin was to create a decentralised system that would not be overseen by the government or any central authority, while the rest (investments, trading, staking etc) are just an added advantage. Needless to say, Bitcoin was an experiment that later became true, adopted and appreciated by the whole world, and great kudos to him/her/them (Satoshi Nakamoto).

Mind you, I would advise you to leave any fiat currency alone, they are doing just fine and Bitcoin can never exist in isolation, it needs them even as they do not need it. We should only be appreciative that the global government allows Bitcoin to hold and not see it as a total enemy to clamp down on. If they do, I am sure that it might not see the light of the day the way we see it now.

[GeorgeJohn]

Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs. Arguably developers are adding things like ordinals to the code which have slowed transactions and increased fees above what would be reasonable for small financial transactions.

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

Bitcoin has a decentralized use case.  More money means more freedom.  Satoshi's vision requires more adoption.  Higher price means more attention.  Attention drives adoption.

Why people is interested more in bitcoin is because is a decentralized kind of something and when looking at bitcoin transaction and investment you will see that is not stressful as other kind of investment, and without bitcoin been decentralized it would have be manipulated, so therefore you have to understand that bitcoin is more understanding than any other investment that have to do with serious monitor

[Dzwaafu11]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

The main reason for creating bitcoin cannot work at the moment, so it's not surprising that it is still yet to start functioning, and one of the reasons why we still don't get lucky to be using bitcoin in the way it was created is because the way currency is, nobody regulates it; it controls itself, including the market, and it's a decentralised currency. Since we can't use it without government approval, you can see that there is no way we can use bitcoin as a means of making payments in our respective countries, and you know the government won’t allow something they won’t take their part or control in the country.

However, another thing is that all these big investors and businessmen and women are not ready for bitcoin. Although some of them  knows that it has many freedoms that will make their business easier without them stressing themselves, the only thing here is that these people are not ready to learn, and some of them are still scared of bitcoin since the government has made it prohibited for them. If they start using it in their stores, they may later lose the funds. That is what some are thinking.

While some did not want to learn, sit down and learn the whole process of bitcoin transactions as it will take their time before they understand the process, so they feel it is better to continue using their fiat currency that is regulated by the government. There is still the problem of how people view bitcoin in your area because some people who are unaware of it still think bitcoiners are fraudsters. They use it for fraud, which is why they can’t accept it, although to me the only obstacle that bitcoin is still having is the government.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

Yeah. Bitcoin cannot be accepted because of the government. In my opinion, those who buy good and sell will find it difficult to do that because they go and buy from another store to sell, so what if they accept and where they are buying something does not accept? If you can see that, it will be a very big challenge for them.

 However, let me just say that bitcoin is for the new generation as everybody is adopting the cryptocurrency, and of course, I think these investments are pushing people to learn about bitcoin, so to me, it’s perfect when we have millions of investors, even if the government later accepts it as another means of making payments in a country. They already have people who know about it, so they will teach others who don’t know anything about it.

People who buy bitcoin in exchange know that many people are doing p2p, so they buy it and move it to their wallets, where they can store their bitcoin. As you know, exchange is not safe for storing bitcoin.

[barto123]

It was intended to be that way.

Most Bitcoiners won't admit it (I was one of them). It has been infiltrated to a certain degree - however I don't believe it can be controlled at all like fiat. The best they can do is surveillance - build an umbrella over the top and enforce their draconian measures.

I still hold BTC, I think it will appreciate in value and be sound money for years to come. I think it's a great alternative to gold.

However there's clearly going to be a period of insane top down government control. People are waking up to the reality of the system, however it's not being brought down or slowed by any means.

For me, I will use Monero as cash dries up - it's easy and it works. The best evidence is the Binance delisting, The super rich controlling the world fear Monero much more than Bitcoin. It's the #1 adopted cryptocurrency on dark net markets.

Digital ID's may be required to get online soon, and that will be hard to spend bitcoin/monero. People are resilient though, we'll find a way to route around them.

Sure if we see a mad max situation and the power, internet goes down, digital coins are useless, you're going to want some gold, silver, food, supplies.

[Iranus]

The purpose of bitcoin is to be a peer-to-peer currency but I don't see anyone mentioning that anymore and instead we just see bitcoin as a commodity.

The development of the industry has made Crypto veer away from Satoshi's original goal. In addition, Satoshi's original goal is very contrary to the government's financial system. The orientation has also changed, the government cannot abolish it so now the world government provides space and takes advantage. They give Crypto space as a Commodity. They make regulations to take advantage through taxes. In addition, world institutions such as ETFs have also made Crypto a trading commodity. So right now the orientation is a profitable business.

That's what I mean, we need to adapt to the current situation and accept the fact that bitcoin is a commodity. So I will not agree when someone says that bitcoin is better than any other currency or that it will be used as currency in the future. That is gone and we will never be able to do that.

It's not that ETFs or governments have commodified bitcoin, it's that we have commodified bitcoin. ETFs have only recently been approved and governments have only recently become interested in bitcoin, but bitcoin has been trading on exchanges since 2010 and 2012 and its volatility has persisted for many years ago.
Bitcoin is an asset, a commodity.

[Cryptmuster]

But in my country that will never happen, Bitcoin is only used as an investment, not for full adoption. Bitcoin may have a price that is increasing at the moment but it will only be a speculative asset and not in accordance with the main purpose of Bitcoin being created. The more new investors who enter, of course the volume of Bitcoin will be greater, they want multiple profits, so Bitcoin is only a tool for trading and investing.

Even before the approval of the spot Bitcoin ETF, Bitcoin was already perceived by most investors as an investment asset, and with the arrival of players like Blackrock, this became an irrevocable point, now I am almost sure that Bitcoin has no chance of becoming a means of payment, now it will definitely become the digital gold, that they want control the most powerful foundations and corporations in the world. Whether this is good or bad, I don’t know, if you have Bitcoin, you will definitely make a good profit.

[peter0425]

But in my country that will never happen, Bitcoin is only used as an investment, not for full adoption. Bitcoin may have a price that is increasing at the moment but it will only be a speculative asset and not in accordance with the main purpose of Bitcoin being created. The more new investors who enter, of course the volume of Bitcoin will be greater, they want multiple profits, so Bitcoin is only a tool for trading and investing.

Even before the approval of the spot Bitcoin ETF, Bitcoin was already perceived by most investors as an investment asset, and with the arrival of players like Blackrock, this became an irrevocable point, now I am almost sure that Bitcoin has no chance of becoming a means of payment, now it will definitely become the digital gold, that they want control the most powerful foundations and corporations in the world. Whether this is good or bad, I don’t know, if you have Bitcoin, you will definitely make a good profit.

that is sad but reality and this change the purpose and the position of bitcoin to which Satoshi aim to create and that is to be a currency that will be used worldwide and not to be an asset to be stocked in each wallets.
and this will never be adopted if that will be the use of bitcoin for the next coming years.

[Forever101]

You have made a vital point however, one can embrace other project coming up that are beneficial to the system. That will help the coin to get awareness and it's use cases will continue to be broaden. It will be better to see to lessen the workload on the system by see how the system will work faster.

[KingsDen]

It is no longer new to us that bitcoin has digressed to a certain extent the reason it was created but then it is not completely out of place. The investment asset it is discovered to be as against the proposed currency status has also helped to send people out of poverty.

My major concern is any threat against bitcoin and such threats should be a threat against the decentralized nature of bitcoin, 50% attack and not just the exchanges using bitcoin in a centralized way.

[Luzin]

It is no longer new to us that bitcoin has digressed to a certain extent the reason it was created but then it is not completely out of place. The investment asset it is discovered to be as against the proposed currency status has also helped to send people out of poverty.

If you had a volatile currency would you be happy. I don't think so, because it would be a big risk. Imagine if your money becomes worthless because its value keeps going down. Perhaps the best thing to do now is to make Bitcoin an investment instrument. Because I imagine it will be complicated when it becomes money and its value is still fluctuating. There will be no control over its fixed value and this could hurt us, although it could also be profitable.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

To buy Bitcoin most people use exchanges which you must KYC on.

Yes of course and I will tell you why, the world is advancing in both technology and crime and transacting some things between individuals alone can see an individual robbed and deprived of his coins and his money, so it is better and more secured for most people to sell and buy on reputable exchanges which offer them security against assets loss and victimization. upon acquisition, you are advised to move the coins to a decentralized wallet because not your keys equals not your coin

There are also many other ways of  acquiring bitcoin without patronizing exchanges like bitcoin paid jobs online, offering goods and services with renumeration in bitcoin, offline peer to peer ( sometimes, I buy my coins from friends who are in need of funds, and are sent directly to my opensource wallets).

To store Bitcoin most people use wallets that require the use of 3rd party nodes for transactions. This includes Hardware wallets.

Open-source wallets still hands back the power to you as there is no restriction on the pattern of funds acquisition and management. it is strongly advised to use decentralized wallets for your freedom and possible privacy.

Most people use Bitcoin like an investment not an electronic cash system. Banks are buying up large quantities of Bitcoin to hold for customers buying their ETFs.

That is one of its underlying features, Investment opportunity and people are benefitting massively from it, so it's a good one.

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future.

I really think you're wrong, the core features of bitcoin creation is decentralization of money system, privacy, anonymity and freedom from government interference and regulatory activities on public funds. P2P is a feature that supports the freedom from as you can transact with someone directly without the involvement of a third party. The part of purchasing goods and services online still works, I still get paid for services rendered in bitcoin at will, I think the fact that it is not rampant is due to the fact that most people have not adopted it as a means of payment, the more its adoption, the more that feature works more effectively.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

The store in your area is still possibly in an underdeveloped environment which has major dependence on fiat, another thing to consider is the quantity and cost of goods you are purchasing, also how much digitally exposed is that store owner. I believe that bitcoin would not replace fiat totally, but it can take care of larger, more meaningful transactions rather than peanut transactions that little units of fiat can handle.

[0t3p0t]

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Yeah though Bitcoin was really intended to be used as p2p payment system but the limited supply it has is what turns it into more of an investment as price skyrocketed from a value of a penny into $66k+ as what we have today. The only problem with Bitcoin as a payment system is that fee is quiet high compared to the traditional payment system which is fiat but still it is for me the best if we treat it as an asset. It will still benefit the Bitcoin community in the long run.

[KingsDen]

It is no longer new to us that bitcoin has digressed to a certain extent the reason it was created but then it is not completely out of place. The investment asset it is discovered to be as against the proposed currency status has also helped to send people out of poverty.

If you had a volatile currency would you be happy. I don't think so, because it would be a big risk. Imagine if your money becomes worthless because its value keeps going down. Perhaps the best thing to do now is to make Bitcoin an investment instrument. Because I imagine it will be complicated when it becomes money and its value is still fluctuating. There will be no control over its fixed value and this could hurt us, although it could also be profitable.

I obviously will not like a volatile currency because it will seriously negate buying and selling. But in the end, all fiat currencies are volatile. Although, their volatility doesn't happen very fast, rather over the time. Even if the currency denomination is the same, its purchasing power will reduce as the time goes.
Maybe there's a stage adoption will get to, bitcoin volatility will reduce drastically. But I doubt this will happen since bitcoin has a limited supply.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The only problem with Bitcoin as a payment system is that fee is quiet high compared to the traditional payment system which is fiat

I wouldn't say that the transaction fee is the big problem per se. People generally don't want to rely on a property that is so volatile. They would rather use a currency that is devaluating (but in a slow and constant rate), than bet their operations in a currency that has no representatives to guarantee stability. Only if the fiat currencies completely collapse, similarly as to Zimbabwean dollars, then they'll switch to cryptocurrencies.

[Y3shot]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

The reason why bitcoin was created is not just for p2p or for buying goods and services. Bitcoin was created for freedom,  for people to handle their money without going through stress like how we stress ourselves to get our money back from the bank.  Bitcoin was also created to gain better financial height because the traditional currency have no value. Bitcoin is here to add value to the money that we have .

[Fatunad]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

The reason why bitcoin was created is not just for p2p or for buying goods and services. Bitcoin was created for freedom,  for people to handle their money without going through stress like how we stress ourselves to get our money back from the bank.  Bitcoin was also created to gain better financial height because the traditional currency have no value. Bitcoin is here to add value to the money that we have .

It wasnt that created for financial freedom because it was never been that an investment in the first place. Bitcoins existence is written solidly into its whitepaper which do pertains about p2p transactions
without 3rd party involved on which this had been that the main reason about its existence. It did really just turn out that it becomes a demand and recognition is really that high which it
ends up on having that rising value and to those who had been able to accumulate into those early years are the ones who did make out such huge money and this is something
that it is really worth for the trust that they do have in Bitcoin into those early days on which that brings out that financial freedom into those people who had accumulated.

[Mate2237]

Though I might be wrong on this but I think the main or the core reason of creating bitcoin was to use it to trade p2p which is to buy goods and services online but that part or function of bitcoin creation is not working perfectly yet and I don't know if it will work in the nearest future. Because everyone one is going into the investment aspect of it and not the goods and services function. As for me the most interesting part of bitcoin is the part you can use it to buy something like Laszlo Hanyecz who used bitcoin to buy Pizza.

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

The reason why bitcoin was created is not just for p2p or for buying goods and services. Bitcoin was created for freedom,  for people to handle their money without going through stress like how we stress ourselves to get our money back from the bank.  Bitcoin was also created to gain better financial height because the traditional currency have no value. Bitcoin is here to add value to the money that we have .

It wasnt that created for financial freedom because it was never been that an investment in the first place. Bitcoins existence is written solidly into its whitepaper which do pertains about p2p transactions
without 3rd party involved on which this had been that the main reason about its existence. It did really just turn out that it becomes a demand and recognition is really that high which it
ends up on having that rising value and to those who had been able to accumulate into those early years are the ones who did make out such huge money and this is something
that it is really worth for the trust that they do have in Bitcoin into those early days on which that brings out that financial freedom into those people who had accumulated.

I don't know if Y3shot has read the whitepaper of bitcoin and if he has not read it, he should do well to go and read it and understand the reason why bitcoin was created to support the fiat currency in the world. By the way let me brief him again and again because I have said it before. Bitcoin was created with the core mandate for p2p transaction of buying and selling of goods and services. And that was why the man who used it to buy 2 pizza with 10 BTC was on the test stage and it was successful. And I don't know where the financial freedom he mentioned came from. It is through the decentralized exchange process that lead to the financial freedom because nobody can control your funds if you use non custodial wallets but if your use custodial wallets then your freedom is limited. And if you use cex then your freedom has also limited.

So the best two options to use bitcoin is p2p of using it to buy and sell things online and also for the investment that has taken over the p2p of buying and selling of goods and services online.

[legiteum]

It wasnt that created for financial freedom because it was never been that an investment in the first place. Bitcoins existence is written solidly into its whitepaper which do pertains about p2p transactions without 3rd party involved on which this had been that the main reason about its existence. It did really just turn out that it becomes a demand and recognition is really that high which it ends up on having that rising value and to those who had been able to accumulate into those early years are the ones who did make out such huge money and this is something that it is really worth for the trust that they do have in Bitcoin into those early days on which that brings out that financial freedom into those people who had accumulated.

I'd take that a step further and point out that Bitcoin's transformation into a speculation instrument has effectively killed it's original purpose in popular lore because for most its users today, decentralization not a value to them (e.g. they invest in Bitcoin through a broker or the ETF). And the only reason the blockchain architecture even exists is because of decentralization--centralized blockchain is a waste of time and resources.

Today, in actual reality, Bitcoin is basically a meme investment instrument: people investing in the brand name, "Bitcoin".

Satoshi et. al. created Bitcoin as a boutique means of value transfer for those who could not safely use a means of value transfer accessible to the government (and it's worth noting that Bitcoin mostly failed in this goal because of the public ledger can be triangulated by the authorities). It was never meant as a mainstream everyday means of transacting since the architecture makes such scale absolutely unthinkable. It was not created as a "get rich quick" scheme. It was never meant to be used the way it's used today wherein most people keep their Bitcoin holdings in a centralized database just like any other investment.

Coca Cola started off as cold medicine. Bubble Wrap started off as wallpaper. Viagra was a treatment for high blood pressure. Bitcoin was a p2p numerically delineated value transfer mechanism made to evade government oversight.

These things happen...

[Volimack]

The Bitcoin solution was to create a currency that had a limited supply and transactions that were peer-to-peer so that no financial institutions would have financial power over the individual.

Yeah though Bitcoin was really intended to be used as p2p payment system but the limited supply it has is what turns it into more of an investment as price skyrocketed from a value of a penny into $66k+ as what we have today. The only problem with Bitcoin as a payment system is that fee is quiet high compared to the traditional payment system which is fiat but still it is for me the best if we treat it as an asset. It will still benefit the Bitcoin community in the long run.

Bitcoin is actually fine using p2p payment system also there is no central bank or any specific human control in cryptocurrency system. In this no country or government can track and stop crypto transactions. Crypto coins are getting more popular from time to time due to this convenience. Everyone is able to trade in bitcoin independently without having to be accountable to anyone.

[Benedictare]

   One of the main reason for digital currency was expected to give conventional pay system that can function free of control/outside a legal tender, instead it is being used like the traditional currencies.

   Bitcoin happens to be the first cryptocurrency institute publicly in 2009,it's popularity has increased and gone viral in the globe and it's uses of Blockchain technology has being broadened,it uses cryptography to direct the production and management instead of depending on central authorities, it was at first planed as a means of exchange but now primarily Known as a store of value.One of the main reason for digital currency was expected to give conventional pay system that can function free of control/outside a legal tender, instead it is being used like the traditional currencies.

   Bitcoin happens to be the first cryptocurrency institute publicly in 2009,it's popularity has increased and gone viral in the globe and it's uses of Blockchain technology has being broadened,it uses cryptography to direct the production and management instead of depending on central authorities, it was at first planed as a means of exchange but now primarily Known as a store of value.

   When Bitcoin are mined newly,as a mining process,the miners whose computer system validate transactions are rewarded. Bitcoin first transaction happened on May 22,2010, which is known to Bitcoin enjoyers,now as Bitcoin Pizza Day .

[BlackHatCoiner]

Satoshi et. al. created Bitcoin as a boutique means of value transfer for those who could not safely use a means of value transfer accessible to the government (and it's worth noting that Bitcoin mostly failed in this goal because of the public ledger can be triangulated by the authorities).

It remains inaccessible in terms of monetary policy, though, and I think that's the game changer. The fact that everyone can view the ledger was a feature from the very first day. Privacy techniques were developed later on.

Satoshi created a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for those in need, and it remains with these characteristics. The fact that a few people (or the majority, if you wish) see it as an investment instrument doesn't change the fact that it is censorship-resistant, borderless cash. Therefore, the Coca Cola and Viagra analogies are flawed, because the concept of Bitcoin hasn't changed since it was set in stone. Only the interpretation of its intrinsic value might have changed (i.e., better store of value than cash), which if you read more about it, you will notice it was part of the concept as well:

As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose

and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel

If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange.  (I would definitely want some)  Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.

I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value.  But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.

(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply)

[legiteum]

It remains inaccessible in terms of monetary policy, though, and I think that's the game changer. The fact that everyone can view the ledger was a feature from the very first day. Privacy techniques were developed later on.

If you want an investment instrument that is not effected by monetary policy, there are literally millions of such investments. Gold, stocks, commodities, land, betting, and hundreds of other categories. Basically any investment instrument that is not the particular currency that is effected by monetary policy is a hedge against that monetary policy. In other words, the only investment that is exposed to monetary policy is cash. Everything is a different instrument that may have some relation to said policy (or no relation at all), but is not itself an investment in that currency.

From the standpoint of investment, "US Dollars" is just another horse to bet on, as are Euros, Pesos, gold, land, soybean futures, Bitcoin, Legiteum, or whatever.

Satoshi created a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for those in need, and it remains with these characteristics. The fact that a few people (or the majority, if you wish) see it as an investment instrument doesn't change the fact that it is censorship-resistant, borderless cash.

I'll take "censorship-resistant" to be a synonym for what I wrote Bitcoin was designed to do: thwart government oversight into transactions. That is, and remains, blockchain's only appropriate application.

Therefore, the Coca Cola and Viagra analogies are flawed, because the concept of Bitcoin hasn't changed since it was set in stone. Only the interpretation of its intrinsic value might have changed (i.e., better store of value than cash), which if you read more about it, you will notice it was part of the concept as well: [...]

The formula for Coca Cola and Viagra hadn't changed either, it's just that mainstream users used them for something other than what they were invented for. Bitcoin is still the same system it's always been, but people mostly use it for something the inventors didn't anticipate. (And for the thing they actually did anticipate, people had to build upon their invention to fully accomplish what they wanted to do e.g. Monera et. al.).

And Satoshi was talking about a numerically delineated value transfer system that scaled to the levels necessary for him and his friends who had the very specific need of being government-resistant, not as a mainstream means of transacting, which I am sure Satoshi would concede is impossible using the blockchain architecture.

So in summary, today Bitcoin is not used for what it was intended by almost any of its users. The reasons for this are twofold:

1. Technical: Bitcoin has been "figured out" by authorities making it unsafe to use for those wishing to evade a government, so it is not, specifically, the right choice for that purpose (although the blockchain, generally, can still support that and does in the form of other products e.g. Monera).

2. Popularity: 99% of the additional users beyond the ones from the original times use the product for something different, e.g. speculation.

Given our advancement in science, we understand today that Coca Cola doesn't help with a cold, and Viagra doesn't lower your blood pressure--or maybe they do a little bit, but not as well as new products made for this purpose. But both are wildly popular for other reasons. Bitcoin is in the exact same situation.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you want an investment instrument that is not effected by monetary policy, there are literally millions of such investments. Gold, stocks, commodities, land, betting, and hundreds of other categories.

- You cannot send gold via the Internet. It is not easy to divide it in separate pieces. It is difficult and expensive to transfer. You cannot own exactly 0.01567 ounces of gold. You don't know much gold there is. You cannot have divided possession with gold, and the list goes on and on.
- Stocks can be inflated if the company decides to raise capital, which will dilute the value of the existent stocks.
- Land can be confiscated. You cannot own 12.345678% of a house. You cannot transfer a house unless the buyer will come and live in that location. It is also very expensive to own and preserve a house.

Bitcoin is invulnerable to all sorts of previous financial instrument drawbacks.

The formula for Coca Cola and Viagra hadn't changed either

I don't think Coca Cola's formula is exactly the same as it was when it was presented as medicine. Either way, my point is that the utility of Bitcoin hasn't changed. It remains peer-to-peer cash, that is socially resistant to any sort of governmental intervention. It's just that more people view it as an investment.

[thecodebear]

Bitcoin is a currency, and it is the hardest or strongest currency humanity has ever had.
For the people who think Bitcoin has somehow changed or failed...think about the purpose of strong money.


Strong money is useful for transacting and storing wealth.

When people invest they are trying to store (including growing) wealth. So using Bitcoin as an investment, whether you are buying it directly and storing it yourself, buying it directly and storing it with a third party, or buying it indirectly through a financial product like an ETF, all these are using Bitcoin to store and grow wealth, which is one of the two purposes of money.

Meanwhile, no matter how people decide to use Bitcoin, Bitcoin remains the same thing it always has, a p2p decentralized currency. Nothing about the way people choose to use Bitcoin has changed how it works. Just like what you choose to do with your dollars doesn't change how the dollar system works.




For people who are into this currency that gives people more freedom over their money, it is always amazing to me that these same people whine and complain when other people make their own decisions on how to use Bitcoin. Like y'all believe in freedom only when people make the exact same decisions as you lol.



If someone buys as BTC ETF, they want to use bitcoin purely as an investment and they don't want to bother with keys and stuff and just want an investment firm to handle all that for them while they get Bitcoin's advantages as a perfectly supply capped financial asset. Great. That's perfectly fine.

If someone wants to buy BTC and keep it on an exchange or something, because they want to have actual Bitcoin, not a financial product that wraps Bitcoin, but they also don't want to deal with key management, and they are free to sell or use that bitcoin in the future either through the company or on their own by moving it to their own wallet, great, that's perfectly fine. If they some day sell bitcoin for fiat instead of using bitcoin for payments, that's fine.

If someone wants to buy BTC and keep it in their own addresses, taking full advantage of Bitcoin's capacity as sovereign money, fantastic, That's perfectly fine. If they some day sell bitcoin for fiat instead of using bitcoin for payments, that's fine. Everyone can use Bitcoin in any way they want, that's freedom.


All these ways are fine uses of Bitcoin. Sure we *want* people to use Bitcoin with all its advantages by buying it and putting it in their own addresses. But everyone is free to make their own choice and not everyone is going to make the choice you want them to. And that is perfectly fine. Anyone using Bitcoin in literally any of these ways means they are spreading Bitcoin adoption, and therefore helping Bitcoin mature and grow into the world's alternate currency for the digital age. If someone else has weighted the advantages and disadvantages of those various scenarios, and decides that using Bitcoin in a way different than you is how they want to do it, that is perfectly acceptable. Anyone who buys Bitcoin and leaves it on an exchange knows they are trading away some personal responsibility for some risk. Anyone who buys a Bitcoin ETF knows they are trading away all the the advantages of bitcoin the currency in order to conveniently make use of its store of value properties. As long as people know what they are doing, what they are doing is just fine. There is so much hate and fear and nonsense in this community around people using Bitcoin in different ways. It's honestly stupid. Bitcoin is gonna keep being Bitcoin, its gonna keep being decentralized, its gonna keep being a currency, its gonna keep being p2p, ETFs or people using it only as an investment doesn't change anything at all about Bitcoin. Stop trying to control other people and stop making up nonsense reasons why Bitcoin is no longer decentralized or a currency or whatever lol. Just live you life and enjoy the fact that you live in a time when a truly decentralized, hard capped, p2p currency exists, AND you live in a time where you were lucky enough to get in on it early so you get vast wealth gains from it as well.

[legiteum]

If you want an investment instrument that is not effected by monetary policy, there are literally millions of such investments. Gold, stocks, commodities, land, betting, and hundreds of other categories.

- You cannot send gold via the Internet. It is not easy to divide it in separate pieces. It is difficult and expensive to transfer. You cannot own exactly 0.01567 ounces of gold. You don't know much gold there is. You cannot have divided possession with gold, and the list goes on and on.
- Stocks can be inflated if the company decides to raise capital, which will dilute the value of the existent stocks.
- Land can be confiscated. You cannot own 12.345678% of a house. You cannot transfer a house unless the buyer will come and live in that location. It is also very expensive to own and preserve a house.

You can buy the GLD ETF at whatever fraction you want, and this is all done on the Internet. But sure, if you don't like gold, there are millions of other investments you can try (and you can buy REIT shares if you want to expose yourself to real estate, for instance). Some instruments will go up in value, some will go down. The reasons for each instrument's performance will always be very complicated.

If you are convinced Bitcoin will go up in value, then by all means invest. I'm not here to tell anybody Bitcoin is a good or bad investment per se, only that it stands along side every other investment out there, and nobody can perfectly predict the future.
 

Bitcoin is invulnerable to all sorts of previous financial instrument drawbacks.

Lots and lots of investors have been burned throughout the years by being convinced, "it will never go down" when discussing their favorite thing to invest in. I guess all I could say is, be careful with that, and keep a diverse portfolio. No financial instrument is "invulnerable".

[Abiky]

The process you mentioned, where banks and other big money places gather up Bitcoin to support things like ETFs, shows how things are changing. But, the world of cryptocurrency is full of changes and different parts.

The problems you've pointed out also mean there are changes for new ideas and solutions that come from the community itself.

Of course. Things are changing. But in a bad way because institutional investors and governments are acquiring most of the BTC. This concentration of supply among a few will drive away Bitcoin from its original purpose. Satoshi won't be happy with this one bit. I know many are saying the network itself is decentralized (where nodes and miners take part in the consensus process), but don't stakeholders have a say too?

Without BTC available for the "average Joe", we would be making crypto/Blockchain tech unequal. You only have freedom when you eliminate third-parties (banks, governments, companies) from the system. Only time will tell us what will happen with Bitcoin. No one can predict the future, so lets hope for the best.

[we-btc]

The process you mentioned, where banks and other big money places gather up Bitcoin to support things like ETFs, shows how things are changing. But, the world of cryptocurrency is full of changes and different parts.

The problems you've pointed out also mean there are changes for new ideas and solutions that come from the community itself.

Of course. Things are changing. But in a bad way because institutional investors and governments are acquiring most of the BTC. This concentration of supply among a few will drive away Bitcoin from its original purpose. Satoshi won't be happy with this one bit. I know many are saying the network itself is decentralized (where nodes and miners take part in the consensus process), but don't stakeholders have a say too?

Without BTC available for the "average Joe", we would be making crypto/Blockchain tech unequal. You only have freedom when you eliminate third-parties (banks, governments, companies) from the system. Only time will tell us what will happen with Bitcoin. No one can predict the future, so lets hope for the best.

In addition, the propaganda machine controlled by these financial institutions, who now have a financial interest in Bitcoin,  are promoting their ETFs as if they were Bitcoin and it could not be further from the truth.  Purchasing the Bitcoin ETFs provides none of the benefits Bitcoin was intended to provide.  ETFs are bank securities that are trusted, centralized and monitored by the institution and the government. They provide no sovereignty or financial freedom and this use of Bitcoin does not prevent currency devaluation.
 

[danadc]

The process you mentioned, where banks and other big money places gather up Bitcoin to support things like ETFs, shows how things are changing. But, the world of cryptocurrency is full of changes and different parts.

The problems you've pointed out also mean there are changes for new ideas and solutions that come from the community itself.

Of course. Things are changing. But in a bad way because institutional investors and governments are acquiring most of the BTC. This concentration of supply among a few will drive away Bitcoin from its original purpose. Satoshi won't be happy with this one bit. I know many are saying the network itself is decentralized (where nodes and miners take part in the consensus process), but don't stakeholders have a say too?

Without BTC available for the "average Joe", we would be making crypto/Blockchain tech unequal. You only have freedom when you eliminate third-parties (banks, governments, companies) from the system. Only time will tell us what will happen with Bitcoin. No one can predict the future, so lets hope for the best.

In addition, the propaganda machine controlled by these financial institutions, who now have a financial interest in Bitcoin,  are promoting their ETFs as if they were Bitcoin and it could not be further from the truth.  Purchasing the Bitcoin ETFs provides none of the benefits Bitcoin was intended to provide.  ETFs are bank securities that are trusted, centralized and monitored by the institution and the government. They provide no sovereignty or financial freedom and this use of Bitcoin does not prevent currency devaluation.
 

Maybe things are not like that, but entities and institutions have found a way to be Able to have money , but we see from the point of view that it can bring Bitcoin in general benefits in particular, and that benefit is that it rises Price , we have not yet seen the Effect of the bitcoin ETF and its approval, no, but we can study that we are people who have even 1mBTC minimum of Bitcoin and if the price rises then it will be something great, because many will have profits , many will be able to generate the difference, and what matters most now is that the bitcoin rises in price, because the majority of people work in reverse, instead of buying Bitcoin at the moment, which is before an ATH, they buy it when it rises Price.

So we have to take from the bad the good and what matters to us and if Bitcoin goes up, at some point they will realize that Bitcoin will be the only means of Payment , of Money that will never have a neighbor and will suffer from inflation or something like that, it is Future.

[we-btc]

Maybe things are not like that, but entities and institutions have found a way to be Able to have money , but we see from the point of view that it can bring Bitcoin in general benefits in particular, and that benefit is that it rises Price , we have not yet seen the Effect of the bitcoin ETF and its approval, no, but we can study that we are people who have even 1mBTC minimum of Bitcoin and if the price rises then it will be something great, because many will have profits , many will be able to generate the difference, and what matters most now is that the bitcoin rises in price, because the majority of people work in reverse, instead of buying Bitcoin at the moment, which is before an ATH, they buy it when it rises Price.

So we have to take from the bad the good and what matters to us and if Bitcoin goes up, at some point they will realize that Bitcoin will be the only means of Payment , of Money that will never have a neighbor and will suffer from inflation or something like that, it is Future.

I really appreciate your optimism.  It is my hope that Bitcoin can eventually provide that "purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash" the creators envisioned.

When you add up all of the things that prevent Bitcoin from being used as a peer-to-peer electronic cash it gets harder and harder to see that happening.
Bitcoin is fast becoming a tool for the rich to use to profit off of the middle class.  The is happening one fence post at a time.

1. centralized exchanges with KYC laws..
2. Every third party app is using a centralized node.
3. Layer 2 solutions are centralizing transactions through channel providers and additional fees.
4. Payment processors are offering Bitcoin payments through 3rd parties with additional fees.
5. Developers added ordinal functionality and increased the block size which has increased fees and will bloat the blockchain.
6. The SEC approved ETFs no real benefit to the purchaser except to create a centralized, trusted, monitored securities that might go up in price.  The only one guaranteed to make money when you buy a Bitcoin ETF is the financial institution selling it.

It doesn't seem like there is not much support for Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and the financial institutions are moving it quickly into a centrally controlled security.

There are a lot of people who believe in the financial freedom and sovereignty that Bitcoin can provide and it is time that they started pushing back in order to preserve the founders vision

Bitcoin is a decentralized, peer-to-peer form of electronic cash with a limited supply to prevent devaluation.

[oktana]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

[we-btc]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Great points. I agree with you completely oktana.

[Minor Miner]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Are you trying to blame bitcoin ETFs for turning bitcoin into an investment? Let me ask, how long have you been in the market and have you ever spread or tried using bitcoin as a currency? Or do you just see it as a speculative tool to make more money? Bitcoin was an investment before the bitcoin ETF was approved, and it was early investors like us who made it an investment. Don't try to blame ETFs or the government when 10 years ago they still didn't care too much about bitcoin. Also, if bitcoin wasn't volatile, didn't generate profits would you still be here? Please answer honestly.

[blckhawk]

~

I would dare say that most government in many countries these days have opted to somehow control crypto currency like BTC, since it wasn't created by them or have any reserve banks or gold reserve backing it up.
They have done this by regulating and taxing anyone or exchanges who use a currency like Bitcoin because of the financial freedom it has indeed granted the citizens.

Still, it doesn't change the idea that Bitcoin was created to provide much more than privacy and freedom to complete financial transactions across borders with as little fees as compared to what regular banks would offer. It has also proven to be a good store of value overtime and currently it is every potential investors dream of acquiring.

Exactly, they do everything that they can to exert some control over the people that are in their domain and what better way to do that than taxation, this discourages some people to declare their money or what they've earned correctly which would to some jail time thus eliminating one more bitcoin user for a short time and this events can also discourage others to try bitcoin or have develop a notion that bitcoin is something that they should stay away from if they want to stay away from jail or some might even outright think that bitcoin is criminal. I wouldn't agree with the small fees though, that's probably the bane of my existence in the bitcoin market, every move that I do, I need fees which ends with some if not all to be storing it in hot wallets so they can quickly sell it in case the price is favorable to sell.

[oktana]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Are you trying to blame bitcoin ETFs for turning bitcoin into an investment? Let me ask, how long have you been in the market and have you ever spread or tried using bitcoin as a currency? Or do you just see it as a speculative tool to make more money? Bitcoin was an investment before the bitcoin ETF was approved, and it was early investors like us who made it an investment. Don't try to blame ETFs or the government when 10 years ago they still didn't care too much about bitcoin. Also, if bitcoin wasn't volatile, didn't generate profits would you still be here? Please answer honestly.

You could have made a statement instead of asking me directly because I wouldn’t say something I do not do. I do signature campaigns and get paid in Bitcoin, yet I use those bitcoins to pay for things in places where possible. But apparently it’s limited on the platforms or physical stores that accept bitcoin as a mode of payment. My message was me ranting because I want Bitcoin to be used as what it was created for.

[Abiky]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Weren't people using BTC as an investment than currency long before ETFs came around? I understand the current situation will lead us towards mass accumulation of BTC's supply among a few. But people ultimately decide the fate of the cryptocurrency. If the majority sells to big institutions and governments, Bitcoin will move away from its original purpose. Fingers crossed this won't happen in the long run.

Luckily, the Bitcoin project is open source and decentralized. If all else fails, what's stopping the community from "forking off" to a new chain?

[fuguebtc]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Are you trying to blame bitcoin ETFs for turning bitcoin into an investment? Let me ask, how long have you been in the market and have you ever spread or tried using bitcoin as a currency? Or do you just see it as a speculative tool to make more money? Bitcoin was an investment before the bitcoin ETF was approved, and it was early investors like us who made it an investment. Don't try to blame ETFs or the government when 10 years ago they still didn't care too much about bitcoin. Also, if bitcoin wasn't volatile, didn't generate profits would you still be here? Please answer honestly.

You could have made a statement instead of asking me directly because I wouldn’t say something I do not do. I do signature campaigns and get paid in Bitcoin, yet I use those bitcoins to pay for things in places where possible. But apparently it’s limited on the platforms or physical stores that accept bitcoin as a mode of payment. My message was me ranting because I want Bitcoin to be used as what it was created for.

I applaud you because you are one of the rare people who are still trying to protect the original purpose for which bitcoin was created .  But I also disagree that you're trying to blame ETFs for turning bitcoin into an investment and not a currency. Because obviously we've considered it an investment since it was created and not because the ETFs have turned it into an investment. If you want to blame, blame the original investor, don't try to blame the government or any regulations.

But in my opinion , what bitcoin is is not so important , the important thing is that it has been bringing benefits to everyone .Bitcoin is an investment and it is bringing financial prosperity to some people , and that is what we should look at. Don't be too conservative just because it cannot become the world currency as it was originally intended .

[Rabata]

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

Despite the popularity of Bitcoin, there are still many people who do not know about Bitcoin. But when they know about it, they try to get involved quickly. Due to the government restrictions, many people can't do anything whatever they like. There are many bitcoin enthusiasts in my local area who want to transact with bitcoin for buying goods or necessary things but are deterred from using bitcoin because of the legal complications. But personally they are very enthusiastic about holding and many have been accumulating bitcoins for a long time. I strongly believe that in the long run Bitcoin will surely become one of the most popular means of transactions. P2P will gradually take over the space, especially if Bitcoin is not allowed to be used at all.

[Blitzboy]

I like to do that but no store in my area is accepting bitcoin in fact they don't even know the name. And those who use exchange to buy bitcoin because it is the fastest way to acquire bitcoin.

Despite the popularity of Bitcoin, there are still many people who do not know about Bitcoin. But when they know about it, they try to get involved quickly. Due to the government restrictions, many people can't do anything whatever they like. There are many bitcoin enthusiasts in my local area who want to transact with bitcoin for buying goods or necessary things but are deterred from using bitcoin because of the legal complications. But personally they are very enthusiastic about holding and many have been accumulating bitcoins for a long time. I strongly believe that in the long run Bitcoin will surely become one of the most popular means of transactions. P2P will gradually take over the space, especially if Bitcoin is not allowed to be used at all.

Bitcoin offers freedom from failing financial systems. Regaining control over our financial independence from the government. This movement started with local and global enthusiasts. They're visionaries and investors. Bitcoin promotes a stable, unmanipulated financial system. The goal is to empower people and encourage independence and long-term planning. Building a Bitcoin portfolio is an investment in a future where people control their finances.

To people in legal trouble: persevere. The tide is turning. More individuals understanding and adopting Bitcoin will drive governments to adjust. It's already happening. Bitcoin's long-term goal is a sustainable, decentralized financial system, not only transactions. Keep your Bitcoin. Ignore skeptics. Bitcoin is leading the decentralized future. Your Bitcoin optimism is justified. It's about altering money mindsets, not just simplifying transactions. Stay educated, enthusiastic, and most importantly invested. Best is yet to come.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can buy the GLD ETF at whatever fraction you want, and this is all done on the Internet. But sure, if you don't like gold, there are millions of other investments you can try (and you can buy REIT shares if you want to expose yourself to real estate, for instance).

But, are these as flexible as Bitcoin? Bitcoin is really the investment of the layman. They don't need to sign any documents, nor trust any financial institutions. Just create a wallet, and have coins sent to it.

Lots and lots of investors have been burned throughout the years by being convinced, "it will never go down" when discussing their favorite thing to invest in. I guess all I could say is, be careful with that, and keep a diverse portfolio. No financial instrument is "invulnerable".

By "invulnerable", I don't mean "always going up". I mean that it does not come with the aforementioned drawbacks of gold, stocks, real estate etc. That's why I consider it superior in terms of an instrument to put your savings to.

[legiteum]

You can buy the GLD ETF at whatever fraction you want, and this is all done on the Internet. But sure, if you don't like gold, there are millions of other investments you can try (and you can buy REIT shares if you want to expose yourself to real estate, for instance).

But, are these as flexible as Bitcoin? Bitcoin is really the investment of the layman. They don't need to sign any documents, nor trust any financial institutions. Just create a wallet, and have coins sent to it.

As an investment they would be more flexible than Bitcoin since they integrate with the rest of a typical consumer's investment dashboard. You can buy the products on margin, schedule purchases, do program trades, and all kinds of things. And things like tax reporting is built right in to the system so it doesn't leave you a nightmare filing mess at the end of the year.

And unless you want to engage in tax evasion, you absolutely need to sign documents, at least in terms of reporting any gains you realize.

And buying Bitcoin without presenting anybody with any sort of identification is exceedingly hard for the average consumer--it's practically tradecraft. (I personally wouldn't even know how to do this, and I've googled it before, and I'm surely far more savvy than the average consumer).

Lots and lots of investors have been burned throughout the years by being convinced, "it will never go down" when discussing their favorite thing to invest in. I guess all I could say is, be careful with that, and keep a diverse portfolio. No financial instrument is "invulnerable".

By "invulnerable", I don't mean "always going up". I mean that it does not come with the aforementioned drawbacks of gold, stocks, real estate etc. That's why I consider it superior in terms of an instrument to put your savings to.

Yeah, believing it will never ever fall from it's current level is the same... judgement shall we say... as believing it's going to keep going up. Bitcoin fell by 80% just two years ago. Did something about it change since then that has made in invulnerable to such devaluation? Bitcoin's price is driven by masses of consumer investors being convinced the price will go up--consumer sentiment. In my experience, something like that can change in a heartbeat.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As an investment they would be more flexible than Bitcoin since they integrate with the rest of a typical consumer's investment dashboard. You can buy the products on margin, schedule purchases, do program trades, and all kinds of things. And things like tax reporting is built right in to the system so it doesn't leave you a nightmare filing mess at the end of the year.

You're bringing some good points. It's just that I, personally, like actually owning the investment, not having the investment written to my name. Maybe it has to do with the aesthetics, but I just prefer engaging in a very transparent procedure, that is buying bitcoin, than messing with broker firms and stocks that I'll have to oversee every month.

Did something about it change since then that has made in invulnerable to such devaluation?

It is absolutely vulnerable to devaluation, just as any other property or investment.

[oktana]

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Weren't people using BTC as an investment than currency long before ETFs came around? I understand the current situation will lead us towards mass accumulation of BTC's supply among a few. But people ultimately decide the fate of the cryptocurrency. If the majority sells to big institutions and governments, Bitcoin will move away from its original purpose. Fingers crossed this won't happen in the long run.

Yes it was but isn’t this more like fueling a burning fire instead of using a fire extinguisher? More people will invest in Bitcoin but the actual vision is dying.

Luckily, the Bitcoin project is open source and decentralized. If all else fails, what's stopping the community from "forking off" to a new chain?

And how does it solve anything? Creating a fork doesn’t sound like a solution. We need our one and only Bitcoin to serve its purpose, even if volatility could still exist.

[jrrsparkles]

That's what freedom does, perform anything you want with your money and using third party for exchanging Bitcoin to crypto and vice versa is their choice and you can't force the people to do what they have to.

Using Bitcoin as money is good but using Bitcoin as investment made more people to actually enters into the Bitcoin in first place and in future we don't know how it turns out to be.

[n0ne]

That's what freedom does, perform anything you want with your money and using third party for exchanging Bitcoin to crypto and vice versa is their choice and you can't force the people to do what they have to.

Using Bitcoin as money is good but using Bitcoin as investment made more people to actually enters into the Bitcoin in first place and in future we don't know how it turns out to be.

Bitcoin got innovated for some purpose, and over the years it started to get a transition as an investment rather than money. As a form of money, bitcoin eliminates third parties. However, people are very used to centralized services, and the same has led them to use bitcoin on centralized services. So, the prime purpose behind the innovation isn't effective. The growth of bitcoin in a much shorter time period has made it a highly profitable investment and trading asset. Bitcoin provides financial freedom, but people are more interested in the profit it provides than the freedom provided by the innovation.

[God bless u]

Despite the popularity of Bitcoin, there are still many people who do not know about Bitcoin. But when they know about it, they try to get involved quickly. Due to the government restrictions, many people can't do anything whatever they like. There are many bitcoin enthusiasts in my local area who want to transact with bitcoin for buying goods or necessary things but are deterred from using bitcoin because of the legal complications. But personally they are very enthusiastic about holding and many have been accumulating bitcoins for a long time. I strongly believe that in the long run Bitcoin will surely become one of the most popular means of transactions. P2P will gradually take over the space, especially if Bitcoin is not allowed to be used at all.

The interest of people in using Bitcoin as a means of payment for their purchases will barely have any impact on the matter as long as the government of a country isn't ready to allow them to do that. Merchants wouldn't be able to accept Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies for their businesses if there were legal consequences to that. Such things don't exist in some parts of the world, however, in other parts, the governments and authorities are completely against Bitcoin.

The reason for that is simple, they know if they allow people to use Bitcoin for their payments and purchases, they wouldn't be able to track the finances of every individual hence they will have no control over it and they don't want that to happen.

[jrrsparkles]

That's what freedom does, perform anything you want with your money and using third party for exchanging Bitcoin to crypto and vice versa is their choice and you can't force the people to do what they have to.

Using Bitcoin as money is good but using Bitcoin as investment made more people to actually enters into the Bitcoin in first place and in future we don't know how it turns out to be.

Bitcoin got innovated for some purpose, and over the years it started to get a transition as an investment rather than money. As a form of money, bitcoin eliminates third parties. However, people are very used to centralized services, and the same has led them to use bitcoin on centralized services. So, the prime purpose behind the innovation isn't effective. The growth of bitcoin in a much shorter time period has made it a highly profitable investment and trading asset. Bitcoin provides financial freedom, but people are more interested in the profit it provides than the freedom provided by the innovation.

Bitcoin is mainly used for investment purpose but we can't deny that it's also used in various places as form of payment for example online casino, where most of the Bitcoin is actually spent as money and it got adapted by users completely because of the convenience and every regulated platforms is kind of having KYC policies these days so unless it's p2p transactions there will be no more completely decentralised system.

[Troytech]

Nothing wrong with using Bitcoin as an investment, ETFs, entities besides individuals owning Bitcoin. That's all natural because Bitcoin is money.

But for sure it would be good if we could development a much larger ecosystem of decentralized exchanges. The ones I know of have almost no volume compared to crypto exchanges and so you don't get good prices on them. Also they are naturally harder to use.

I think getting a DEX movement going and getting people on LN is the way to go.

LN allows payment to be cheap and instant, which is the only way payments are going to get popular. Even if at first its just used how Venmo is used to pass money between friends, rather than pay at merchants which requires merchant adoption. Though taxes are of course a problem if you're passing bitcoin between friends that's all taxable. Though it'd be a a pretty small use of bitcoin (not like selling lots of bitcoin) and the IRS wouldn't even be able to track it so maybe that's the sort of thing that could slide under the table without any real issues, sorta like when workers get paid in cash.

And then if DEXes could get popular enough to get real volume their prices wouldn't be so far away from the spot price and they'd become more useful. And then you can keep your bitcoin privacy. But its hard to get to that point because crypto exchanges are just so much easier to use.



Realistically I think building p2p connections happens at the local level. There are small communities in various places in the world who regularly use Bitcoin because they have a weak currency or don't have easy access to digital banking services and stuff like that, so it benefits everyone in the community to use Bitcoin. I think p2p usage gradually spreads out from those places to encompass a wider and wider net. The average person in a first world country and lots of non-first world countries don't have a huge need for p2p payments. For those populations growing one's wealth and wealth sovereignty I think are currently the main use cases. Though of course eventually being able to easily spend the wealth, including in p2p ways rather than just customer-merchant ways, would be ideal.

I feel we over expected too much from bitcoin even if it has done doing fine in the past 13 years, fait has been around for more than a century now and bitcoin is just 14 years in, we can't tell how the next 29 years would be, scalability might be problem of the past and gas fees would get wven lower and affordable for people to use for daily transactions.

And for a innovation still very young bitcoin has been doing fine, not only has it proved to be a better money than all fait currency, but I has withstood so many challenges from government and many negative news that affected it socially like at the time of mt gox hack and so many early hacking that bitcoin faced at a early stage.

Bitcoin might also well not achieve scalability and that's why alt coins exist to back it up in some areas, so many other alts can be used for daily transactions with low gas fees, so this is still an issue for someone new to bitcoin and doesn't know his way around.

Bitcoin can only be approached as an investment cause that is the only working sector now, and to show that digital currency might well be the next phase of innovation in the economy, in 5 years from now I'm speculating counties having their own digital currency to help fix inflation of their local currency.

Im just sure we are making progress is quite goo early to be judging bitcoin.

By "invulnerable", I don't mean "always going up". I mean that it does not come with the aforementioned drawbacks of gold, stocks, real estate etc. That's why I consider it superior in terms of an instrument to put your savings to.

Bitcoin is also well reaching that sage of drawbacks, just imagine all this big companies has well bough quite the amount of the total supply of bitcoin which I see as their plan,  dont you think they would have power to manipulate price of bitcoin, just imagine what one massive selling from any big companies now or ETF would do to bitcoin price now, a major bear spike can just be created instantly.

I feel every financial or investment asset starts out fine untill someone became too power to be able to control it and this is the inevitable future of bitcoin if big players are well in control of most of it.

What power does retail investors have unless to hold their bitcoin safely and wait, we can't even challenge anyone in buying, and if they all decide to sell now, bitcoin price to the gutters, so I think bitcoin also has those invulnerabilities mention, just we can't see it coming yet.

[Reatim]

That's what freedom does, perform anything you want with your money and using third party for exchanging Bitcoin to crypto and vice versa is their choice and you can't force the people to do what they have to.

correct it is our money/crypto so it is our choice and option and I don't knw why others making this as an issue when it does not even our concern as buyer/seller.

Using Bitcoin as money is good but using Bitcoin as investment made more people to actually enters into the Bitcoin in first place and in future we don't know how it turns out to be.

actually there are few people that first hear and use bitcoin as payment material and just after they start investing.

[johnsaributua]

Yes that's right, the crisis in various countries from time to time is so deep and makes the task bigger plus inflation is getting worse. and I don't like the pattern and flow of fiat money before knowing bitcoin. Can fight with the elite elites who make fiat money like a toy to invest or circulate.

By far the biggest effect of bitcoin is that I can rise and invest whatever I want. with freedom and units without oppressing with exchange rates and transparency, I am very comfortable with bitcoin and from marketcap I learned that bitcoin is an investment in the future.

So far I am not allergic to these 2 currencies because they have different functions. Fiat is for exchange and bitcoin is a set that is stored. because not all traders around me use crypto currencies, especially those who are over 50 years old.

I believe bitcoin will still have a long way to go and will be more evenly used in the future.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So, the prime purpose behind the innovation isn't effective.

If the "prime purpose" was to create peer-to-peer cash, then indeed, it hasn't convinced a lot of people to use it over their fiat currencies (even though it still serves that purpose for those in need). However, if the "prime purpose" was to create borderless, denationalized money that is resistant to governmental intervention, then I'll say it's very effective.  

we can't tell how the next 29 years would be, scalability might be problem of the past and gas fees would get wven lower and affordable for people to use for daily transactions.

Bitcoin does not have gas fees! Ethereum does.

Bitcoin is also well reaching that sage of drawbacks, just imagine all this big companies has well bough quite the amount of the total supply of bitcoin which I see as their plan,  dont you think they would have power to manipulate price of bitcoin

Of course they do, but isn't every other financial instrument vulnerable to the same market manipulation?

[lixer]

Bitcoin offers freedom from failing financial systems. Regaining control over our financial independence from the government. This movement started with local and global enthusiasts. They're visionaries and investors. Bitcoin promotes a stable, unmanipulated financial system. The goal is to empower people and encourage independence and long-term planning. Building a Bitcoin portfolio is an investment in a future where people control their finances.

To people in legal trouble: persevere. The tide is turning. More individuals understanding and adopting Bitcoin will drive governments to adjust. It's already happening. Bitcoin's long-term goal is a sustainable, decentralized financial system, not only transactions. Keep your Bitcoin. Ignore skeptics. Bitcoin is leading the decentralized future. Your Bitcoin optimism is justified. It's about altering money mindsets, not just simplifying transactions. Stay educated, enthusiastic, and most importantly invested. Best is yet to come.

Well, I guess we all who are living in countries and regions where governments and authorities aren't very Bitcoin or cryptocurrency-friendly are hopeful and always praying that things might get change as we enter the future because the whole world is recognizing the potential of Bitcoin and how useful it can be for countries and their citizens, it can help people earn money while on the go, if one can afford to get together a small capital, they can start earning money if they are struggling with job placement and similar issues.

Let's hope that countries and governments that aren't supporting the movement understand this thing as soon as possible and instead of thinking about personal benefits such as having control and stuff, they start thinking about the future of their country and people.

[Abiky]

The interest of people in using Bitcoin as a means of payment for their purchases will barely have any impact on the matter as long as the government of a country isn't ready to allow them to do that. Merchants wouldn't be able to accept Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies for their businesses if there were legal consequences to that. Such things don't exist in some parts of the world, however, in other parts, the governments and authorities are completely against Bitcoin.

The reason for that is simple, they know if they allow people to use Bitcoin for their payments and purchases, they wouldn't be able to track the finances of every individual hence they will have no control over it and they don't want that to happen.

Actually, governments can track and trace the finances of each individual. They can either analyze the Blockchain using a block explorer, or hire a surveillance/analytics company like Chainalysis to do the job. Bitcoin's transparency is the main reason why most criminals avoid it in the first place. But if you're talking about privacy coins like Monero and Grin, that's a whole different story. Things are now worse with institutional companies buying all of the BTC.

You will eventually lose your freedom and self-sovereignity if these giants dominate the industry. That's assuming you sell your BTC to them. Holding coins at CEXs is also a problem because you don't fully own your BTC (not your keys, not your coins). Self-custody of BTC is the only way to safeguard Bitcoin's original values. Hopefully, more people would get educated about this before it's too late.

[legiteum]

The interest of people in using Bitcoin as a means of payment for their purchases will barely have any impact on the matter as long as the government of a country isn't ready to allow them to do that. Merchants wouldn't be able to accept Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies for their businesses if there were legal consequences to that. Such things don't exist in some parts of the world, however, in other parts, the governments and authorities are completely against Bitcoin.

The reason for that is simple, they know if they allow people to use Bitcoin for their payments and purchases, they wouldn't be able to track the finances of every individual hence they will have no control over it and they don't want that to happen.

Actually, governments can track and trace the finances of each individual. They can either analyze the Blockchain using a block explorer, or hire a surveillance/analytics company like Chainalysis to do the job. Bitcoin's transparency is the main reason why most criminals avoid it in the first place. But if you're talking about privacy coins like Monero and Grin, that's a whole different story. Things are now worse with institutional companies buying all of the BTC.

That's all true, but it's important to not lose sight of the fact of Bitcoin's original purpose, which was to evade government oversight into transactions. That it has effectively failed in its original mission doesn't change the fact that it was designed solely to do that.

Today, Bitcoin's only viable purpose remaining use is being a speculation instrument and a store of large-scale value (e.g. for holdings >$10k for instance). Monera et. al. have a niche for those trying to evade their government, but this isn't a problem most people have.

[Youngkhngdiddy]

I applaud you because you are one of the rare people who are still trying to protect the original purpose for which bitcoin was created .  But I also disagree that you're trying to blame ETFs for turning bitcoin into an investment and not a currency. Because obviously we've considered it an investment since it was created and not because the ETFs have turned it into an investment. If you want to blame, blame the original investor, don't try to blame the government or any regulations.

But in my opinion , what bitcoin is is not so important , the important thing is that it has been bringing benefits to everyone .Bitcoin is an investment and it is bringing financial prosperity to some people , and that is what we should look at. Don't be too conservative just because it cannot become the world currency as it was originally intended .

    Unless you stay away from the Internet or live in a cave (which you don’t because you are on our website, Bitcoin talk), you’ve probably heard about Bitcoin. Though, there are still people who have strong negative views and opinions on what Bitcoin truly is, its legitimacy and whether it’s beneficial to society. Such discussions, however, are meaningful and it’s important for people to know everything there is to know about Bitcoin so that they can contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the cryptocurrency and its potential. There’s always something about Bitcoin that leaves us to ponder. One thing that’s for sure is that Bitcoin is no fraud. Bitcoin talk wants to make sure that people are well-educated on the topic of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin specifically and know the facts before questioning its relevance.
    I don’t think anyone here would want to deny that Bitcoin has not been useful to them one way or another, many benefits Bitcoin has brought into this era. With the many protocols and restrictions set by the government over Bitcoin should be enough sign that it wasn’t going to be easy on Bitcoin, why because it set as a competition to their fiat which is bad business to them. It going to take the government a while to fully adopt this new technology.  Technology change over decades, when the internet began, it’s impossible to say for certain, if the internet can revolutionize the computer and communications world like nothing before. The invention of the internet is not limited to, email or social media, in fact, over years Internet represents one of the most successful examples of disruptive technologies in shaping the business like big data, the cloud, IOT, robotics, or even artificial intelligence. Blockchain is next big thing.

[Abiky]

That's all true, but it's important to not lose sight of the fact of Bitcoin's original purpose, which was to evade government oversight into transactions. That it has effectively failed in its original mission doesn't change the fact that it was designed solely to do that.

Today, Bitcoin's only viable purpose remaining is being a speculation instrument and a store of large-scale value (e.g. for holdings >$10k for instance). Monera et. al. have a niche for those trying to evade their government, but this isn't a problem most people have.

Some say Satoshi really wanted BTC to be transparent to help detect corruption, manipulation, and fraud on the Blockchain. It's rather a feature than a bug. Many misunderstood Bitcoin's capabilities, and took it for granted as a privacy coin. But as time went by, we've discovered that was not truly the case. We now have to use anonymization techniques (CoinJoin, new BTC address per transaction, round amounts, etc) or a separate cryptocurrency with enforced privacy (Monero, Grin) to hide our utmost sensitive info from prying eyes.

Privacy and freedom still exist in Bitcoin, despite the fact that most companies own most of the supply. Regulations become stricter each day with the goal of preventing as much people as possible from obtaining true financial freedom. The question is: Will you protect your right to privacy and freedom?

[yazher]

Because banks are so tight in their rules that they are ruling our money from us and we can't even spend too much also we cannot deposit beyond their given limit as well without asking multiple questions which is not appropriate for us especially if we own those money and their only job is to keep it safely while we pay them for it. But these banks were making it hard for us when they decided to implement countless rules and regulations. Now that we have bitcoins, it's a big slap on them because finally, we can have our own financial freedom without them getting involved in every transaction that we are doing.

[legiteum]

Because banks are so tight in their rules that they are ruling our money from us and we can't even spend too much also we cannot deposit beyond their given limit as well without asking multiple questions which is not appropriate for us especially if we own those money and their only job is to keep it safely while we pay them for it. But these banks were making it hard for us when they decided to implement countless rules and regulations. Now that we have bitcoins, it's a big slap on them because finally, we can have our own financial freedom without them getting involved in every transaction that we are doing.

It's not the banks who impose these rules, it's your government. Banks just want to make money, and they would make a lot more if they were able to take in money without any controls.

[rodskee]

I see the potential for Bitcoin and am working on projects to help with the original mission - financial freedom for individuals world wide.

I am not going to give up on the dream!  Are you?

We are just going with the flow  

But I am supporting your initiative and would you share us which projects are you
working here ? because like you we also wanted to contribute about that Mission for financial
freedom.

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Maybe that will be the shorter effect but eventually people will come to their senses
that Bitcoin and altcoins must be used as currency that investment material.

[legiteum]

That's all true, but it's important to not lose sight of the fact of Bitcoin's original purpose, which was to evade government oversight into transactions. That it has effectively failed in its original mission doesn't change the fact that it was designed solely to do that.

Today, Bitcoin's only viable purpose remaining is being a speculation instrument and a store of large-scale value (e.g. for holdings >$10k for instance). Monera et. al. have a niche for those trying to evade their government, but this isn't a problem most people have.

Some say Satoshi really wanted BTC to be transparent to help detect corruption, manipulation, and fraud on the Blockchain. It's rather a feature than a bug. Many misunderstood Bitcoin's capabilities, and took it for granted as a privacy coin. But as time went by, we've discovered that was not truly the case. We now have to use anonymization techniques (CoinJoin, new BTC address per transaction, round amounts, etc) or a separate cryptocurrency with enforced privacy (Monero, Grin) to hide our utmost sensitive info from prying eyes.

Privacy and freedom still exist in Bitcoin, despite the fact that most companies own most of the supply. Regulations become stricter each day with the goal of preventing as much people as possible from obtaining true financial freedom. The question is: Will you protect your right to privacy and freedom?

You don't have to go by "some say", you can just read the whitepaper.

Satoshi never meant for Bitcoin to be a mainstream means of transacting because most people don't need to evade their government's oversight in everyday transactions, and/or they wouldn't want to take the risk of being prosecuted. For most people, for 99.9% of transactions, using a means of transacting that could potentially be discovered through a legal action (e.g. a valid subpoena) is a perfectly fine.

And, as I wrote in the Anon Paradox, there are two kinds of "privacy" people talk about: "privacy" from the government, and "privacy" from everybody else.

If by "freedom" you mean being free from criminals trying to steal your identity, or marketers trying to make a buck from it, or careless people who will lose your personal information if you give it to them, or nosy neighbors who want to pry into your personal affairs, then that's one thing. Most people want and need this kind of "privacy".

But if you mean "freedom" from your government's laws, then that's an entirely different thing, and most people don't need this, or don't want to take a chance with going against their government.

The only way to truly protect your legal freedoms is to vote. Most people don't want to hear this because it's much harder than using some technical hack, but it's ultimately foolish to believe that you can successfully fight your government in the long term.

Fight for freedom at the ballot box, because code isn't going to help you in the long run.

[we-btc]

We are just going with the flow  
But I am supporting your initiative and would you share us which projects are you
working here ? because like you we also wanted to contribute about that Mission for financial
freedom.

I am working on a first in class device that provides truly peer-to-peer transactions using Bitcoin.  It is called the Epiphany.  You can check it out at https://webtc.io.

If you are wondering why financial freedom is important just look at today's headlines:

The headline this morning about Nigeria - Binance Asked to Provide Names and Transaction History of Top 100 Users in Nigeria. The demand arises while the Nigerian government is now in its third week of detaining two Binance senior executives.

Without peer-to-peer transactions governments around the world monitor and approve any and all financial transactions.  In the US we have legal protection from this in the IV amendment to the constitution which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

To get around this the US courts have made it legal to violate this amendment if the information is owned by a third party like an exchange, internet service provider, or bank. In this case the government has no obligation to provide probable cause.

[oktana]

.

The truth remains that no matter how many centralized exchanges, users always have the choice to use decentralized wallets and exchanges. No matter what happens, Bitcoin’s features are permanent and can’t be modified. The bad part of the Bitcoin ETF approval is that it will draw attention so people will rather use Bitcoin as an investment other than a currency. And if a bigger percent of holders think that way then we may never fully grow as a currency.

Maybe that will be the shorter effect but eventually people will come to their senses
that Bitcoin and altcoins must be used as currency that investment material.

I don’t think. People won’t eventually come to their senses because it’s like raising up a child. Anything you wouldn’t want your son to do when he is older, you won’t teach him when he is young because once he learns it, it sticks. Of course some persons will convert and start using Bitcoin as a currency which it was designed to be, but a huge percentage of them will keep seeing it as an investment.

[Belarge]

I don’t think. People won’t eventually come to their senses because it’s like raising up a child. Anything you wouldn’t want your son to do when he is older, you won’t teach him when he is young because once he learns it, it sticks. Of course some persons will convert and start using Bitcoin as a currency which it was designed to be, but a huge percentage of them will keep seeing it as an investment.

Our investment in the space will continue to yields profits because we're sticking to promising projects. There's huge profits when one starts earning from foundation, that's calming down and learning everything basis of the market, atleast the losses will reduce to minimum. Who told you crypto doesn't appear promising? I'm not yet a father but I try my possible best to hook up my siblings with cryptocurrency and also providing key updates of the space, since they're newbies, there's quite alot of things to aired out to them and also bringing down the dangers of hitting the wrong spot in the system.

[legiteum]

[...]
Of course some persons will convert and start using Bitcoin as a currency which it was designed to be, but a huge percentage of them will keep seeing it as an investment.

Read the Bitcoin whitepaper. Bitcoin was absolutely not designed to be a mainstream currency in the sense of competing with sovereign currencies.

It was design to be a means of transferring numerically-delineated value while avoiding government oversight.

[oktana]

[...]
Of course some persons will convert and start using Bitcoin as a currency which it was designed to be, but a huge percentage of them will keep seeing it as an investment.

Read the Bitcoin whitepaper. Bitcoin was absolutely not designed to be a mainstream currency in the sense of competing with sovereign currencies.

It was design to be a means of transferring numerically-delineated value while avoiding government oversight.

Potato potata. I don’t see the difference of the point you’re making from what I am saying. Bitcoin was designed to be a currency that eliminates third parties. You can try to write it in a different English but that’s just what it is. Does the whitepaper say it was designed to make people rich via investment? Apparently no. So, it indeed is potato potata.

[legiteum]

Potato potata. I don’t see the difference of the point you’re making from what I am saying. Bitcoin was designed to be a currency that eliminates third parties. You can try to write it in a different English but that’s just what it is. Does the whitepaper say it was designed to make people rich via investment? Apparently no. So, it indeed is potato potata.

Yes, but "currency" is a loaded term. Bitcoin is not a "currency" in the way most people use the term, it's a mechanism for value transfer without government oversight (albeit flawed at this task because chain analysis).

Making people rich by investing in it is something that the blockchain architecture can support since investment instruments can be pooled by brokers. Being a mainstream currency is something it cannot support.

Bitcoin will never be a primary way people pay for things. Yes, it may well be a speculation instrument for a long time or even forever, but calling it a "currency" is a bit... misleading in my opinion.

[we-btc]

Let's get to the core principles: The white paper

Quote 1: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
    This clearly states that the purpose of Bitcoin is to create electronic cash to be used in online transactions without third party intermediaries.  The key to this whole first paragraph is that all transactions should be free from third party intermediaries. "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double spending".

Quote 2: From the Introduction or 2nd paragraph: "Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments." "It still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model"
   In the second paragraph the white paper is explaining why peer-to-peer, trustless transactions are preferable to the current system of trust based transactions.

Quote 3: From section 10 Privacy: Privacy can be maintained "by keeping public keys anonymous".
   The point here is that because all transactions are stored on a ledger that is available to anyone the way to provide some level of privacy is to use anonymous public keys.  Clearly the intent was to provide private transactions.

Quote 4: From section 12 Conclusion: "We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust".
   

It is clear that the purpose of Bitcoin is to provide to anyone who wishes to use it, a system of electronic cash. This system is peer-to-peer and trustless.
When both parties use a private node, Bitcoin eliminates the need for a three party transaction. This system gives the parties to a transaction complete control without anyone else needing to be involved.

There is no reason to argue over the difference between cash, money or currency.  They all transfer value more efficiently than a barter system and are considered a store of value.
The issue is if we allow a 3rd party into the Bitcoin transactions does Bitcoin still serve its purpose as an electronic cash system that is better than the current fiat systems we use.  The answer is NO!
A Bitcoin transaction with a shared node or without self custody is not what was intended.
   

[legiteum]

Let's get to the core principles: The white paper

Quote 1: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
    This clearly states that the purpose of Bitcoin is to create electronic cash to be used in online transactions without third party intermediaries.  The key to this whole first paragraph is that all transactions should be free from third party intermediaries. "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double spending".

I agree, and I suppose I should have made my qualification more clear: I am talking about a mainstream currency that would be meant to replace existing sovereign currencies.

Bitcoin was designed as a very special purpose currency meant to thwart government oversight into transactions. That architecture is necessarily very complicated and cumbersome compared to a digital currency not built for that purpose, for instance.

So when you drill down into the nuances of the definitions, these are both correct in one context or another.

Quote 2: From the Introduction or 2nd paragraph: "Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments." "It still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model"
   In the second paragraph the white paper is explaining why peer-to-peer, trustless transactions are preferable to the current system of trust based transactions.

Yes, preferable to those who must keep their transactions secret from their government. That's a very special purpose, and most people don't have a need for that. Most of us are content with keeping the bulk of our wealth in a bank or other financial institution.

Quote 3: From section 10 Privacy: Privacy can be maintained "by keeping public keys anonymous".
   The point here is that because all transactions are stored on a ledger that is available to anyone the way to provide some level of privacy is to use anonymous public keys.  Clearly the intent was to provide private transactions.

Yes, I said as much above. But of course Bitcoin largely fails at that purpose--and keeping public keys anonymous doesn't help when you can do chain analysis and triangulate where money is being moved around. As any criminal would tell you, the problem is not making the cash or keeping the cash, you get caught when you spend the cash.

(And this is all a moot point today since I suspect most people who really care about keeping their transactions secret from their government probably used Monera, etc.).

A Bitcoin transaction with a shared node or without self custody is not what was intended.
  

No argument here, and I suspect that most holders of Bitcoin today don't use it the way (and for the purpose) it was designed for. People tell me, when I ask them if they physically hold their private key for their Bitcoin investment is, "what's a private key"?

[harapan]

Satoshi idea was to create the latest breakthrough called "BITCOIN" which is decentralized and has a limited supply due to his concerns about fiat currency issued by the government "Central Bank". Satoshi felt that there was inequality or no fairness in the public's trust in the banking system which often lends money in the form of credit bubbles with very little reserves. Abuse of trust from banks is considered to be detrimental to society in terms of being vulnerable to identity theft and account draining.

Satoshi criticized the system built by the government by launching Bitcoin to the public. With Bitcoin he hopes to provide justice to society. The presence of Bitcoin can bridge society back to using rare assets that are considered valuable because of their scarcity.

The hope is that Bitcoin can be used as a better alternative to fiat currencies which are vulnerable to devaluation and abuse of trust. Bitcoin which is very limited in quantity and cannot be regulated by any authority, makes most of its value come from people's trust in its supply and demand. Bitcoin has provided financial freedom for people who have always been in the grip of a government that always abuses trust.

The most important thing and what excites me greatly is that the hope and effort of the government to terminate and divert the opportunities from bitcoin to themselves are definitely unproductive.The government have tried their best forgetting that bitcoin is decentralized and their supremacy to it is of no use.

There's freedom,privacy and peace in bitcoin;from been a decentralized system,Bitcoin enables faster and cheaper transaction transfers, allowing families to receive funds more efficiently. Additionally, Bitcoin investment helps individuals to accumulate,preserve,and generate more wealth for themselves.

[Abiky]

It's not the banks who impose these rules, it's your government. Banks just want to make money, and they would make a lot more if they were able to take in money without any controls.

Banks work in tandem with the government to manipulate the economy to their own will. But the fact that Bitcoin is decentralized, makes these entities furious. They can't control it nor confiscate it (except if BTC is held by a centralized custodian). Don't think for a second that approving spot ETFs for Bitcoin is a sign that governments and big banks will leave it alone. This is just a move to boost countries' economies. But deep down, the aforementioned entities hate Bitcoin and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

History has shown us their efforts have been in vain, so they've resorted to regulating it as much as possible. With strong regulations, governments will prevent Bitcoin from "ruling the world". I sure hope BTC stays decentralized to help stand the test of time. The future can't be predicted, so lets hope for the best.

[legiteum]

It's not the banks who impose these rules, it's your government. Banks just want to make money, and they would make a lot more if they were able to take in money without any controls.

Banks work in tandem with the government to manipulate the economy to their own will.

LOL, they wish .

And there is no such entity as, "the banks" (talking about the USA here). There are individual financial institutions each with their own agenda, and with different ways of conducting business, and different ways they lobby Congress. But none have anything close to "control" of Congress any more than any other single business does.

But the fact that Bitcoin is decentralized, makes these entities furious.

No, it doesn't. They don't really care.

They can't control it nor confiscate it (except if BTC is held by a centralized custodian). Don't think for a second that approving spot ETFs for Bitcoin is a sign that governments and big banks will leave it alone. This is just a move to boost countries' economies. But deep down, the aforementioned entities hate Bitcoin and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

History has shown us their efforts have been in vain, so they've resorted to regulating it as much as possible. With strong regulations, governments will prevent Bitcoin from "ruling the world". I sure hope BTC stays decentralized to help stand the test of time. The future can't be predicted, so lets hope for the best.

Bitcoin is already effectively centralized for most people who invest in it because most people don't want the responsibility of physically guarding their own life savings--they'd rather pay some entity to do that for them. That's what a bank is.

And because of these products, Bitcoin is probably 1000x more valuable than it would be if it were still in the hacker realm. 

[oktana]

Potato potata. I don’t see the difference of the point you’re making from what I am saying. Bitcoin was designed to be a currency that eliminates third parties. You can try to write it in a different English but that’s just what it is. Does the whitepaper say it was designed to make people rich via investment? Apparently no. So, it indeed is potato potata.

Yes, but "currency" is a loaded term. Bitcoin is not a "currency" in the way most people use the term, it's a mechanism for value transfer without government oversight (albeit flawed at this task because chain analysis).

Making people rich by investing in it is something that the blockchain architecture can support since investment instruments can be pooled by brokers. Being a mainstream currency is something it cannot support.

Bitcoin will never be a primary way people pay for things. Yes, it may well be a speculation instrument for a long time or even forever, but calling it a "currency" is a bit... misleading in my opinion.

I don’t know what you mean “loaded term”, but Bitcoin is a currency because currency means money, and Bitcoin is money. Bitcoin may never be used as often as fiat currencies but it is a currency that people use to make and receive payments. What then are we doing? Trade by barter? I can’t believe I am even conversing this because what does the title of Bitcoin white paper say? “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” How do you define cash? Okay, in the first 2 lines of the whitepaper, tell me you don’t see “online payments”. If this doesn’t leave you thinking, I don’t know what will.