Bitcoin was created to reform money and provide financial freedom

[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.

[1715332853]

1715332853

[1715332853]

1715332853

[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.