Bitcoin was created to reform money and provide financial freedom

[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.