The little that I know about bitcoin is:
1. Bitcoin is the founding father of blockchain technology.
2. Bitcoin is purely decentralized. No entity, company, country or individual is affiliated with bitcoin. Only Bitcoin is like that, another coin was born from the company
3. Bitcoin is the antithesis of fiat
Initially, fiat money was born on the basis of gold reserves. But now it's not like that. Many people disagree when the US prints money massively without considering gold reserves. However, bitcoin was born without any guarantees, only the trust of the community makes bitcoin have value. Isn't that the same?
Today many people oppose the dominance of fiat. People who are against fiat will turn to crypto. But would you be happy if the bitcoin price is expensive?
If yes, then:
You still like fiat, because it costs a lot if bitcoin is converted to fiat, but if the bitcoin conversion becomes 1btc = 1000 eth or 1btc = 2000bnb then you don't have to worry about how much bitcoin is worth in fiat exchange. But you have to worry if 1btc = 500 eth. But we never discuss the price of bitcoin with eth or bnb, more people compare the price of bitcoin with fiat rates
In your opinion, bitcoin is an asset or a currency?
If bitcoin is an asset, it is now. Most people will hold bitcoin as an asset and take advantage of the rising price of bitcoin. If so you are still dominated by fiat
If bitcoins were currency, it would be complicated if bitcoins were used to buy cheap things, transaction fees would be very expensive
I have many questions in this thread. Sorry if my argument isn't comprehensive, I don't have a deep understanding of bitcoin yet
You're right first off, you could say bitcoin's the progenitor of the blockchain, and the decentralized currency system. It pioneered the idea, and rallied multiple coins and projects that aim to improve upon this concept, or capitalize on it for profit and gain. Secondly, bitcoin is indeed decentralized. No question about that. The problem comes with your last statement, wherein you mentioned bitcoin being the antithesis to fiat. While there's some truth to that in the fact that some bitcoin maximalists and die-hard Satoshi Nakamoto Meat riders regard of bitcoin as some sort of money jesus, Bitcoin isn't made to antagonize the current financial system, it could be argued that the reason why bitcoin is here in the first place is to provide and improve upon the current paradigm by giving the people a taste of what decentralized monetary system could give them in the long run, Of course as time went by bitcoin became bigger than its previous directive and is now not only acting as a form of currency that you can exchange for goods and services but is also acting as a form of asset you can invest in for profit.
Fiat acts the same way anyway, we don't see Fiat Meatriders acting as if Fiat can only be one type, why rally the discussion of whether bitcoin's an asset or a currency then?