Topic: Bitcoin EFTs are bad for Bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency. - page 2. (Read 482 times)

For me and from my understanding of what the ETF approval stands to represent, it is nothing more than the SEC giving a nod to the idea and existence of Bitcoin. It is a way the government and banks are biting hard on a large chunk of control of crypto currency mostly the Bitcoin market, incase it becomes of more value, where adoption rates and interest rates on investment suddenly makes it have more value than the dollar.

It is the interest of many to use BTC as more of an investment option, rather than as money to be spent for payments and transactions. Whatever be the case that has led to the approval of the ETF, it will at least place a target on money launderers and criminals who use BTC  for neferous activities. It would allow more countries make move to adopt and regulate crypto currency with more interest in future BTC implementations of investment benefits.

The reason it may sound classic is because Regulation will allow crypto to be accepted into the mainstream financial system of banks and indeed everything is volatile. And I think this approach should be done in the same way as we handle profits and losses on investments and if we want to profit from you have to stay at the forefront of trading where the reality is that ETF products are currently probably more preferred by novice investors even though at this time BTC price still hasn't risen significantly.
     

My own company is an "off chain solution" (I guess), but I never considered this to be what people consider "blockchain".

Indeed, the design process for Haypenny was, "let's make blockchain faster" and then that finally evolved into the entirely new exchange paradigm that is Haypenny's split/combine single-block approach without PKI and a fairly centralized infrastructure.

So sure, I guess blockchain will scale really well as long as you remove the blockchain part .

i agree with what you say that there is a hidden agenda surrounding the approval of this bitcoin etf. the sec and these securities certainly only want to make a profit from the bitcoin market without getting too involved in it.

in fact, from some of the information i read, they issued this bitcoin etf only based on approval from the sec without the need to directly invest in bitcoin, which is quite surprising. this means that their contribution to the bitcoin market is non-existent, that all they do is add speculation to the bitcoin market to make its price unstable and make it function as an investment asset only for many people.

I'm also a firm supporter of the idea of decentralization and it's true that if you don't own the keys then the coins you have on exchanges aren't yours. Those coins actually belong to exchanges and they can do anything with those coins without your consent. Things have been changed a lot in crypto market from the time of Satoshi, and that's why we should understand that such changes are helping Bitcoin to grow. I also feel that Bitcoin isn't as decentralized as it used to be and who knows in future we may have more centralized power on Bitcoin.

I know that ETF's aren't actual Bitcoin by any means but they are somehow helping Bitcoin to grow. You don't own a Bitcoin when you own an ETF but it's value will always be close to the value of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin goes up then the ETF holder will also make profits from that upward movement and if it goes down then ETF holder will also face losses. I think those ETF's are somehow win-win situation for every holder of Bitcoin. The investment companies behind those ETFs will spend a lot of money to advertise their ETFs and such advertisement will also indirectly promote Bitcoin to wide audience.

Wrong, do you think centralized exchanges and BlackRock don't have terms of service? every centralized entity always forbid some countries, they're not welcome for every people in this world.


I'm aware there's Binance.us, so people who live on there can use this site. But, what about the people who live on those three countries? they need to use other sites. Instead of making it complicated, we have decentralized exchange or No KYC P2P which people can freely trade without need to worry about where they come from and their KYC.

But without centralized exchanges and ETFs, would bitcoin be as popular and successful as it is today? It is true that centralized exchanges, ETFs will gradually make bitcoin more centralized, but on the other hand, it will make bitcoin more popular and accessible to everyone. I believe that any of us who are new to the market need the support of centralized exchanges. So it can be said that everything has its pros and cons, so we cannot criticize those who support centralized exchanges and ETFs. They also have their reasons when they support those things.

You are right, but only if people can see things this way, I was mad about everything but I have a thought about the human mind and I quit, since no one can control the mind of the people it's impossible to tell people what they should do with their Bitcoin.

I always wonder what would have happen to Bitcoin if all its adopters never use Centralized exchanges for once, if all adopters decentralization and only trade Bitcoin using Dexes and Peer to Peer I wonder if centralized exchanges will survive or become a thing today?

Now ETF is even trying to confuse the not so smart investors that Bitcoin is centralized, because this is what ETF is looking like to me, it will be foolish to go with the ETFs and leave behind the real decentralized digital currency, but anyway, since the world is full of foolish people they will surely go the route of the ETFs.

It's not everyone that deserves Bitcoin.

Bitcoin ETFs could mess with Bitcoin's whole vibe of being decentralized. People worry that as these ETFs get fancier, they might attract more rules and tie Bitcoin to the old-school financial system, risking its freewheeling independence. It's like, can Bitcoin stay true to its rebellious roots with all these big players getting involved? Tho some people think these ETFs could bring more people into the crypto game, making it more legit. But yeah, the debate rages on about how to keep the balance between going mainstream and staying true to Bitcoin's wild side.

I think that Bitcoin is about financial freedom, and financial freedom, like any other freedom, is about having a choice. Bitcoin gives us a choice, a way of being our own banks, of using a currency that nobody is issuing and controlling in a centralized way. But freedom means that people can also choose other things, they aren't forced to be pro-decentralization, pro-privacy, etc. Bitcoin ETFs, just like centralized exchanges and custodial wallets, will find their customers. It's just an option that will become available to some people. While Bitcoin, in its pure form, remains an option, I don't have a problem with people having other, more centralized options.

One the one hand: yes, ETFs are the opposite of what I'd want to use. But on the other hand: Bitcoin gives anyone the freedom to use it the way they want. If they want to risk fractional reserve Bitcoin, let them.

Many exchanges have lost their coins in the past. This will eventually happen to an ETF too.

I guess it's a bit of both.

There's another benefit to people keeping coins on exchanges or ETFs: the blockchain simply can't handle more on-chain transactions. Current estimates of the number of "Bitcoin owners" are several timse larger than the total number of funded Bitcoin addresses. That can't all happen on-chain, without massive increases in block size.

I can use Bitcoin right now to order dinner. Of course it's a currency.

On-chain solutions can't, because storing a quarter trillion VISA payments per year in a decentralized way is simply not viable. That would require massive data centers. But off-chain solutions have the potential to do this: the Lightning Network for instance doesn't need to store all transactions, each node only has to store the current state of it's own channels. Except for the problem of on-chain channel creation, this has the potential to scale very well.

---

---

I may even consider using a Bitcoin ETF: unlike my own keys, an ETF comes with tax benefits for pension savings. But that would also mean I have to trust the ETF for decades, and I'm not ready to do that yet.

---

---

Banks are just trying to remain relevant

No, I don't use it for all of my transactions.  I still use fiat.  While cash is still a thing, anyway.  But I avoid online banking/PayPal/GooglePay/ApplePay/etc, so Bitcoin is very useful for times when I need to send or receive funds over any distance.  And once CBDCs are in effect and cash is phased out, that's when I'll be switching to Bitcoin for the vast majority of my daily spending.  Because that's the point where freedom dies in fiat.  Once you understand the 'war on cash' and what it represents, you'll recognise the importance of what Bitcoin is.

We couldn't stop people who had been waiting for ETF approval for a long time and after the SEC approved it, it created a lot of enthusiasm in the media. Therefore as chairman of the SEC Gary Gensler feels challenged because on the other hand he has provided a gift. However the public excitement unwittingly provoked Gary Gensler to cast us. It would be nice if the ETF approval didn't have to be so welcome because as you say Gary Gensler could quickly come up with a new agenda. He has control over whether it is approved or not, the ETF euphoria is only  the first step and if this initial step is debated again by Gary Gensler then the market will automatically respond negatively. Because speculation out there is very sensitive  to news published by the government.

I have experienced similar concerns. Although they contradict Bitcoin's decentralization, Bitcoin ETFs arent the bad guys. Let me clarify. They help established financial institutions profit and concentrate control. They also allow traditional investors to try Bitcoin.

Think about it. Not everyone is tech-savvy or comfortable with private keys. For them, ETFs are familiar and controlled. Traditional funding can raise Bitcoin's profile and, ironically, increase acceptance.

I support the "Not your keys, not your coins" rule. We OGs value true decentralization. However, Bitcoin will draw diverse participants with different objectives as it grows. Staying informed and making decisions that reflect our Bitcoin values is crucial. Arent choices the core of decentralization?

Bitcoin ETF is not essentially bad. Because it brings in liquidity into the market as long as the ETF is a physically settled one. But it all depends on who is running this ETF. Companies like blackrock, has enough money to control the crypto market. Probably that's what we are seeing now. After the approval the market has gone down where blackrock were able to score a huge amount of Bitcoins from the market. So that shows the power that big companies hold.

Definitely an ETF is not serving the main purpose of a decentralized currency. But I am more worried about the manipulation that are going to come into the market.

I do not like ETF's, I would rather have the Bitcoin. But including this "traditional" market is definitely a large plus for Bitcoin, overall.

Bitcoin ETFs are for the traditional boomer I mean investor , so that they can "invest" into Bitcoin as well. This is going to boost the price of Bitcoin, as more institutional investors buy up Bitcoin so that they can later issue someone a piece of paper that says they legally own x amount of Bitcoins, which are still being held in the institutional investor's wallet (and therefore technically the owner is the real wallet holder, not the guy with the piece of worthless paper that says 'trust me').

doomad forgets to mention. these institutions with their sandboxes and subnetworks of middlemen only got them by sponsoring core devs to cludge the code and finance the spam just to make bitcoin annoying, just to promote that people should move over to their sandbox

doomad forgets to mention he adores the fee wars, he adores the congestion, he adores the cludge of code that allowed the locking of value to then play in sandboxes

doomad forgets to mention he adores trying to coax innocent people into using mixers to then tag them as suspicious when users then use bitcoin legitimate merchant services. which institutions then call out bitcoiners as suspicious and possibly criminals for using laundering services

doomads perception is if you dont like the sponsored roadmap, dont highlight the issues, dont call out the issues, dont request the issues get sorted, instead just admire bitcoin for what it is, shut up or go find another sandbox,network,payment system

he wants to pretend institutions have no influence by pretending people should go to sleep and not look for risks(be complacent), even though everything doomad adores is actually not helping bitcoins have open utility

as for his buzzword "censorship-resistance"
just a quick github search for "evict", "abandon", "reject", "purge", "disgard", "orphan" shows that bitcoin has rules to not accept every byte of data ever broadcast.
rules used to be more useful to keep the network clean. but now doomad loves how the rules have been relaxed 'softened' to allow more junk into the blockchain, and he doesnt want to have the junk stopped

So you're saying that unless you use Bitcoin for all of your transactions you aren't "free"? What does that even mean? And do you really live your life without using anything but crypto transactions? How does that work?

Whatever Bitcoin was originally intended for has actually become secondary. It's unfortunate. There are a number of reasons for it, but the point is that Bitcoin is free and everybody is free to do whatever they think is best with it. Bitcoin doesn't have dictatorial powers as to which specific purpose people can only use it with.

And I bet many of those who are preaching not your keys, not your coins are also not using Bitcoin as a currency themselves. I bet most of them are also focused not on Bitcoin's features as money but on its fiat price.

Anyway, the banks can indeed make money out of Bitcoin but they can never control Bitcoin.

Some of us don't particularly care if you get it or not.  If you feel as though there's no benefit in any of this to you, enjoy your other payment methods.  I'm happy with what I've got.