Topic: Everyone is free to use Bitcoin as they want - page 2. (Read 872 times)
ETF is an important for bitcoin, if bitcoin pass the ETF i believe many institution will using bitcoin as hadge fund, and this can boost the price to reach maybe 20-40k , everything need to regulated before massively adopted
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
Yes everyone is free to use bitcoin as they want because the security here is not so secured. Actually making an account here is easy you just need to follow all the steps that they need and you can start working here.
BTC itself is more if an asset than currency in its properties and market evaluation but other alts that complement the limits of BTC can better be used as currency.
Everyone is free to use Bitcoin that they have. Bitcoin can be viewed as a kind of asset that individuals must work hard to get it. Currently, it is not easy to obtain Bitcoin. With the Bitcoin we own, we can do everything we want. Bitcoin is great for use by good security and anonymity. Many people are looking to own Bitcoin.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
For me,this is the time for bitcoin and all the alternative coins to be in mainstream as from this the whole world might accept and adapt the cryptocurrency.and i know that if ETF becomes successful,the whole crypto community will rejoice and becomes more even useful to the who universe
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
Yes everyone is free to use bitcoin as they want because here in bitcoin everyone is welcome and it is also welcome here for the people that wanted only to earn.
I think bitcoin is not really something that is asset or currency. By all means, it can be a mode of exchange of golds and money. Also, I think bitcoin is made for us. So it's in our hands what we are going to do in bitcoin. But at the end of the day, let's be responsible of our actions and let's be wise in our decisions.
Bitcoin is really made for us. Satoshi nakamoto created bitcoin for us to be free from the controlled of banks and governments. Bitcoin is created to be a currency used for payment, but as what we can see, because of its volatility, its best used is for investments. We cant stop people from using bitcoin in bad things, because its their bitcoin. Because its depends on you, on what will you do to your bitcoin. Exactly! I agree with you!
I think people no longer need to debate whether bitcoin is an asset or a currency.
Everyone has the right to determine what they want for their bitcoin because bitcoin is financial freedom.
I think people no longer need to debate whether bitcoin is an asset or a currency.
Everyone has the right to determine what they want for their bitcoin because bitcoin is financial freedom.
Yes I agree with your opinion , we all free to use bitcoin coz they're many sites how to work in bitcoin and many crypto currencies and data exchanges to used it so I can say that anybody or everyone is free to use bitcoin they want.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
That is just the simple truth. Bitcoin is for freedom given to the ordinary citizen and empowerment implement to him. Bitcoin being taken as an asset is the argument of the state so that it can derive tax from all billions of bitcoin transaction world wide. Bitcoin is decentralized digital money where P2P can be easily achieved with out the third party.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
I wonder why people really like to care about what other people do. Bitcoin being an asset or a currency depend on who had it, so just mind about yourself, it's good to give advice, but don't force other people to follow your advice.
I think bitcoin is not really something that is asset or currency. By all means, it can be a mode of exchange of golds and money. Also, I think bitcoin is made for us. So it's in our hands what we are going to do in bitcoin. But at the end of the day, let's be responsible of our actions and let's be wise in our decisions.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
Yes!bitcoin is free,who wanted to be a user of bitcoin is available but sometimes other people dont believe on it.bitcoin is a very convenient online job that open to all people who wanted to be part of it especially to those who was none educated person that has knowledge and brain to understand what bitcoin means.maybe it is too long to wait for the results but in this kind of job,all we need is patient and trust.That is very important and most especially trust God in all the things we do. I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
Indeed they are. Someone is allowed to deal with his or her bitcoin as he enjoys. Someone cannot choose for you how to spend your cash. For whatever length of time that you realize what you're doing and you are doing it appropriately. I think you've your future in your grasp
Bitcoin is already accepted as collateral in the US Federal Court
25-year-old Serbian-Italian citizen Martin Martiha was asked to pay a pledge in bitcoin (BTC) or any other cryptocurrency.
Marsih was arrested on August 8 on suspicion of hacking a video game company Redwood City Electronic Arts in San Francisco, California.
25-year-old Serbian-Italian citizen Martin Martiha was asked to pay a pledge in bitcoin (BTC) or any other cryptocurrency.
Marsih was arrested on August 8 on suspicion of hacking a video game company Redwood City Electronic Arts in San Francisco, California.
yes in my opinion using bitcoin is a very convenient way to make transactions, we are very free to conduct online transactions, there are no rules that can make it difficult for users whenever and wherever we are we can make payments. isn't that the way I am practical and very helpful in all businesses?
Like Satoshi Nakamoto just created bitcoin and gave us a guideline. Then gave us the rein on what to do with his creation. However bitcoin will eventually be used, I'm still all in for it since it's the eventual future financially.
Bitcoin is a decentralized technology so I agree that Bitcoin should be use as whatever the person wants it to use. It's either a currency or an asset as people would like to refer. It could be classified as a currency because you could buy goods using Bitcoin or even pay the bills. Or you could refer to it as an asset because you hold it to profit. It depends.
Bitcoin is free to all use because bitcoin is a on-going activity that rise up and users gain and being there job to invest or trade.Free for all who want to earn.I totally agree, bitcoin was created to make our lives easier and we can have the freedom to used it, it makes the transaction become more transparent, bitcoin was created to become a currency that can be used in all over the world.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
"Freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin". I think i'm totally agree with your statement. I don't understand why people keep on debating which one is better for bitcoin to be a currency or to be an assets for investment, while in reality, bitcoin is equally both for that two function. At the end of the day, the usage of bitcoin is depending on how we gonna use it. I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
As we all know that bitcoin is a decentralised crypto currency and there is no such authentic regulating body over the bitcoin who could keep eyes over all the bitcoin activities so this decentralisation is almost responsible for like all the controversies related with bitcoin like its legalisation and its illegal use but since it is decentralised, no country has the right to ban it and cannot stop its people from using it, country can ban its people tu se domestic exchanges but still their citizens can transact through international exchanges. I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
Jump to: