[hungryhobo]

you must be living in your own bubble if you think any of those apply to bitcoin.

> an asset that cannot easily be seized (safe, mobile, relatively easy to recover with seed words)

the us government was able to chase back bitcoin payments made to hackers

- an asset that cannot easily be debased (good at storing value)

bitcoin in it self is not an asset, just like paper money by itself is worthless.

- a network that is permissionless to participate in (no requirement for citizenship or identification, just software)

i'm not sure if it's as permissionless as you think. you would still need an internet connection, which in most cases require identification to setup. regular people aren't gonna implement the software themselves, so they have to get it from somewhere. the most widely distributed bitcoin wallets are not permissionless.

- a network that is censorship resistant (interact with willing parties, pseudo-anonymously).

if you're trading bitcoin through an exchange (i.e 99% of the users), it's not anonymous.

[coralreef]

> the us government was able to chase back bitcoin payments made to hackers

"chase back", but not forcibly, cryptographically seized. The blockchain is transparent. So yes, transactions can be traced. But there's a billion dollar bounty out there if you know how to crack private keys.

> bitcoin in it self is not an asset, just like paper money by itself is worthless.

Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Anything is an asset. Some assets are utilized as money better than others (gold, bitcoin, fiat vs apples, paintings).

> i'm not sure if it's as permissionless as you think.

Most people already have internet connections. App stores are not permissionless, but there are many other ways to load software onto a device.

> if you're trading bitcoin through an exchange (i.e 99% of the users), it's not anonymous.

If you're trading Bitcoin through an exchange, then you're not using Bitcoin the network. You would be "trading bitcoin through an exchange". There are also p2p services like localbitcoins and bisq.

[gruez]

You must be living in your own bubble if you think that people are going to accept that statement with zero supporting arguments.

[hungryhobo]

fair enough, arguments added

[rfd4sgmk8u]

>the us government was able to chase back bitcoin payments made to hackers

because they left it on a US exchange. They were not able to chase up the affiliate fee, which should give your pause to think about exactly how it can be reclaimed.

> bitcoin in it self is not an asset, just like paper money by itself is worthless.

I dunno man, i can give a paper $20 bill to a bartender and they give me beer. paper seems not to be worthless by itself.

> i'm not sure if it's as permissionless as you think. you would still need an internet connection, which in most cases require identification to setup. regular people aren't gonna implement the software themselves, so they have to get it from somewhere. the most widely distributed bitcoin wallets are not permissionless.

It is permissionless, in that nobody needs to grant permission to download/compile an open source product and use it. You have to have permission from your parents to be alive i guess...

> if you're trading bitcoin through an exchange (i.e 99% of the users), it's not anonymous.

Yes, and with the travel rules going in worldwide it will be even less. However, what the powers that be do not understand is that it is PERMISSIONLESS. Once the funds are in the UTXO, they can be spent anywhere, including non-KYC destinations, or even lightning channels. The industry wants to push the narrative that KYC-exchange -> ??? -> KYC-exchange implies ??? is the same beneficial owner. It isn't, and someone is in for a rude shock when their case falls apart due to bad assumptions. Ultimately, any regulation is a bandaid on a broken arm. The technology exists and is unstoppable.