When the Bitcoin (BTC) ledger was launched back in 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto intended for the network to facilitate a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that was independent of third party financial institutions. Satoshi had more or less implied that these latter institutions had gained control over the global payment systems as well as our way of thinking as to how we should conduct day to do business.
In Bitcoin’s whitepaper, Satoshi had this to say in the abstract section of the document:
“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.”
He would also add the following in the introductory section of the same document.
“Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.”
What he meant by this, is that the Bitcoin network could completely eliminate the need for financial institutions in everyday commerce. This would, in turn, reduce transaction costs, solve disputes quicker – since transactions are immutable on the ledger – as well as allowing two parties to transact without the need for a third party to validate the transaction. We would also have our ‘money’ neatly stashed away in our encrypted wallets away from banks that can use the money to make profits without our knowledge (which they do).
Therefore, do we really need Wallstreet and an ETF to validate the value of Bitcoin?
In a sense, we do not need Wallstreet. One is tempted to say that our thinking has been ‘polluted’ by the old model of doing things. We have been led to believe that we need the reputable financial institutions and governments to tell us that a payment product, such as Bitcoin, is great.
You can also argue that the same financial institutions have the right to use Bitcoin and its open source code to further their cause in the same industries that they thrive in. Bitcoin is completely permission-less. Therefore, it is within their rights to seek regulation of products such as ETFs.
Summing it all up
We, the users, need to remember what attracted us to Bitcoin in the first place. We were tired of high transaction costs while using regular payments avenues; institutions having our personal information, and we wanted to regain back our right as The People with a decentralized currency and network.
We have been led to believe that we need Wallstreet and an ETF to validate the precious Bitcoin and the other 1,700 or so cryptocurrencies in the markets. The fact remains that we do wield some power to determine the future of our digital assets.
We can also opt not to care about the SEC and Wallstreet. We can opt to continue with business as usual in the crypto markets as well as using our digital assets as a means of payment for our day to day activities. We can manage to make BTC a global currency.
For the latest cryptocurrency news, join our Telegram!
Disclaimer: This article should not be taken as, and is not intended to provide, investment advice. Global Coin Report and/or its affiliates, employees, writers, and subcontractors are cryptocurrency investors and from time to time may or may not have holdings in some of the coins or tokens they cover. Please conduct your own thorough research before investing in any cryptocurrency and read our full disclaimer.
Image courtesy of Pexels
The post Here Is Why Bitcoin (BTC) Does Not Need the SEC, Wall Street and an ETF to be Great appeared first on Global Coin Report.
Read more at https://globalcoinreport.com/bitcoin-btc-does-not-need-wall-street-be-great/