I don’t see how Bitcoin can ever lose its identity. It’s a decentralized monetary protocol anyone can run their own node and be their own bank. Anyone can use money without censorship or needing permission. It’s money that simply can’t be devalued by governments or central banks.You can’t stop BlackRock, Michael Saylor, or anyone else from saving in Bitcoin if that’s what they want to do. No one has the power to prevent people from using Bitcoin as a store of value.You can’t stop people from saving in Bitcoin and treating it as digital gold, if that’s what they want to do.

Money has three main use cases:

Medium of exchange – we use money to trade goods and services

Unit of account – we use money to measure value

Store of value – we save money for future use, to exchange for goods and services later

As long as people keep running their own nodes,and tens of thousands already do around the world,Bitcoin remains secure and never loses its identity.

Am I missing something here? Just a title, no context, doesn't specify why Bitcoin is losing its identity as he claims, just a quote. From the little information we have, I'm guessing that the OP is referring to the fact that Bitcoin is considered more as an asset than a currency, which wasn't Satoshi's plan. Perhaps the OP should "update" us

I just posted elsewhere stating that bitcoin was not created to replace the existing financial system, so I don't know why someone would say that bitcoin has lost its identity simply because it is unable to dominate the existing financial system. I agree that the OP needs to update some information, but I am not surprised by the fact that bitcoin is not really meant to replace the existing financial system.

Bitcoin as an alternative payment tool besides fiat, but some people want something bigger considering the existing financial system is very bad. I personally do not want bitcoin to replace it, both can be used for the same purpose and coexist.

It is. Bitcoin now is not what its used to, aside from having thousands of value and stronger network. As Bitcoin ages, it inevitably changes in character compared to its early, idealistic day. The censorship, regulatory dependent, privacy, even price is heavily influenced by just one person, or institutional investors as well as unrelated events. So yes, it's lossing its characters and everyone knows it, especially the OGs.

Those quotes are intended for the competitors of it. For example, PayPal, it's joined the bandwagon and are now enjoying the perks of it because many of their customers are also into Bitcoin. They've joined the system because they know that they cannot beat it. And so, if you're going to keep this thread updated. It's for sure that you're going to put this quote relative to these financial institutions and payment processors did for adopting Bitcoin.

Bitcoin as a network hasn't lost any identity or purpose in this case. The purpose for which Bitcoin was created over 16 years is still the same today. How you decide to use Bitcoin is up to you, but that does not mean Bitcoin will lose its identity. Has the Bitcoin network stopped being decentralized for starters?

We have Big corporations and Traditional financial institutions fooling people into investing in the ETFs while the same corps actually buy the real Bitcoins using client's money and hoard it. At the same time, we have exchanges where you can buy Bitcoin, move it to your noncustodial wallet and keep it there independently of any third party. You can also buy and pay for services using Bitcoin through a peer to peer means. All these are choices that are available, so how do you say that Bitcoin is losing its identity?

Is there a change in Bitcoin's character? There's probably none. Perhaps the change is in its perception and treatment. But has Bitcoin per se changed? It hasn't, right? Bitcoin remains the decentralized system that it always has been. If at all, it has grown stronger. It remains the immutable, transparent, borderless, trustless, censorship-resistant, seizure-resistant money. Has it gone astray from those designs? I don't think so.

Bitcoin being highly treated as an investment today doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin itself has changed.

I like this but we can't say the same for Mbappe who joined Madrid in search of Champions League Trophy but ended up losing it, oh... he would have stayed back in PSG if his soothsayer saw the outcome of his joining Madrid  

Back to the point. Like in your idea too, bitcoin has not moved anywhere from what it was made for and this is evident in its dominant of the crypto space. A rise in the price of bitcoin increases the prices of altcoins and likewise when bitcoin goes red.

Nothing has been altered in bitcoin itself, it is the government who is joining and forcing itself to have a stake in the operation by making concerted effort to regulate the decentralised system through third party control. If we are talking about change, before now there are CEX who don't go after KYC but that has changed. The government never levied tax on bitcoin transaction but that has changed. The changes are not with bitcoin but the adoption level is what is increasing and the government is coming in for their gains. So we can expect difference in operation not changes in what bitcoin characteristics is for like limited supply, privacy, cryptographic security, divisibility, deflationary etc have not changed.

I truly feel BTC transcends just about every issue humans can come up with.

I agree with that . Characteristic Bitcoin features that are deeply enshrined in the unique identities of the cryptocurrency include decentralisation, fixed supply and censorship resistance. As long as the pillars have not collapsed, then it has not really lost itself. It simply does not change its fabric in the manner in which it is used by people with the change in trends or requirements. Nevertheless, you are correct that should governments begin to implement strict rules or however attempt to encompass it into the same category as fiat regimes, this will suffice to diminish what is so special about Bitcoin. It is not a question of how the people use it but it is a question of how much control the outside forces can exert upon it.