Bitcoin Forum

No Coin--> No Reward--> No Miner--> No Dezentralized Blockchain --> Nonsense

Any thoughts??   ???

Sure, you're a moron.

Bitcoin technology is free and open source, people can use it to whatever they want or need, if banks are able to use it to cut costs and improve their systems good for them.

what do you mean?

I mean your logic is nonsense, bitcoin technology is free and open source and can be used to whatever end it is needed or suitable, people don't have to be restricted to the bitcoin network or a simple copy/paste of the code.

The blockchain technology, its an advanced accounting system with security built in. It's basically a huge ledger of transactions. That's what the banks are interested in.

The bitcoin is rough in feature and effectiveness, but the concept that can be built upon is a huge step forward in accounting.

And how can a stock trading via blockchain work without a vital blockchain?

It does work with a proper accounting system, the blockchain is a different, newer type that draw attention. What are you trying to say?

i doubt such a system can not be just as efficient as a dezentralized blockchain with miners

How so? Ever heard of Proof of Stake (PoS)?

All they would need is nodes and the system isint less usable if centralized... Its security would become a sole responsibility, just like the bank system is now. Or they could integrate the technology in other system.

They arent trying to copy paste the code and using it. They are interested in its Concept.

To add on to this, banks are interested in the blockchain, not the Bitcoin blockchain. They can, and will, very easily create their own altcoin clone of BTC, control all the nodes, premine all the coins, and utilize the blockchain technology as they please, with their coins used as tokens.

ok now i understand the concept of ripple. anyway what are the advantages between a such centralized system?
if the bank get insolvent how can the network still longer work?

The federal bank with its own currency will just print more money and cause inflation. If it went insolvent it'd be the same whether its local currency or blockchain technology and they could just want to use it for the local currency too.

And if they are centralized it wont really be a network either, in comparison to blockchain coins. It would be similar to how it is already.

Again they probably arent trying to use the code as is. Its just advanced method of putting transactions into a ledger with high integrity and solid verification and tracking options.

OP, it's simple, they simply don't understand it. They don't understand that blockchains need a token currency as incentive to keep the blockchain running. They don't understand creating "your own blockchain" is stupid. And they don't understand, therefore, that using any other Blockchain that isn't Bitcoin for anything serious is nonsense (you can create your own side-chain over the BTC blockchain if anything).

Average people, when are thinking in blockchain, can only think in bitcoin.
But look at, for example Ripple. Ok, you can dislike it, or whatever you want, but it is a blockchain based system being zery different from bitcoin.
So, banks can develop their own blockchain based systems without having anything to do with bitcoin. Satoshi is a GENIUS(the best ever, the God to pray for) but hey, there are more great brains in the world.

The coins will have no difference from the fiat money. Coins is centralized and controlled by the bank. No one has inventive to or bother to mine it. If the banks fail, the maintained coins will fail as well.

proof of stake is bad and has nothing to do with decentralized network with miners activity, in the first(pos) users are encouraged to accumulate more and more coin without selling anything, to mint more this will rise supply centralization

with pow miners must sell to cover their electricity, thus spreading their coins better via dumping

I believe they know how Bitcoin works. But fact is they dont't like it. Not one bit!
So now they try to figure out in what way they can use at best. For them Blockchain tech is useful to disintermediate clearing houses and settlement systems that offer centralized control over transaction clearing etc. It will reduce costs for them and will be quicker.
However the problem here is that the end user or customer will not profit of it.

Banks will together with Governments continue to brainwash society and convince them that their crypto is the best.At least this is their plan.Banks will throw so much off their useless fiat money into this game that this might be going to be a really ugly and dirty time we are heading to.

Don't underestimate those fucking banks!

Banks like the fungibility, and accountability of the blockchain. Also, its security is much easier to scale than their current solutions.

They don't like bitcoin because it effectively render's them useless. Afterall, bitcoin is a solution for the under-banked and un-banked.

And for everybody else to get debanked.

Very logical. Banks could save money using the blockchain as a strong international ledger, but they couldn't do the business they do with BTC as a currency. There's a still a window of opportunity with some kind of credit around BTC, though. I wonder which bank will seize it.

It would be hard since in many country there's nothing that would protect them since the BTC is in legal limbo or in weird legal statuses.

They would have no legal resources to force people to pay back, etc etc.

I think of course they know how Bitcoin works. But they would not allowed it because they realized that bitcoin would changes their curency.
Banks and especially Governments would as continue to brainwash and spread negative rumore about bitcoin to people and convince them that their curency is the best than bitcoin and stay away from bitcoin.At least this is their f###ing plan

Let's attack it with the bitcoin hashing power  ;D

the phrase actually addresses the core of the issue: it begs for a defense of blockchains and the bitcoin blockchain as the best in-class.

Blockchains are data structures that have two distinct features:

They have native tokens that form the basis of all recorded information and economic incentives for using the system. The tokens are native as they are governed by the protocol that governs the data structure and have no external dependencies like central banks or financial institutions.
They contain a chain of cryptographic proofs that ensures the data has not been tampered with, lest the chain of proofs would not be able to be reconstructed. The chain of proofs has the neat property that it reveals the amount of work it took to construct the chain. This enables the network to converge on one chain as the true chain, the one with the most work done, and discard all but one.
The title of this article addresses a key challenge that has been the cause for much debate in the industry: do we need to have only one native token with a fixed supply in our data structure, or could we have none – or many?

To miss the value of these native tokens would be to also miss the value of the data structures that store them. I would like to push for blockchains with native tokens rather than just blockchains (innovative, probabilistically immutable databases) which have far lower utility, if any at all.

Security and integrity

Without going into the technical details of how blockchains are secured, it's important to understand the native token as the incentive mechanism for the security and integrity of the blockchain (for those that want a technical overview of the security model see the dynamic-membership multi-party signatures explained in the recent sidechains whitepaper).

At the base level, the blockchain technology is a data structure that contains within it a chain of proofs that must hold true. This structure allows us to verify that the history of transactions or information that is being presented has not been altered or tampered with, ensuring data integrity.

The reliability of the proofs is directly dependent on the economic incentives provided to the people or organizations that supply the proofs.

In bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (roughly $9,500 at publication time). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialized hardware running in data centers around the world.

If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would then be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words, without a high token value on a blockchain, there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

Universal financial coverage

There are relatively few bitcoin business models out there that are truly harnessing the ability to provide universal financial coverage, due to a number of factors like supply chain limitations, regulatory barriers and bitcoin’s volatility. Isn’t then the obvious solution to do away with bitcoin and keep the blockchain?

Without a native token, though, and with only a decentralized and open ledger we cannot achieve universal financial coverage. Financial institutions that adopt, co-opt, or fork the blockchain technology will produce no better financial coverage than they do at present.

To see why this is the case, we can look at the following examples of applications that have been built on the basis of financial coverage (note this is not an endorsement of any of these services, rather an examination of their use of universal financial coverage).

Tipping (ChangeTip, Dogetipbot etc.)
Silk Road 1.0, 2.0, etc.
Gambling sites (SatoshiDice, Updown etc.)
The Dogetipbot and more recently Changetip have created a frenzy on Reddit. A simple web scraper enables people around the globe to transmit value by typing a few words into a website.

The tips themselves are all recorded in centralized databases so the “low cost” of cryptocurrencies is irrelevant. The important factor is that the coverage is truly universal and that any user can, when they choose, withdraw the bitcoin or dogecoin from the service and use it in their everyday life.

In the future, this could become the basis of integrating virtual realities with physical processes.

Drug marketplaces needing to avoid criminal clampdowns and deliver truly global marketplaces require universal financial coverage (as well as relative anonymity). The extent of the coverage enables these platforms to gain critical mass to win the trust of their user base. Cross-country supply chain integration is possible because of the extent of financial inclusion.

Gambling sites are some of the only places in the cryptocurrency ecosystem that do not give dollar or fiat equivalent currency units. Sites like SatoshiDice and Updown give the bettors information on the extent of the house edge.

The volumes going through these sites are incredibly impressive considering that the operators often conceal their identity and are potentially operating illegally in certain parts of the world.

The demand for transactions is somewhat insulated from bitcoin volatility since the house edge can be as large as 70% on a binary option. Their user growth and reputation was again only achievable due to the universal financial coverage (bitcoin) and ability to independently audit their processes (blockchain).

One of the most popular bitcoin casinos, Just-Dice, conducts their bets off-chain. Wagers are not recorded in the bitcoin blockchain and are only stored on the Just-Dice servers.

With over 1 billion bets made on the platform, it's clear that the key advantage is universal financial coverage. While there is not the ability to independently audit their processes via a blockchain, bitcoin casinos like Just-Dice provide provably fair gambling.

There is no reason that traditional gambling services could not do this as well, but we seem content to rely on their real-world reputation and the certification of their services by some gambling authority.

Model for innovation

The underlying blockchain technology relies on universal financial coverage and distributed computing to achieve its value as one of the first databases with provable integrity.

Centralized services may operate on top of the bitcoin protocol but will always face high competition due to the relatively low barriers to entry (open source software) and low switching costs (installing apps on a smart phone).

We are still early in our understanding of blockchain technology. The excitement around the integrity of the ledger, its openness and its potential to unlock global financial inclusion must be embraced in a holistic framework. The blockchain’s security and utility depend on its native token. Currently the most secure and reliable blockchain is clearly our dear friend bitcoin, but this does not have to be the case forever.

This article has been republished here with permission from the author. Originally published on Jonathan's bitcoin blog.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.

Image via CoinDesk






you can see it on here: thnks.


http://www.coindesk.com/love-blockchain-just-bitcoin/

I think they are legitimately dumb and don't understand how a blockchain works and the necessity for the native incentive of a cryptocurrency issued to the miners and so on. They think centralized blockchains are a thing when it would be the same old boring disaster again: Hack it once, and get all of it vs having to hack every single node (decentralization).

I think the banks have reached the "alt-coin" phase. They now see that bitcoin is far superior but still have hopes of a restart that they control. Keep trying bank guys, you are getting there. Eventually they will realize that no one wants their stupid alts. 

It's only bankers and economics who think you can have one without the other, let them come to understand how valuable the blockchain is and learn it's dependent on the currency later. Who knows they may even realize it before it's too late.

Very good article and  explanation!

Completely backwards, coins depends on block-chain, you confuse 'for-profit-prof-of-work-mining' with the block-chain.

The OP's bafflement is like an Painter wondering why a Bank would want to have Paper when they aren't drawing pictures on it.  Banks want verified transactions that 3rd party or man-in-the-middle can't spoof, they do not want is to create their own money, and do NOT want to 'mine' aka expend expend ludicrous computer resources to verify transactions, which is great because public private key Cryptography lets you do that.

Blockchain is the core technology behind bitcoin. That can be adapted for any other purpose as well as any other money like alt coins. Adapting blockchain would be good sign for bitcoin to the moon.

http://r3cev.com/press/2015/9/15/ft-blockchain-initiative-backed-by-nine-large-investment-banks

Well I cant say all banks have preferred blockchain from biticoin its just that as I know biticoin is not very much popularized but it doesn't mean it is not known just for the moment not everyone has been using it.