Bitcoin Forum

There is no currency that banks hate.  Not if they can make money on it.

Once the regulatory and tax and volatility issues are settled out or predictable, they'll cheerfully accept bitcoin, or even denominate accounts in bitcoin.  Of course the depositor won't have the keys to those accounts.

They'll even offer interest, provided it's slightly less than they can make by loaning those bitcoins out.  And they'll loan it out by handing people (slips of paper that say they own) a particular amount of bitcoin.  Which allows them to loan out more to debtors than they actually have from depositors.

In short they'll just treat it as one more currency.  One that has its own slightly peculiar inter-bank settling channel.  

Yes, it is. Banks will not operate at a loss. Especially Bitcoin exchange rate is still not stable and jumps sharply, possibly on this and they will win.
Global financial giants are actively exploring the possibility of using Bitcoin and blockchain technology.The largest banks in the world master Bitcoin technology:
Citi Bank, UBS, Standard Chartered, BNP Paribas,Société Générale,Barclays,Goldman Sachs,BNY Mellon,etc

But bank hate bitcoins as it does not suit them

While banks are not exactly anitibicoin force they see Bitcoin as major competitor. Mainly because Bitcoin has same properties that services that banks are offering people.
Bitcoin will eliminate need to have bank account, to keep money in a bank vault and to be able to send money wherever you want without 3rd party taking care of transaction.

does not go all the way that involves all of the banks, such as china, they are developing their cryptocurrency inspired by bitcoin IIRC. that's how the ideas work.

I thought bitcoin is a currency too, if I'm right, then banks do hate bitcoin :P

But bitcoin is decentralized. There is no need for a bank whatsoever.

Wanna earn interest on your coin? Sure, go ahead and loan it out P2P style. Or invest it. Bitcoin is basically saying that if you want interest on your coins, go for it, but the risks you have to deal with yourself.

A fractional reserve model would not work with bitcoin as its currency supply is limited and cannot be created on demand. So banks are basically not required and if they do business with BTC, they will probably have a bank run sooner or later.

Sure, there's a need for banks.  Maybe I don't need banks if I use bitcoin instead.  But most people aren't computer security consultants who've written a hell of a lot of crypto code.

Homer Husband and Harriet Housewife do not have the ability to keep botnet hackers out of their windows boxes. 

Nor do they have the wisdom and tech savvy to keep the coins secure while using them. 

So they can hold them and have them stolen, or they can let the banks hold them. 

Letting the banks hold them has a bunch of advantages.  Use the charge card anywhere, use any ATM, not worry about theft because the banks are insured, and so on.  Even if they get zero interest, they'd still rather let the banks worry about keeping the keys safe.

And the banks are completely ready to loan out more than they've got.

There's truth on this ,but bitcoin is more than an online bank to me,we still need traditional bank for our offline needs,what I really love about bitcoin transacting is the very low fee compare to the other traditional online payment processor you will have no second thought using bitcoin on all your online transaction because of this ..

There is no need yet for banks to hate bitcoin, as it haven't take steam yet. Once it goes mainstream, the bitcoin can easily make a bank worthless, the bitcoin offers to users all of the services of the bank from the comfort of their home but for the moment it operates as an online banking only. I think in the future bitcoin can replace banks but for that there is still a whole whole lot of time if it will ever happen. I personally have quit using Paypal as online payment which I used to use often, thanks to bitcoin. This is a reason why banks have lost a customer, maybe like me there are a lot of other users.

If Bitcoin continues to vary so wildly in price I don't think a lot of people would be willing to close their bank accounts and invest everything they own in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more used as a store of value. Personally I wouldn't invest my life savings in Bitcoin because there is a risk that the price may crash. Bitcoin preaches decentralization by design and I doubt that people would trust centralized banks to handle their Bitcoins in the first place. Bitcoin and banks just don't make the right match for each other.

well when it comes to bitcoin there are a lot of reasons why they should hate it, especially if it is on the rise as it makes people more interested in bitcoins rather than banks

i think that if bitcoins do not hate it yet they will surely do in the near future because bitcoin is decentralized and banks will have no impact on the price and they wont be happy for sure

 Banks will hate the coin. It has a power they cant allow. The power to verify the account without verifing the accounts owner. This is a huge advantage. Once people taste this freedom, they will demand it.
 For banks, it would be suicide to adopt this change, and slow death not to.

No.  Trust me on this, I work security.  People aside from a small minority never demand freedom.  They demand convenience.  They demand freedom if and only if not having it is inconvenient.

And banks are in the business of making it convenient for them to hold your money.

Yeah truly banks won't hate any of the currency which has got value. Banks will try earn those and make good profit from those different currencies.

are you sure with that?i think not all banks friendly with other currency,you may right if you said that but lets see banks on poor country,thy getting hard to interest to bitcoin,they know its too risky for being accepted.

It's not just the volatility issue, there are a few other kinks that need to be ironed out before banks will consider accepting Bitcoin but essentially you're right, they don't exactly hate Bitcoin or crypto. If there is money to be made and the risk involved is minimal, they're not gonna say no to Bitcoin. But there is a LOT of work needed before that happens.

If you have ever had to wait 10 or 14 days for a check to clear, you know how convenient bank varification is. The difference is: Is this money real, vs Is this person good for this check. The way it works now seems like cave man shit, once you have been to the ( is this money real) fast bank.

I agree banks is flexible to other currencies because by that they can earn profit if the transaction is being done in their bank branch, bank realy open for any other oppurtunity and they will go where they can earn adopt whats trend but for now they dont adopt bitcoin dont know what is the reason, but i really sure bank hate other currencies.

I agree theres no currency that banks hate, because they can have profit on it. I think they accept bitcoin to earn not to hate it. Hmmm by the way In other people that saying banks hate bitcoin what the reason why you said that? Because if i am a bank manager i dont accept bitcoin if this coin is not profitable And if bitcoin is just a headache to my work.

Bitcoin as a store of value only would still be a huge thing if mainstream would adopt it as that.
As a safe haven or investment BTC could still gain to a high value if a majority of people would only put a small portion of their savings into it.
And as long as the volatility goes upwards, especially over the long term, I believe there will more than enough people to give it a try.

Banks should really be scared of bank runs, if everyone took out their money at the same time. It would expose how they run on unsustainable fractional reserves and exorbitant fees. They are "good" at lending out that isn't even there.

This probably never gonna happen because we already have debt slavery, and they are not scared at all, it's going to be worse. Bitcoin won't disturb this system, question is how they gona incorporate him in their bussines..?

Won't banksters just print more of their filthy fiat out of thin air? Ain't that what they do?

With central banks and fiat currencies, yes. Bitcoin has no central bank that can issue more coins, so that particular problem isn't real. 

But all commercial or private banks would treat it exactly the same as they treat anything else; they'd have a fractional reserve ratio where they'd loan out (pieces of paper giving borrowers a right to claim) about three times as many coins as the banks actually have.  And then charge the borrowers interest, and we're right back to the debt model of money.

Bitcoin price will never be predictable. Bitcoin is not a regulated currency, therefore, it's price can never be stable, we will go through tons of bubble-busts cycles if that ever happens. We will have to reach 6 figures a Bitcoin or more to start seeing some sort of stable floor on the price, until then it's all the way up with downs as well.

That's what coinpr0n is talking about, conventional banks.  because there are no Bitcoin banks left to worry about bank runs. They all ran away themselves (Bitcoin Savings & Trust, Bitfunder, NoeBee, etc., etc.)


Sorta. There are dev teams bidding for power. Recently the owner of this forum had some interesting ideas, like destroying coins that weren't his to destroy, because "old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation."
Sounds central bankish to me (other than the bit where he doesn't know what monetary inflation means,that is) :-\

They don't hate it.  They don't understand it fully and bitcoin's market cap is relatively tiny compared to, say, the US dollar.   Give it time and they will rape and pillage it.

There is one currency that they do indeed hate and fear - Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.  There is no need for banks when crypto takes over...i am banking on it.

Except that when the inevitable bust follows the boom there would be no way for the central bank to reinject liquidity into the system. No QE with BTC. The commercial banks [that had been irresponsible and greedy] would go to the wall and the whole debt based system would come crashing down around us.
This is what should have occurred in 2008, were there a free market.

Thank God for central banks/no free market?

You are looking at it in the wrong way OP... We should not change Bitcoin in ANY way to win the favor of ANY bank... They are a unfortunate necessity at the moment, because some people wants

to convert back to fiat. Bitcoin should be the direct opposite of banks... and some of these third party Bitcoin services are not getting that and are trying to mimic banks... sucking the advantages of

Bitcoin's appeal and advantages out of the technology for the sake of profits.  ::)

Banks may not hate bitcoin. I agree, anything banks can make money off of, they are happy with.

But if you know how to use bitcoin, you don't need a bank. You are your own bank. This is a fact or facet of bitcoin that bank probably aren't too excited about.

Then again, when mass adoption of bitcoin happens, there will be more than enough sheeple in the world who will continue to use their bitcoin via banks.

They hate Bitcoin for one more reason, no longer we need to trust fiat issuer (central bank) anymore, with public blockchain Bitcoin uses, anyone can verify no more than 21 million Bitcoin ever exist - the trully transparent public ledger is real future.

<20 million, if theymos has his way :)

First: I wasn't calling for a change, I was just pointing out that the banksters will simply adapt.  Bitcoin can't break them, nor even lower the amount of profit they can rake off ordinary people.  

Technically, you can use cash for everything local that you can use a bank for.  But you wouldn't want to, because cash can be lost or stolen.  All Bitcoin can do is delocalize cash.  Aside from the local-only limitation, dealing in bitcoin has all the same disadvantages as dealing in cash, IE, it can be stolen or lost and if that happens there is not shit you can do about it.

Ordinary people have a choice between getting their keys stolen out of their phones, or the cloud, or their computers, by hacks and data leaks, or keeping the keys secure offline where they can't use their money, or paying banks to deal with the security.  If they actually want to use their money, paying banks to deal with security is the obvious choice.

And as for sucking the advantages out of things for the sake of profits, THAT IS WHAT BANKS ARE FOR. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't BE banks.  

I'm going to have have agree with this. If a bank can make money off of a currency exchange why wouldn't they accept it? The problem is then they'll loan out BTC with their fractional reserve.

I think it's going for be hard for me public to understand that it make no sense for Bitcoins though. Onc one bank accepts BTC the others will follow suit soon after.

Finally, someone that understand. Right now it's all about "bitcoin vs paypal" or "bitcoin vs banks"... damn! People seems not understand what bitcoin is.


Banks just can't accept bitcoin right now, but they will start to accept it at some point.
Even if bitcoin dies at somepoint, another crypto will take it place.

I think i agree theres no currency that banks hate.. for its a perfect couple while our bitcoin is in online we can transfer it to our bank anytime even in offline we can withdraw our money from bitcoins to fiat.
As bitcoin has a value banks need it and to make a more profit with this kind of currency.. they can get the fee for transferring and converting bitcoins..
Just like here in my country to our funds from bitcoin wallet we need to verified my banks first and we can start withdrawing our bitcoin in to fiat..

Ding.  In most countries, the system worked.  The fatcats got immediate handouts to prevent systemic collapse, which pissed a bunch of people off since the fatcats were mostly responsible for the crisis in the first place.  But in almost all nations, including the US, the handouts stopped and the fatcats have mostly been required to repay them as loans.  And in about half of all nations, (the less corrupt nations), prosecutions are following on now that the economy is somewhat stable again.  So -- in most of the world -- the system worked.

I worry though, that one of the nations where the handouts have never ceased and never been paid back, and prosecutions did not follow recovery, is China.  I fear that it's heading for a big collapse, and it is among the biggest economic powers in the world.  If they don't smarten up pretty quick, they could bring the whole system crashing down again.

Sure, but once you start modifing the Bitcoin protocol in a way some of previous coins cannot be used anymore, its almost sure Bitcoin death.

So I guess while theymos pointed to a problem some coins are less secure than others (so owners should reconsider to secure these), trying to remove these coins from Bitcoin supply is much more dangerous, as it remove all the trust Bitcoin users (especially longtime holders) have.

We can stop here... If someday banks accept Bitcoin and/or have Bitcoin denominated accounts nobody would really use them... Do you see anyone having accounts which they do not control the keys for in a few years? Seems highly unlikely. Even if people accepted that, they would most likely choose a more trusted service (which obviously has risks too).

That being said, banks can profit from having Bitcoin services... if we allow them to :)

Seems highly likely to me.  There is less risk to them of losing their coins to a hack or a crack or a botnet, if they let pros keep the keys secure.

True indeed! Banks will not hate any currency which will bring profit in to their treasury.

Bitcoin is doing good and that's why banks are after it. They are even planning to start their own blockchain.

But till the time bitcoin can be earned freely and without regulation, they will not be able to make much impact on its distribution.

I like how you described how Banks works, but the poblem is the loaned "Bitcoins" cannot be real Bitcoins which can be used on Bitcoin public ledger. In fiat world, fractional reserve banking can work because the ledger is not public, but if the fiat ledger become public it would become obvious to normal people banks creating money out of nothing, and people could start question why they cant create money out of nothing as well when banks can loan more money than they have (from deposits).

Thats why Bitcoin is not fractional reserve currency, you can only loan Bitcoins you actually have. Thankfully. I owe you Bitcoins notes are useless on Bitcoin public ledger, these can be created in any number and should be valued accordingly.

There are some points that your missing. Each bank actually does hate some currencies (it depends on under the law they operate based on it's respective origin). One thing I've noticed as of late, is the fact that more major trades are taking place with other currencies as opposed to the past, in which was $. Many countries are making joint banks, just so they would ditch the use of foreign currencies, simply due to them not liking the idea of using foreign currencies since they have to comply with certain rules as well. Now BTCitcoin on the other hand, is actually a major treat to the whole banking system, "BTCitcoin will lessen banks operation, the way internet lessened TV and newspaper usage". They can't give loans in BTCitcoin since it's value could change overnight and they might end up on receiving less that they give out. One of BTCitcoins nature is it's decentralized nature and by letting banks regulate it to any extent, it destroys it's purpose on that front.

 It worked ? It worked for who ?

 
In the UK the Govt.(we the taxpayer) bailed out RBS (amongst others) to the tune of £45billion. The Chancellor lately decided to sell the stake that the Govt. hold at a price less than what they (we) paid for it. It means a loss to the UK taxpayer of £13billion.

Meanwhile my brother in law is still sat on at least £25k negative equity:-

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/real-house-prices-91--600x470.png



But it wasn't really this that I was referring to in my post. More, it was the central bank creating money out of thin air and placing it on the balance sheets of the commercial banks that I was referring to. The ECB is still pumping an extra $63 billion per month into Europe.

We are all aware of Japans history of QE (ongoing - only now with the added "bonus" of a NIRP) - and it looks like, as you say, China is heading down the same route.

Bitcoin means Governments will lose a large tranche of their nation states control over monetary policy, were it ever to be adopted wide scale. Where would that control go ? It strikes me that by default it would go (back) to the people who were previously carrying the can (carrying the can precisely because they had no control).

The commercial banks could do the fractional reserve once, but they wouldn't be able to do it twice if they got it wrong the first time round. That, to me, means that when the safety net is taken away there would be a very great incentive to conduct business in a professional, transparent and above board manner the first time around.

I'm not in a position to have a proper say on that statement, but in my opinion, not all banks do that. I know a few good banks who just rather closed down than print dirty money. I think only the greedy banks would print out money to sustain themselves.

*Whom. For all of those whose economies didn't collapse?

What you're doing here is not making any sense. How could bailing out banks cost the taxpayer anything above the printing cost of the filthy fiat that's printed out of thin air?
Intrinsic consistency is super important.


"Gentlemen, let's adapt bitcoin instead of trying to stop it. One very intelligent bitcoiner explained to me how then we'll be able to successfully lose control of the monetary policy, crawl in some corner and die. Seems pretty attractive, so let's hurry up and stop printing our worthless scrip and embrace bitcoins!" -- Every Government Ever

Or is there?

As long as they can make it they'll love it. Can't make btc!!

What ? - like those whose economies weren't complicit in the fraud ? Good for them (if they were one of the western economies that were able to avoid having the pain meted out to them from those above that is). The UK (and US) on the other hand relies on "financial services" for 10% of its GDP - and for the people therein there was (and is) no escape. As indeed there wasn't for the people of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy .........



QE isn't a one off payment/windfall to banks, its an ongoing subsidy. Also monetary debasement/devaluation/direct vs indirect costs to the average Jo.



Thanks for your input Mr. Osborne/Yellan/Dimon.

The reason for why banks may hate Bitcoin in the fututre, there is currently no reason for any bank to hate any currency. It may be possible for banks to somehow hold bitcoin funds, but I predict people would be both more free and more responsible in the future than we are now.

for example, a night of drinking at bars and spends all his money. With Bitcoin, we would;d have to be more mindfull as to how they spend their money at the bar.

And I will say that if banks and governments started to adopt and use bitcoin then its volatility, tax and especially anonymity(which is totally against the banks rules) issues will be solved efficiently and after that bitcoin will be used as a normal currency and with that bitcoin will be a powerful and more stable currency, so every business owner will adopt it.

As someone living in US, can tell you it's working fine thus far. Live in a nice house, eat good snacks, drive a fun car, streets are safe.
So your suggesting that "for the people therein there was (and is) no escape" begs the question: WTF you talkin' bout?
No one is trying to escape, Mexico ain't building no wall to keep Amerifats out, we're good were we're at, brah.

An ongoing subsidy you say? So they're printing filthy government scrip out of thin air on ongoing basis? Horrifying! The power bill for those printers must be astronomical.  Hey, now that I think about it, fiat is a bit like bitcoin, costs money to print it out of thin air. Neat.

Just making sure you understand that the odds of any government letting that shit happen are zero. Partially due to edgy bitcoiners like yourself :)

Sounds like $ is working just fine for you man, eating your nice snacks and what have you.  Zero crime neighbourhood. Nice car.

Does kind of beg the question though - what are you doing here ?

Whored - is the clue in the title ?

Trying to educate and engage. Something that state-sponsored schools brainwash factories clearly failed to do.
And, won't lie, to have a few laughs :)

Why's that a problem?  People won't object, any more than they objected when MtGox did it.  Remember that, even today, more than half of Bitcoin owners don't remember MtGox.  They weren't here when it happened.  They already keep their coins in online wallets where they don't have the keys, make transactions with other people using the same online wallet which don't appear in the block chain, and never check the blockchain to see if their particular transaction went through. 

Banks just take it to the next level, where they can do the same thing between *ANY* two bank account holders, not just the ones that use the same bank.  People will never notice the difference.

Can business work out ways of exploiting/utilising an immutable public ledger that has the potential to register "everything that can be known"/digitised about an individual ? Most definitely.

Will they be able to do it via central banks QE and/or commercial banks fractional reserve banking ? I think (probably) not.

I hate to bang on about it, but for me the real issue is the ownership of the means of production. I know some say that in the knowledge/information age that this (Marxist) paradigm has shifted/been supersceded. But I'm not convinced. It just means that the means of production have altered - but these "means" can still be owned, as they always have. Knowledge and understanding can still be garnered in the service of wealth/power/privilege, its acquisition, and its protection.

agree with this. having same properties make bank and bitcoin be competitor. and in other side bitcoin is easy use, don't need to go in and go out to make or transfer money.

but OP's right either, banks can use bitcoin as their new feature to make costumers. well, just see what will happen

You're forgetting a very important feature of banks that make banks "profitable", and that is that they lend out loans for profit.  I mean, in a sense people are in a way becoming their own "banks" by doing this exact thing... just look on the lending board in the market place.  People are making profits that way there, or even on exchange sites like poloniex.

Truth is, is that a large majority of people on the planet don't know what Bitcoin is, and this, in itself, makes it not a "hot" asset for banks to accumulate or offer to their customers. Plus, "normal" people don't need Bitcoins to start up a business idea or pay off student debts... they need fiat.

The UK though was handicapped going in.  It had just gotten burned worse than anybody else in the Eurozone by the mideast Asian banking crisis, before it had really gotten fully and completely recovered from Barents' bank getting Leesoned.  Plus there were Eurozone treaties intended to prevent countries from dragging each other down which had the unfortunate effect of preventing them from working together very easily as well.  I mean, yeah, it did completely suck on the ground, but the guys at Downing Street could have done a hell of a lot worse.  

And most of that money?  Didn't really exist in the first place.  The £45billion was less than the replacement value for a £65billion bezzle,  ie, the money that people were pretending was real in order to continue their scam.  It was distributed throughout the economy, in everybody's pockets, including the fatcats.   When they printed more money, the fatcats' holdings were devalued way more than the ordinary taxpayers'.  And now the £45billion that they printed is distributed through the economy, and they're coming back and making the fatcats pay back about £32billion of it.  So, yeah, you got ripped off, but you and the fatcats lost a very similar percentage of your wealth.  And as for your graph?  Smooth out that bump and you've got a net *increase* in property value over the last few years, so the bubble got popped but your economy didn't sink.  


Back to the uncontrolled six-to-eight year boom/bust cycle that characterized the "natural" state of the economy before economists figured out effective monetary policy, unless I miss my guess.  It was a lot rougher than the ride we've been having since WWII.  


Your faith in the wisdom of crowds is charming, but misplaced.  You can fleece sheep every year.

Banks just want to make money. They do this by giving out loans along with other things. Bitcoin could also adapt to this. Banks just need to agree with using Bitcoin. A lot of people could get Bitcoin loans.

Would you be willing to have "everything that can be known"/digitised about" YOU recorded and available to anyone who cares, forever?
Sounds a bit Orwellian to me, but what do I know...

Pay day loans are around because banks refuse to deal with people that are going to potentially forfeit their amount owing.
This should tell you how excepting a bank is of stepping into a new rung of finance,the regulation is the death of bitcoin in my eyes.
You hand them that and its time to go back to the drawing board for a currency outside the government and the banking system.
The point for me is that bitcoin has the potential to work outside both these fields and lately I keep reading people wanting to submit,for what?

That's also a very good point... People tend to want to just stop everything that Bitcoin users have been advocating for years, and that's to create a system without banks.  People want the secure feeling of a "government backed" currency I guess... even though I would trust millions of other people world wide before trusting a few old crusty folks up on the hill secretly dealing plans behind close doors.

Then on the other side, I mean what happens to people who need to take out loans to start up businesses or to go to school to get a college education? 

There is a lot to consider when thinking about trying to take down a very fundamental part of normal everyday life for billions of people world wide... A lot of stuff could go horribly wrong, but then again, the current central banking system isn't really cutting it either...

Any currency that can make money for bank can't be hated. Bitcoin is one of an exceptions and banks really hate it, but it's seems very stupid to do this. Banks need to try to take control on bitcoin, but i don't know how  ;D

banks dont hate bitcoins

It was used to quadruple household and personal debt.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yaF1j98AnNA/UGS8qOsBMlI/AAAAAAAAEZE/-IX6d8GtLEM/s1600/UKHouseholdDebt9311.png






  
Possibly - but the relative gap between the have and have nots has increased  (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/10/11/5-Years-After-Crisis-Why-Income-Gap-Widening)post 2008. You could say that inequality has spiralled off the back of it.

My brother in law is making real interest payments on collateral in his property that no longer exists. If it no longer exists (the £25k negative equity) how about the banks wiping it off his outstanding mortgage ?  Private debt is the ongoing problem here that is subduing growth - but we are all being told its public debt (which entails austerity and cuts to public services and welfare)  

 
You can - but in this day and age it costs around 20% more to shear a sheep than you'll get for the fleece  ???

Your brother-in-law made some disastrously bad financial choices, apparently. As did the banksters.
Oddly enough, if banks collapse, they take down your country's economy with them. Your brother-in-law"? Not so much.

Tell your brother-in-law to consider personal bankruptcy, that's sorta like bailout for small-time losers.

This. With the amount of money in bitcoin being so little compared to other currency markets, banks don't really have an incentive to block or hinder bitcoin. It's more concerning because of the aml/kyc issues it raises, which is why banks are embracing the technology and not the protocol.

Yes - him and half a million other UK households still in negative equity - not to mention those who sold at a loss. But to suggest that it was a choice on his/their part is to misunderstand the debt based economy (http://www.workableeconomics.com/the-debt-based-economy/).

http://www.workableeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MoneyVsDebtProgress-InflAdj1.jpg

Kind of reminds me of The Great Depression/the Installment Plan. History repeating. The punctual always have to pay the price for the tardy - or, to put it another way, the little guy always picks up the bill.

Banks could issue promissory notes backed by bitcoin ie. credit - but in the event of a default there would be none of the traditional (Friedman monetarist) solutions. It would help to rewrite the question - and so the answer- in large ,clear, legible and bold text.

    BTC

Not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that your brother-in-law didn't make some disastrously bad financial choices?
He did, unless you consider paying a mortgage on nonexistent property a win.

Since he's making those payments -- not living behind some dumpster; not considering being bailed out himself, via personal bankruptcy, the small-time loser's bailout, he could be doing worse.
Yes, poor people always get the short end of the stick, always have, probably always will. Life's unfair like that, Snowflake. Your brother-in-law, otoh, is far from poor. Half of mankind is living on less than TWO DOLLARS A DAY, you entitled prick.

I doubt they would accept bitcoins but rather they could have their own crypto currency but I also agree that the tax and volatility issues being resolved would become easier for them to accept. If volatility doesn't exist, there wouldn't be much left for users to choose this currency rather than fiat as both are stable and fiat too can be used online and virtually. It would not even be like shares whose price keeps increasing.


Instead, if the volatility is retained, banks could have separate bitcoin accounts without any interest applied on it but the currency would be taxed only.

Kind of off topic whore, it has to be said.

But when you consider that of the Nepalese working in Qatar to provide us all with an enjoyable World Cup experience come 2022, they are paying between 3% and 8% of their pitiful earnings to the banks in order to transfer it back home - well, I guess you aren't so off topic after all. And between 3% and 8% of $5.9billion p.a. is not an insubstantial amount.

[If indeed they aren't unfortunate enough to be one of those killed every 2 days on account of the atrocious working conditions in Qatar that is]

good points and i want to agree with them.

but at the same time i look at the history and how banks have always been kinda against the bitcoin and only trying to adapt the blockchain, so i can't figure this two face thing out.

As I said, life is hard, especially for the poor, but not for your loser of a brother-in-law. He clearly isn't working in Qatar, in atrocious working conditions. He's merely paying back the loan on ... I'm'a gonna guess some property he tried to flip & failed. Tough luck.
Chin up, Buttercup!

Regarding the rest, at the risk of repeating myself:


https://49.media.tumblr.com/865cc694e306c68e696e886a34542eeb/tumblr_mramu1s2Rf1ql4e6oo1_250.gif
Next time you feel a fit comin' on, go outside and bitch. Bitch at the air. Bitch at the trees. But don't bitch at us!

A Bitcoin bank? I think that won't be possible. Even tho if any bank would do that, I'm pretty sure there will only a few people that'll interested by it.

In my opinion we already have a Bitcoin Bank!
Coinbase is doing exactly the same things a bank.You store your coins there and use of them for gambling, they will shut down your account immediately.I think they also had idea to loan out customers coins if I'm not wrong.

You forget that people are greedy.
If a bank offers me interest at very low risk, I would consider giving them custody over my coins.

Pepperidge Farms remembers...
http://s32.postimg.org/gheec65bp/Capture.jpg

I wish this was true that banks hate no currency, but
it is not true.

That may be true but i think something different can be said for developing countries. Most developing countries don't even have free wifi hotspots and internet service is really a privledge if you ever have it. Trying to introduce Bitcoin will probably take a while but i would be looking forward to seeing a future where bitcoin can be accepted worldwide as a means of payments and internal banking transactions.