Bitcoin Forum

Technology has been one of the factors that has made things very easy for everyone, gone are days when people were finding it very difficult of sending letters from one person to another do to the lack of internet, so however for a message to be send across it must go through postal office and before it gets to the recipient it takes up to days. But however the arrival of internet changed everything and made it very easy everyone to convey messages from a person to another through emails.

So Boiling it down to Bitcoin and banks, actually the existence of Bitcoin has greatly improved the mindset of people especially on investment diversification such as profits making because is obvious that any money we put or save on the bank will not yield any profit so instead of people saving much money on the bank when there is a great opportunity offered by Bitcoin to channel all our money with the possibility of making or multiplying our capital in the future. So perhaps do you guys think the reason why most countries are having some restrictions on Bitcoin is because of the effects it has on the bank that people prefer to invest there funds on Bitcoin instead of banks?.

I dunno, I don't like that analogy. Now with email, spam has increased by 100x. Also it has spawned phishing, but I guess Bitcoin has also spawned all kinds of scams utilizing it as well.

Email also became centralized. In that Google, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo own all the large email servers. Everyone else's servers are classified as spam pretty much.

Have you actually made a transaction on chain lately with Bitcoin? Do tell us the experience of  grabbing my popcorn and waiting for it!

As for Bitcoin replacing banks, banks offer loans, how could Bitcoin offer you loan when you don't have a penny?
All you can do is go for a thirds part, deposit (lol) a collateral which means you have money in the first place and then pay that guy up, meaning you're still using a 3rd party.

Seriously, we're batting jpg monkeys right now and you talk of killing banks!

I do not agree with this because Bitcoin and banks work side by side. The case of email and post office is totally different because Bitcoin needs the bank to make much impact whereas emails does not need post office rather it was an outright replacement. 

Majority of Bitcoin investors did that via their bank which will always play a role at the entry and exit point of crypto to fiat conversion.  The day Bitcoin will destroy the banks like email did to post office will be when all the countries of the word will abandon their currencies to use Bitcoin a lone.

This won't be possible; Bitcoin can't completely take down the banking system. Many might argue otherwise, but that's the fact.
 
Bitcoin has its purpose, and banks also have their purpose. We can't completely say one can replace the other; there are situations where even the highest bitcoin supporter will still have to make use of the traditional banking system.
 
When it comes to decentralisation, privacy, and all that, bitcoin will be top-notch. It's understandable, but there are areas where we still need the banking system in order to run a smooth transaction, such as salary payments for civil servants and all that, to mention but a few, adding to the recent increase in fees that one is experiencing right now.
 
Just so you know, if Bitcoin is to replace the banking system, it will equally mean that there might be no use of local and traditional currency, which bitcoin can't serve. Bitcoin is not designed to take over the global currency; it can't serve as the fiat currency.

"Bitcoin will do to bank what Email did to post office" - I doubt that bitcoin will get this role. Most likely it will be something like CBDC. Undoubtedly, traditional banks will very soon cease to exist in the form in which they exist now, but they are unlikely to disappear completely. Even the post office still continues to exist, although its influence is completely different from what it used to be. The same will happen with banks.

The reason for the restrictions imposed by various countries on bitcoin is that control over the financial flows of citizens is lost. Now whoever controls this controls the world. Bitcoin creates a lot of problems for governments: you can’t find out the owner and recipient of a wallet, you can’t freeze or ban a transaction, you can’t understand who and to whom, and also why you sent the transaction (of course, with reservations). From their system's point of view, everything that happens on the BTC-network is below their radar. And the fact that money flows from traditional banks to bitcoin thanks to investment is secondary.

I find your argument wrong. If banks will one day perish because of Bitcoin, it's not actually because Bitcoin is profitable. It's not about profit. People don't keep money in the banks because of profit. People having savings accounts in banks are not investing their money. If there are people who do this, they do it wrong. How much do banks give to account owners? That's even less than 0.3% per year. Some are even as low as 0.1%.

Banks are for safekeeping. If saving in Bitcoin is more profitable, then Bitcoin is the better choice in that aspect. But I'm sure even Bitcoin supporters keep money in the banks. And it's not because of profitability but simply because it's safer to keep money there.

I will start with the fact that stompix is right: you give too much attention to worthless memes on twitter.

Banks are old enough to adapt. Of course, some few die in the process, but if you know where to look you will see a lot of changes from the last years, from lowering the fees and speeding up transactions to facilitating bitcoin buying and storage or even steps towards merging banks with exchanges (I don't know though if this last one became reality).

Yes, only few do this, most are still afraid and push towards Bitcoin ban. But I find JPMorgan a great example: while Dimon is talking all the crap against Bitcoin his bank does all the steps to become a big player in offering Bitcoin or BTC ETF to other institutions.

The restrictions are there for two reasons: politicians and bankers are on the same side (of course, most politicians don't take a side for free) and while some banks are afraid of losing some market share, the other problem is that the really smart Bitcoin users' funds are difficult to track and link, leaving governments out of ideas in some issues they know to handle only by tracking the money transfers.

I'm sometimes surprised by the reason why you guys will just wake up and come up with something that can never happen. Is it for the fact that you do not think or what? Liken Bitcoin with banks just in comparison to email to a post office is just pointless to me because many people can do without a post office and still share their messages, as long as there is internet and an email platform, the deed is done. This can be done entirely for the rest of the lifetime of the person without feeling it or missing the post office service. But the same can't be said of Bitcoin and banks if you are truly sincere. How can Bitcoin be substituted entirely for banks? If you do not know, banks are part of the economy of the world but bitcoin is not. That is why Bitcoin transactions are always a loss for countries, they can't be accountable for it when their citizens transact because of the decentralization nature of the coin.

And you think the world government will let that replace banking entirely? Even if cryptocurrency were substituted for banking, it would definitely not be a decentralized Bitcoin because no responsible government will allow a decentralized system to do that, and even the world economy would collapse in that arrangement. Not to say that the circulation supply is another issue for Bitcoin in this regard. Fine, Bitcoin is good for many things that fiats can do, but it can never do without fiat. But on the contrary, fiat can do perfectly well without Bitcoin. So who is the boss here? Or can you entirely keep your Bitcoin alone, use it to buy goods and services and not use fiat/bank at all? If you have to continue to use fiat, you will have to continue to use banks, because you can't keep all your money at home. Perhaps, you store all your money and entirely rely on Bitcoin for your entire life? Such a view of yours has not happened and will never happen. You guys should cool down and think well before you write, or else you will continue to misrepresent things and mislead the weak in mind.

If you briefly remember the progress of the times, the existence of the internet has really helped a lot. However, that doesn't mean everything can be done using just the internet.

Previously, the post office was the first choice for sending messages, but now there are many platforms that can be used to send messages. But even so, the role of the post office still exists today. In fact, there are still very many visitors. Although currently this service is widely used to send money. But the post office remains strong.

This could indeed be a strong factor why many countries restrict bitcoin. Additionally, most countries may worry that their national currencies will be replaced by bitcoin. Although this is considered impossible, because the government in a country will definitely prohibit this.

Such is life, we keep on evolving round about whatever thing it offers us, the more we go the more the technology advancement we are seing, if we are to look back from where we were coming from to where we are right now, things have drastically changed alot, bitcoin is now the currency to rule the world, we are expecting to see it as the mainstream of global adoption as digital cryptocurrency, everyone is interested in knowing about bitcoin because they want to make use of it to help realised the change needed in their financial economy, so we must tune to it adoption because it's time to experience something new and different from before.

Banks will not totally stop existing or running of their business because of the existence of Bitcoins, if Bitcoin becomes that problem for today's banks, rather banks would find a way of tapping into the Bitcoin system to continue their operations. I don't think if there's gonna be time that the government would totally get rid of fiat currency and if that did not happen banks won't get replaced by Bitcoin. Therefore, I see Bitcoin as something to be used mostly for cross border payments and carrying out of large transactions globally because of its security and a more of being the digital Gold and a store of value and not replacing banks totally.

Well internet totally changed the way we talk to each other. No more waiting for days to send letters because now, it's all about those instant emails. Bitcoin's like the rebel cousin of traditional banking, shaking things up. It's got people thinking about making money moves beyond the old-school banks and I think some countries aren't feeling the Bitcoin vibe, maybe because it's messing with the usual banking scene. They're worried it could throw off the balance and make things a bit too wild. It's like a whole new money game and the rules are still getting figured out. People are afraid things they dont know, right?

bitcoin will not replace fiat banking

governments will always self control their patented money and licence its utility to citizens via min wage, tax, fines and debt laws

governments however always have migrated to different systems.
no longer are coins made of silver.
no longer do bank notes printing cost their face value
no longer are bank notes backed by rare metals
no longer does bank balance have bank notes/coins in reserves

governments next endeavor is CBDC. which is not bitcoin, but used the code of ELEMENTS of bitcoins subnetwork projects to prototype their new fiat currency network.

bitcoin wont replace fiat systems.. the fiat systems will replace their own predecessor design

Each time I get to read about Bitcoin replacing fiat, I laugh. Even with mass adoption I don't think it will ever get to that point where fiat will disappear from the scene for Bitcoin. Come to think of it, Bitcoin transactions can't exist where Internet facilities aren't available. Bitcoin isn't even easy to use and that's going to be huge problem for the illiterate and elderly ones. Again, and most importantly, the recurring Blockchain congestion which is now the achilles heel for Bitcoin will continue to resurface. This continues to make Bitcoin usage frustrating. With this ceaseless congestion going on, there are many transactions not confirmed for several days now. How can such a system replace fiat?

It's not his argument, but he got the idea from people who posted that thesis years ago, and we even have an identical topic title on the forum. This idea, or rather the question, is attributed to a certain Rick Falkvinge, whose article you can search for, although there is nothing particularly clever to read.

Will Bitcoin do to Bank what email did to the post office? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5463102.0)

Op, bank does not charge when making transaction but they charge small money monthly but Bitcoin charge is very high in each transaction though all the two have their advantages and disadvantages. Bitcoin increase in value when your hodle it while banks does not though banks does but it is very slow and low. But for now I don't think Bitcoin will over take bank the way internet mailing system took over Post Office.

Bitcoin can dominate the internet and not the physical. Then fiat will be still controlling the physical because many people don't know how to use the internet to make payment.

Let's keep the transaction fees outside this discussion but to be straightforward, Bitcoin is not in a competition with fiat currency or the CBN, it is just the government and some other people that's thinking the adoption of Bitcoin in the world will make a lot of citizens not to recognize the the fiat currencies again.

But truth be told that we can not keep the transaction fees outside the discussion, however, I can say that the only little problem that crypto currency is having now is just the transaction fees. Which means the transaction fees are what is making a lot of people not to hold anymore.

I don't still get the way op really define it looking at how important the bank had been. Even though Bitcoin is generally accepted everywhere, does not mean that individual banks would in be in existence? We need to understand the reason behind the creation of Bitcoin. Bitcoin being in existence does not mean that the local banks would not operate again. The government are majorly incahege of the bank and I don't think the government would allow banks to cease operation and Bitcoin to take over. I belief the two can work together.

Banks won’t go obsolete, they are smart enough to evolve with the times. I can’t envision a society without Banks. Where will private businesses and startups get money to build their businesses? The banks are more than just financial institutions where people save their money, the banking sector is crucial to the economy of any country. What you’re proposing is not realistic, there is so much that needs to be done for that to happen.

I think it's still an apt analogy. Email didn't destroy mail. You can't send a physical package over email. Email just replaced letters, and it didn't do anything to replace a lot of what the post office is for. Likewise, Bitcoin can replace some of what banks do, while it won't touch on other stuff. Bitcoin can replace banks as a saving account and perhaps one day at least partially replace them as a checking account as well. Of course it's not gonna replace stuff like loans (at least the loan model that has been tried pretty much died off last year when the crypto loan companies all went broke).

Yes it could be so because bitcoin has pose a lot of threat to the banking sector globally. In as much many Bitcoin enthusiast will want to stop using the bank and be their own bank with bitcoin, we cannot deny the fact of the benefits we get by using the banks that bitcoin can’t offer us e.g taking of loans. If the government are still standing firm not to allow the legalisation of bitcoin, there’s no way it can replace the banking system totally. For now, it will continue to serve as substitute to bank but can’t eliminate the use of bank.

They won't disappear, but what they have understood by now is that they can't thrive fighting against Bitcoin, but instead the better strategy for them would be to embrace it into their operative strategy and earn money with it in many ways. Offering it as an investment product, offering custody services, but also offering trading or partnering up with exchanges. There are actually quite a lot of ways to earn money with Bitcoin for them, but the problem is that it all aims at centralizing the decentralized network by anchoring in crucial infrastructure nodes that a lot of people will use. Though ultimately it has no impact on Bitcoin as a whole as people are still free to decide whether they want to own an asset of a decentralized network while storing it with centralized entities. If they do, they essentially give up all of the benefits this network offers them. But if they think they only want to jump onto the bandwagon of this movement while still risking to lose it because centralized organizations mess up, that is their own choice. For those who truly want to use Bitcoin and benefit from it, the good news is that they can.

I do not always understand it when people compares bitcoin to bank. There is no direct comparison between bitcoin and bank rather the comparison is between bank and exchanges. Then, bitcoin and fiat. Talking about bitcoin and fiat, there is never a time that bitcoin will overthrow fiat, is because every country has their own fiat which is their national identity. So, bitcoin can never at a time overtake all the fiats of different countries. Besides, the mindset or the goal of Satoshi Nakamato was not that bitcoin should overthrow or fight with fiat, but rather for bitcoin to provide an alternative means of payment. So, it is likely that both bitcoin and fiat will co-exist only if the government will allow.

There is no doubt that the world is advancing technological, and I am very much optimistic that the best use of bitcoin is yet to be uncovered or discovered. Bitcoin is still an unharnessed young invention.

This is the reason the banks are against Bitcoin, the banks can't compete with Bitcoin. It's also among the reasons why the government are against Bitcoin. The government uses the banks as their institutions to control people through their money so if that privileges get taken aways from the banks, the government becomes powerless. But instead of the banks fighting Bitcoin they would have been looking forward ways to still be a part of the new revolution which is Bitcoin.

Centralized means of operation is something we can't just stop so if the banks were a little bit wiser and not hostile they should be building platforms to operate Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency transaction through creating  exchanging services or other service like wallets and payment processor, that's a way the banks would have been part of the new industry but instead of that, they're busy fighting the industry thinking they can subdue it.


It's inevitable that Bitcoin will make the banks absolute and the only thing the banks can do is to look for a way they can benefits too from Bitcoin dominance. Bitcoin was created as an alternative and if the banks play their cards right they can keep it that way instead of allowing Bitcoin take over all payments system

That is a good analogy, but it will still be a long way to reach that point, not to mention that government will trying their best to prevent that situation to happen. Email can do that to post office because it's not decentralized, mostly it's not encrypted, same with the Post, Email are still controllable by government, that's why all government need to do was regulate and cooperating with email provider.

Bitcoin is different, it is encrypted, pseudonymous, except the user reveal their own identity, it's almost impossible for government to know their identity. Government also cannot demand any entity to let them intervene with Bitcoin because there is no central entity If government can't control it, they won't like it, they will do whatever they can't to prevent it to replace Bank and Fiat.

That could possibly be a factor, however, the banks are not actually on their own… the government control the banks. Right? So the government is the one who want to regulate Bitcoin. And that’s the main thing they want. They want to be able to control the Bitcoin system but that is so ironic because why do you want to centralize a decentralized system (I know why though). But Bitcoin indeed has taken a lot of money off the bank. Take a look at the volume of transactions… that’s money that could have been in the bank. If not all, at least half of it.

They want to tax it, some people use Bitcoin to hide their wealth, so it makes the government only earn less than the reality. If people use centralized exchanges, the CEX will tax your capital gains. But that's not enough since you also need to pay income tax, this is where people aren't pay their tax appropriately if they didn't report it.

If a country create their own centralized exchange, it's nothing different whether you have Bitcoin on there or fiat on banks.

Bitcoin and blockchain are transforming banking like email did communication. Here's my take: its not just Bitcoin, but the underlying blockchain technology thats key. Blockchain provides security, efficiency, and transparency, which traditional banking lacks. Yes, banks dont grow as fast as Bitcoin, which raises investor diversification concerns. Blockchain may enhance banking operations, not replace them. It could simplify, reduce fraud, and boost customer satisfaction.

Regulations seem to be more about governments adjusting to new technology than banks. Control and understanding shift, not simply competition. Blockchain's banking transformation potential is huge, but its more evolution than replacement.

OP, do not compare the internet and letters with Bitcoin and Banks, it's different...

Do you know how much it costs to send money from your bank to another bank account vs using Bitcoin to send transaction to another Bitcoin wallet? I am not afraid of the truth, Banks beats bitcoin here, it's cheaper to make transactions from bank to bank, both also use the Internet too.

The profitability wise is where Bitcoin beats the banks, and also it's decentralized, which is one of my favourite Bitcoin use case, staying away from the banks and the authorities is why Bitcoin is different.

But trsanction wise, Bitcoin is more costly than using the banks, which will make millions of people to sit prefer using the banks side by side with Bitcoin and some will still choose to stay away from Bitcoin.

While there is the comparison of how things changed from the ordinary or traditional process to the automated process and more productive procedure due to the innovation of technology. As much as I want to be optimistic about Bitcoin being the future of finance and money, we cannot stop the fact that the banks are going to stay and not all governments and people are going to adopt bitcoin when there is a vast choice of investments globally and as well as the currencies that we use. One advantage of the government is they have full control of policies and restrictions to what they think is threatening to the safety of their country and for the welfare of their citizens. I think it is better to actually see integration instead of replacement even if we are optimistic of Bitcoin's future. And it is like bank adopting bitcoin instead of pushing it away when it is being liked by many of its customers and there is the opportunity that they can capitalize too.

Bitcoin and banks runs on different system so why are we comparing these two when we both use them in our daily lives? Most of us pour investments on Bitcoin but did you know that you cannot buy a candy with Bitcoin due to the high transaction fees? We need fiat for our daily transactions and we need Bitcoin as an investment though Bitcoin is a new form of currency and can be used as a mode of payment but fees hurts us if we try to use it with smaller transactions.

People's lives have been more simpler as a result of technology taking over, yet everything you see has pros and cons, although we wouldn't say that these are the reasons we wouldn't allow technology rule the world. Scam, spam, and phishing attempt incidents were rare in the days of letter delivery, but since the advent of electronic mail, these cases have risen significantly, increasing the risk of scamming people. It appears to be quite helpful, but it also presents a significant risk to the user.


First off, let me clarify that the original goal of bitcoin was to function as an alternative to the financial system and address the issues with it, rather than to completely replace it. Since banks offer certain services that bitcoin cannot, and because bitcoin is a great option for privacy, freedom, and decentralisation, having both options available would be more advantageous, it would not be easy to replace banks with Bitcoin. In reality, banks are also beneficial in their own right, but they also have the problem of trying to control and monitor how people spend their money which is a bad idea.

The issue I have with banks and the government is that they continue to oppose Bitcoin even though they know it will eventually triumph. They are doing everything in their power to stop it, but I have no doubt that they will fail and Bitcoin will eventually take over.


 ;D It really not been smooth this past month with the conjestion and high fees,

Just imagine bitcoin taking over and people experiencing delays and spending high fees to carry out transactions. Banks have their own advantages too you just can’t rule them out

Yes, Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionize the financial system, as email has completely revolutionized traditional communication systems and disrupted the postal service. Bitcoin is able to conduct transactions without the need for intermediaries such as banks. Because Bitcoin gives its users direct control over their money. In the future, there is a possibility that traditional financial services will be discontinued if Bitcoin facilitates easier access to the entire world. People keep money in banks because they have maximum security of their money even though the bank gives very little profit by investing this money. But investing in Bitcoin has the potential to earn much more profit than banks. However, since Bitcoin is a virtual currency, if its security system can be strengthened and small transactions can be done more easily and at a lower cost, the popularity of Bitcoin will increase in the future.

Just as email has made communication faster, more efficient and decentralized, Bitcoin has played a role in making financial transactions faster, safer, less dependent on centralized banking systems. Bitcoin alone has the potential to revolutionize banking systems like email in the future. Now just as every user can email as they want and need, Bitcoin users will have complete control over their own money.

I recall about the transaction fees, but there are already banks which loan bitcoin called exchanges.  I know that there is much less volume on exchanges, but at least it shows some people borrow in bitcoin.

Bitcoin is more like a replacement to saving in gold, rather than a replacement to banks.

There is a misconception about these email, Gmail, Banks and bitcoin.

When they say bitcoin will replace the banks, it's not like they are going to make banks to be useless like Gmail electrically modernized mail. No, the two are parallel and there is limitations to both of them but they still coexist like two species. Banks are none to be centralized and often limit people when it comes to versatility of financial system but because Bitcoin is decentralized, nobody limit you how and when you should spend your money. If you go to a bank today to open an account, you have to under series of protocol with documents only to be giving a limited account but with bitcoin, it's permissionless as you don't need anyone approval to open a wallet, you can send in and out as many bitcoin thag you need. However, you can't do everything with bitcoin yet because of the legal status limitation. You can't spend bitcoin without the use of fiat and that's why I said in the beginning that bitcoin can't do same Gmail stunt to banks, it's still far from that but who knows maybe in the future.


To buy bitcoin, you need to buy with any recognized currency which is fiat, you definitely need bank interference to help you facilate transactions and this makes banks and bitcoin to exist together, to buy you need them and to sell, you also need them and addition, you have to py tax in fiat in some countries. This is why bitcoin and banks will live for years except if we see changes later on. The big banks are trying to chase out bitcoin though, the recent attack of SEC and other law enforcement says a lot about how they want bitcoin buried 10 feets under the ground.

A threat to banking sector, I wouldn’t say that rather the threat is to governments who are concerned that there exploits or manipulation of the local fiat currency will be exposed by bitcoin and one thing the government is concerned is the lack of that control or centralization that they wouldn’t have not bitcoin replacing banks. Should bitcoin be accepted by the government or not it is not here to replace banks because there are still use of institutional banks still, bitcoin is only here to act as an alternative