Preferring the technology not the coin

[mainpmf]

Well I studied quite a bit the blockchain applications.
Of course Bitcoin is a revolution. No doubt about it.
But... But Blockchain is far more than Bitcoin! Blockchain is the freedom and security we need for so many tasks!
Smartcontracts yeah for banks and all... But a far greater application would be mutualisation between persons! With blockchain we could get rid of insurances, real estates agents...
Blockchain gots lots of applications don't underestimate it ^^

[Wind_FURY]

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.

How will "blockchain technology" make banks more efficient than they are now? If they think they need a blockchain then should it not work better than their present system? Another question I have is do banks want to share their data with their competitors by adopting a common ledger aka a "blockchain"? Another question is do they also trust each other in maintaining and securing it themselves?

[dontryjustdoit]

Well I studied quite a bit the blockchain applications.
Of course Bitcoin is a revolution. No doubt about it.
But... But Blockchain is far more than Bitcoin! Blockchain is the freedom and security we need for so many tasks!
Smartcontracts yeah for banks and all... But a far greater application would be mutualisation between persons! With blockchain we could get rid of insurances, real estates agents...
Blockchain gots lots of applications don't underestimate it ^^

And a lot more money is going there right now.

[mkmdoc]

Another day another top bank of India chooses to accept blockchain as the technology but not a mention of accepting Bitcoin. I agree that Blockchain is good but who made it good, and why did people accept it, was due to. Bitcoin another attempt to try to use digital Fiat, but not Bitcoin wonder when will they ever learn. I hope the people of India wake up and fight this and push for Bitcoin under their top bank patronage. Ps this link is 5 days old got it from a what'sapp from my friend.
http://www.pymnts.com/news/b2b-payments/2017/india-blockchain-rupee-digital-currency-distributed-ledger-demonetization-payment-rails/

Really bitcoin is very popular because of blockchain, really bitcoin is more secure with block chain. Block chain technology is most adavanced technology where it can easily identify how many transactions being processed daily. Even block chain technology is charging very little amount in the form transferring, soon many countries will start accepting blockchain as a technology.

[tabnloz]

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.

Two ways it may go with bank-chains (really, without open sourcing & tokens to secure, isn't it just a shared database?)

1) They promote it as the new, faster, secure way to process payments. No more waiting 3 days internationally or a day domestically etc. In other words, some benefit but still in a walled garden (bank retain control).

This may become a trojan horse for the more nefarious option.

2) Blockchain & digital money, replacing cash. trapping account holders with negative interest rates. Rogoff has already mentioned that negative rates of -5% may be needed during next crisis. He is the policy head and leading non politician cheerleader of banning cash. "Blockchain" improvements may herd the masses in to a monetary Hotel california.

I don't think this will work long term - a massive scale rebranding of 'blockchain' will be needed as it is directly related to Bitcoin. I think any emergence of a blockchain system only feeds curiosity and increases bitcoin tourism. In the age of the internet and the current climate of zero trust in the mainstream, thats an uphill battle.

[Juggy777]

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.

Two ways it may go with bank-chains (really, without open sourcing & tokens to secure, isn't it just a shared database?)

1) They promote it as the new, faster, secure way to process payments. No more waiting 3 days internationally or a day domestically etc. In other words, some benefit but still in a walled garden (bank retain control).

This may become a trojan horse for the more nefarious option.

2) Blockchain & digital money, replacing cash. trapping account holders with negative interest rates. Rogoff has already mentioned that negative rates of -5% may be needed during next crisis. He is the policy head and leading non politician cheerleader of banning cash. "Blockchain" improvements may herd the masses in to a monetary Hotel california.

I don't think this will work long term - a massive scale rebranding of 'blockchain' will be needed as it is directly related to Bitcoin. I think any emergence of a blockchain system only feeds curiosity and increases bitcoin tourism. In the age of the internet and the current climate of zero trust in the mainstream, thats an uphill battle.

I agree with the views posted here, banks have run out of ideas to counter Bitcoins and in their confusion they believe that implementing blockchain as a technology will help them grow but they have completely failed to realize that without Bitcoin why would anyone want blockchain, plus they have underestimated the risks that Blockchain sharing data can bring, I hope that better sense prevails.

[bohr]

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.

Two ways it may go with bank-chains (really, without open sourcing & tokens to secure, isn't it just a shared database?)

1) They promote it as the new, faster, secure way to process payments. No more waiting 3 days internationally or a day domestically etc. In other words, some benefit but still in a walled garden (bank retain control).

This may become a trojan horse for the more nefarious option.

2) Blockchain & digital money, replacing cash. trapping account holders with negative interest rates. Rogoff has already mentioned that negative rates of -5% may be needed during next crisis. He is the policy head and leading non politician cheerleader of banning cash. "Blockchain" improvements may herd the masses in to a monetary Hotel california.

I don't think this will work long term - a massive scale rebranding of 'blockchain' will be needed as it is directly related to Bitcoin. I think any emergence of a blockchain system only feeds curiosity and increases bitcoin tourism. In the age of the internet and the current climate of zero trust in the mainstream, thats an uphill battle.

I agree with the views posted here, banks have run out of ideas to counter Bitcoins and in their confusion they believe that implementing blockchain as a technology will help them grow but they have completely failed to realize that without Bitcoin why would anyone want blockchain, plus they have underestimated the risks that Blockchain sharing data can bring, I hope that better sense prevails.

The banks could always pull some of the oldest tricks in their book, they could create a bitcoin bank and then using some of their old trickery they could somehow create fractional reserve banking and with that destroying everything bitcoin stands for.