Investment Banker - Bitcoin is not a "real" currency ;->

[aso118]

She was interrested in the "low fees" structure of Bitcoins and wanted to promote their latest "low fee" option on saving accounts to me. {Obviously, I was not interrested}

They are simply ignorant and more interrested on how they can make more profit, from using some similar technology that is not patented. {The disruption will come quickly, whilst they are sleeping}

You have to pay a fee on a saving account? Next, if they are ignorant they won't see that if they try to use similar technology, no one will use it since they would have to make it decentralized which, in the first place, they will never do, and, in the second, if they nevertheless do, there is already tough competition there. So the end result is quite predictable in any case...

Yup. There are fees on savings accounts, but these are waived if you maintain a minimum balance.

The traditional banking model is built on a set of assumptions which Bitcoin has challenged. The entities which develop in the Bitcoin space will have an altogether different business model.

[1715248377]

1715248377

[1715248377]

1715248377

[nachoig]

what did the kodak people say when photography became digital ? 

Fucking great analogy!

But if I remember well, it was Kodak who created the technologies behind digital protography.

[RodeoX]

I love it when an expert tells me bitcoin is not a currency because no one uses it. Even though I use it all the time.

Kodak is a good example of institutional blindness. As is Blockbuster video or any bookstore. These people build their whole world around an idea, then can't imagine the world moving on to a better idea. I think the banking business is poised for an even greater fall with bitcoin. They have NEVER had to face competition like this before and seem totally unprepared for it. Instead choosing to ignore reality and say stupid things like its not "real".

[Sithara007]

I had a most interesting discussion with a investment banker today.

I asked him the question... "Do you see Bitcoin as a disruptive technology or a threat to the traditional banking system"

His answer {Most arrogantly} ....We do not consider Bitcoin as a "real" currency.  

I then asked him to define a currency in his opinion ...and he said ..." a system of money in general use in a particular country "

I then told him...Bitcoin is a global currency... He then replied.. "But nobody use it"  

They are clearly in the "Let's ignore it" phase of the disruption cycle... When they wake up... it will be to late to change.  

In my opinion, any currency should have a legal backing by the respective country by the equivalent amount of Gold in it's reserve. What do you say? Is it correct or not?

[deisik]

I had a most interesting discussion with a investment banker today.

I asked him the question... "Do you see Bitcoin as a disruptive technology or a threat to the traditional banking system"

His answer {Most arrogantly} ....We do not consider Bitcoin as a "real" currency. 

I then asked him to define a currency in his opinion ...and he said ..." a system of money in general use in a particular country "

I then told him...Bitcoin is a global currency... He then replied.. "But nobody use it" 

They are clearly in the "Let's ignore it" phase of the disruption cycle... When they wake up... it will be to late to change. 

In my opinion, any currency should have a legal backing by the respective country by the equivalent amount of Gold in it's reserve. What do you say? Is it correct or not?

We've already been there. After 1944 the US dollar had been allegedly backed up by gold till Nixon Shock. And many countries were on the gold standard even before that (I mean before the First World War). Didn't end very well, though...

[Sithara007]

I had a most interesting discussion with a investment banker today.

I asked him the question... "Do you see Bitcoin as a disruptive technology or a threat to the traditional banking system"

His answer {Most arrogantly} ....We do not consider Bitcoin as a "real" currency. 

I then asked him to define a currency in his opinion ...and he said ..." a system of money in general use in a particular country "

I then told him...Bitcoin is a global currency... He then replied.. "But nobody use it" 

They are clearly in the "Let's ignore it" phase of the disruption cycle... When they wake up... it will be to late to change. 

In my opinion, any currency should have a legal backing by the respective country by the equivalent amount of Gold in it's reserve. What do you say? Is it correct or not?

We've already been there. After 1944 the US dollar had been allegedly backed up by gold till Nixon Shock. And many countries were on the gold standard even before that (I mean before the First World War). Didn't end very well, though...

So you see, Bitcoin is and will be a virtual currency till someone or some country start backing it by some physical property like Gold, land, or any other kind of asset which has a real value in the market.

[gkv9]

So you see, Bitcoin is and will be a virtual currency till someone or some country start backing it by some physical property like Gold, land, or any other kind of asset which has a real value in the market.

Who says Bitcoin isn't physically available???
Can't it be backed by those physical coins itself???
They too have a value after storing private keys in them, so why to go for something else instead BTC itself to back the virtual currency???

[deisik]

I had a most interesting discussion with a investment banker today.

I asked him the question... "Do you see Bitcoin as a disruptive technology or a threat to the traditional banking system"

His answer {Most arrogantly} ....We do not consider Bitcoin as a "real" currency. 

I then asked him to define a currency in his opinion ...and he said ..." a system of money in general use in a particular country "

I then told him...Bitcoin is a global currency... He then replied.. "But nobody use it" 

They are clearly in the "Let's ignore it" phase of the disruption cycle... When they wake up... it will be to late to change. 

In my opinion, any currency should have a legal backing by the respective country by the equivalent amount of Gold in it's reserve. What do you say? Is it correct or not?

We've already been there. After 1944 the US dollar had been allegedly backed up by gold till Nixon Shock. And many countries were on the gold standard even before that (I mean before the First World War). Didn't end very well, though...

So you see, Bitcoin is and will be a virtual currency till someone or some country start backing it by some physical property like Gold, land, or any other kind of asset which has a real value in the market.

But why would they, given they don't have control over the blockchain? If they don't back up the currency they happen to emit by anything other than law and power, I think it is highly unlikely anyone would ever be going to back up bitcoin. It just doesn't make sense since it is already in a sense backed up by its blockchain...