Will a bank being hacked boost adoption of bitcoin?

[louisLavery]

Some on here are suggesting that if a bank gets hacked people will get their money back, but that would mean the bank still has records of what each customer had which means the bank hasn't been hacked at all! At least not in the sense I mean, which is all records are destroyed - now how are banks going to restore what people had in their accounts? I'm thinking this could be done by an enemy state.
I guess the blockchain could be attacked too (Sybil attack?), but there seems less reason for any one state to attack it. In fact, if it was used as a world wide currency there'd be incentive to not attack it.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I am not scared about my bank being hacked by a hacker. This is the bank problem, not mine.

What I am concerned about is my bank account being hacked by my banker, legally.

[Amph]

I am not scared about my bank being hacked by a hacker. This is the bank problem, not mine.

What I am concerned about is my bank account being hacked by my banker, legally.

as long as there are insurance, you should not be scared by anything, if they can cover your ass, everything that will happen to your money is safe enough

but if something like austria or sveden(i don't remember now) happen, where bank will not offer insurance anymore, because they have bid debit problem, then the bank will be surely obsolete

[aahzmundus]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

There have been several cases where the bank was hacked but the price of bitcoin did not see any major changes as  there are more people in the world who need to know about the functions and value of bitcoin. If everyone tells atleast 2 or 3 people a month, the adaptability of bitcoin will spread like wildfire when news like these are out and the price will increase.

[Nicolas Dorier]

as long as there are insurance, you should not be scared by anything, if they can cover your ass, everything that will happen to your money is safe enough

Says that to cyprus and banco de madrid creditors.

[JarvisTechnology]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Well if Bitcoin has to grow, then it has to get accepted by banks. It doesn't matter if it gets hacked as the banks are always insured. In most of the countries, banks do not accept bitcoin. That has to be changed. Then only Bitcoin will reach common people.

[LottoBooking]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Well if Bitcoin has to grow, then it has to get accepted by banks. It doesn't matter if it gets hacked as the banks are always insured. In most of the countries, banks do not accept bitcoin. That has to be changed. Then only Bitcoin will reach common people.

The only way banks will accept Bitcoin is if it will become regulated like PayPal.
PayPal is regulated and that's why you can transfer money from/to your bank account with it.
Bitcoin is anonymous so it would be difficult to for banks to integrate it into their system just like that.

[Slark]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Well if Bitcoin has to grow, then it has to get accepted by banks. It doesn't matter if it gets hacked as the banks are always insured. In most of the countries, banks do not accept bitcoin. That has to be changed. Then only Bitcoin will reach common people.

The only way banks will accept Bitcoin is if it will become regulated like PayPal.
PayPal is regulated and that's why you can transfer money from/to your bank account with it.
Bitcoin is anonymous so it would be difficult to for banks to integrate it into their system just like that.

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think. But is is a pain to find specific bitcoin user nonetheless. But I believe bitcoin simply must change to bring it in line with other payment systems.
Unfortunately this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.
Sad but inevitable.

[LottoBooking]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Well if Bitcoin has to grow, then it has to get accepted by banks. It doesn't matter if it gets hacked as the banks are always insured. In most of the countries, banks do not accept bitcoin. That has to be changed. Then only Bitcoin will reach common people.

The only way banks will accept Bitcoin is if it will become regulated like PayPal.
PayPal is regulated and that's why you can transfer money from/to your bank account with it.
Bitcoin is anonymous so it would be difficult to for banks to integrate it into their system just like that.

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think. But is is a pain to find specific bitcoin user nonetheless. But I believe bitcoin simply must change to bring it in line with other payment systems.
Unfortunately this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.
Sad but inevitable.

Why do you not consider Bitcoin as anonymous as it stands right now? (not in the future)

[arallmuus]

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think.

Depends on what you compare it to, if you compared it to a bank account indeed BTC is completely anonymous

this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.

There will be no BTC regulations because it is not something that a country could control. Unfortunately most country will bann BTC for it because it cant be control and it will reduce the chance of mass adoption.
BTC was created so that people could leave the traditional economic system where identity is needed and that goverment could control your transaction, also block or reverse the transaction if needed. Adding identity to BTC transactions will only means that we are heading towards that old fashion system again

[Amph]

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think.

Depends on what you compare it to, if you compared it to a bank account indeed BTC is completely anonymous

it also depend on what tools you use, bitcoin it may not be anon on standard basis, but it hides potential on the anonimity that you can improve, if you use your tools correctly, like vpn mixer, monero ecc...

besides this, bank being hacked will boost other payments methods first, like paypal(which is already overused) and its clone

[LottoBooking]

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think.

Depends on what you compare it to, if you compared it to a bank account indeed BTC is completely anonymous

this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.

There will be no BTC regulations because it is not something that a country could control. Unfortunately most country will bann BTC for it because it cant be control and it will reduce the chance of mass adoption.
BTC was created so that people could leave the traditional economic system where identity is needed and that goverment could control your transaction, also block or reverse the transaction if needed. Adding identity to BTC transactions will only means that we are heading towards that old fashion system again

I don't think countries need to regulate bitcoin - they can just be one of those 'heavy traders' who can manipulate or change the market.
They don't need to regulate Bitcoin, just the fact they dropped its value from $600 to $230 should scare away lots of potential investors to stay away from this option.

[arallmuus]

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think.

Depends on what you compare it to, if you compared it to a bank account indeed BTC is completely anonymous

this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.

There will be no BTC regulations because it is not something that a country could control. Unfortunately most country will bann BTC for it because it cant be control and it will reduce the chance of mass adoption.
BTC was created so that people could leave the traditional economic system where identity is needed and that goverment could control your transaction, also block or reverse the transaction if needed. Adding identity to BTC transactions will only means that we are heading towards that old fashion system again

I don't think countries need to regulate bitcoin - they can just be one of those 'heavy traders' who can manipulate or change the market.
They don't need to regulate Bitcoin, just the fact they dropped its value from $600 to $230 should scare away lots of potential investors to stay away from this option.

Even if they want to , they cant because its in the nature of BTC that it cant be regulated. Unfortunately there are quiet few "potential investor" in BTC because BTC isnt viewed as investment for common people and mostly it is viewed as some kinda stocks for a quickswing in profit

To be honest, this low price is one of the reason that most people arent taking their attention into BTC yet, I would like a stable price but to boost adoption into BTC sadly a higher price is needed so that more people could see this as a potential

[LottoBooking]

Bitcoin is not completly anonymous as you might think.

Depends on what you compare it to, if you compared it to a bank account indeed BTC is completely anonymous

this means adding your identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds by financial institutions. It is only a matter of time when bitcoin regulations will hit us.

There will be no BTC regulations because it is not something that a country could control. Unfortunately most country will bann BTC for it because it cant be control and it will reduce the chance of mass adoption.
BTC was created so that people could leave the traditional economic system where identity is needed and that goverment could control your transaction, also block or reverse the transaction if needed. Adding identity to BTC transactions will only means that we are heading towards that old fashion system again

I don't think countries need to regulate bitcoin - they can just be one of those 'heavy traders' who can manipulate or change the market.
They don't need to regulate Bitcoin, just the fact they dropped its value from $600 to $230 should scare away lots of potential investors to stay away from this option.

Even if they want to , they cant because its in the nature of BTC that it cant be regulated. Unfortunately there are quiet few "potential investor" in BTC because BTC isnt viewed as investment for common people and mostly it is viewed as some kinda stocks for a quickswing in profit

To be honest, this low price is one of the reason that most people arent taking their attention into BTC yet, I would like a stable price but to boost adoption into BTC sadly a higher price is needed so that more people could see this as a potential

How do the Bitcoin investors who though BTC was 'safe' at levels of $600 feel now that it lost more than half of its value?
If you were in their shoes would you still view it in that way?

[arallmuus]

Even if they want to , they cant because its in the nature of BTC that it cant be regulated. Unfortunately there are quiet few "potential investor" in BTC because BTC isnt viewed as investment for common people and mostly it is viewed as some kinda stocks for a quickswing in profit

To be honest, this low price is one of the reason that most people arent taking their attention into BTC yet, I would like a stable price but to boost adoption into BTC sadly a higher price is needed so that more people could see this as a potential

How do the Bitcoin investors who though BTC was 'safe' at levels of $600 feel now that it lost more than half of its value?
If you were in their shoes would you still view it in that way?

They lose almost 2/3 of it actually. Most have jumped off the sinking ship unfortunately but it is not a new things to hear. Basically alot has suffer at $1200 bubble, considering there are alot that buy at almost the peak point which means that they are losing alot on it.

It cant be helped anyway due to this volatility that this price decline will keep on happening in the future as well. With That being said , regarding the title of this thread even if a bank is hacked or any other things happen to the banking system , people will still choose another option to replace bank due to the volatility that may hurt them

[Gyfts]

I think the US dollar would crash before any banks became "hacked" to be honest. In fact, it's backwards. Bitcoin is way more often "hacked", for lack of a better phrase. You see exchanges go down left and right. Every now and then you hear about the big guys even taking a loss by hackers which definitely discourages the idea of Bitcoin in every sense of the matter. Going back to your original point, I do think the deterioration of fiat currencies will allow Bitcoin to take up more space in the economy. More people would choose to adopt it.

[arallmuus]

Bitcoin is way more often "hacked", for lack of a better phrase. You see exchanges go down left and right. Every now and then you hear about the big guys even taking a loss by hackers which definitely discourages the idea of Bitcoin in every sense of the matter.

Besides in term of security, BTC is more advanced than banks in any other things as well. Even if BTC lose in term of "security" but the other advantages will make up for this. Basically I think that BTC is less secure than banks only if someone dont know how to secure their BTC properly.
Another thing is that most people are techsavvy which means that they dont believe that any virtual coin on a computer might have a real life value

[Marbit]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Your assumption that hacking of banking systems and the finality of your statement is astonishing. I don't that's the kind of assumption that we can move forward with, but for your sake, let's say that does happen, it might boost crypto currency, but then again, people lose faith in digital systems anyway? So who knows where it pushed the bitcoin economy

[Q7]

Well, even if they don't get hacked, the money printing business is already a good enough reason to convince me that I will need to switch over to bitcoin. Fact is, this is happening all the time and people failed to see it or they just ignore it. Maybe like what you've said, a major scandal involving bank accounts getting compromised will make these people finally realized.

[bumm]

Isn't it sure to happen, sooner or later, that some country's central bank, or banking system, gets hacked? If that happened it'd shake peoples' confidence in the banking system, which most think is more robust than the likes of the blockchain, simply because banks are centralised systems. I guess some people would then look at the likes of bitcoin, but even it's not invulnerable - or is it?

Well if Bitcoin has to grow, then it has to get accepted by banks. It doesn't matter if it gets hacked as the banks are always insured. In most of the countries, banks do not accept bitcoin. That has to be changed. Then only Bitcoin will reach common people.

The only way banks will accept Bitcoin is if it will become regulated like PayPal.
PayPal is regulated and that's why you can transfer money from/to your bank account with it.
Bitcoin is anonymous so it would be difficult to for banks to integrate it into their system just like that.

Agree, that is what I am saying, that if the banks started accepting bitcoins, then it will eventually becomes a regulated currency. And for integration, banks can use the existing bitcoin exchange platforms.