Blockchain or Bitcoin?

[ransomer]

Some argue that banks could just use the blockchain technology to lower their costs related to transacting and recording - and make money on lending, advice etc etc. Thus no need for bitcoin - banks might use an agnostic blockchain that uses dollars etc.

Others say "but wait" - the the downside is still that bitcoin makes banks obsolete and, more importantly, that the supply is limited and cannot be increased like FIAT.

Well.... really those downsides of banks slotting FIAT through a blockchain constrution - are they real consumer downsides, or are they merely downsides from an ideological or political angle? It seems to me it might be the latter-- and if that is the case then they might be irrelevant 'downsides' for most of the world.

[1714894064]

1714894064

[1714894064]

1714894064

[1714894064]

1714894064

[1714894064]

1714894064

[1714894064]

1714894064

[Amph]

they cannot deal with fees as good as bitcoin deal with it for the time being, and for the future too, this is the only good argument that can encourage average joe to shift, i don't think they really care about decentralization...

so unless most of the world want to waste money on fiat they will wake up one day and will say good bye to the bank, bitcoin will force this anyway, when a portion of the full adoption is reached

[franky1]

i imagine banks to make a new altcoin. like 'infinite coin' and they will premine  a few trillion coins and then hand them out to represent 1infinite coin as being $1..

however they will, when acting as investors for pensions and savings accounts. they will trade the infinite coins against rare coins, like bitcoin.
it will be easy to spot premine amounts entering circulation so regulating the inflation would be super easy. so regulators will love the blockchain technology

but that being said.. the dollar is only used by under 400million people. the yuan is being used by far more. yet media wants people to believe that the dollar is all powerful... so dont worry about banks infinite coin. just like americans dont worry or care about euro's or pounds..

so even when banks are throwing around infinite coins.. the rest of the world will trade other coins they desire.. like many countries do now with the different types of fiat..

the good thing about the internet is the freedom of choice and many will stick to bitcoin because they will learn about the banks premine and inflation

[ransomer]

i imagine banks to make a new altcoin. like 'infinite coin' and they will premine  a few trillion coins and then hand them out to represent 1infinite coin as being $1..

however they will, when acting as investors for pensions and savings accounts. they will trade the infinite coins against rare coins, like bitcoin.
it will be easy to spot premine amounts entering circulation so regulating the inflation would be super easy. so regulators will love the blockchain technology

but that being said.. the dollar is only used by under 400million people. the yuan is being used by far more. yet media wants people to believe that the dollar is all powerful... so dont worry about banks infinite coin. just like americans dont worry or care about euro's or pounds..

so even when banks are throwing around infinite coins.. the rest of the world will trade other coins they desire.. like many countries do now with the different types of fiat..

the good thing about the internet is the freedom of choice and many will stick to bitcoin because they will learn about the banks premine and inflation

I submit that most would not care to read about this, and would not care about it even if they knew.

Before the Internet - mail between individuals was a matter for national post office firms, and they would then hand over and sort out differences at the border if a letter was going to a foreign address.

Today email.... just goes anywhere without being assigned a nationality of having multiple national emails etc..

I strongly think (like the Winklevoss twins) that it is a winner takes all market. If it is not the bitcoin it will be some other.

[franky1]

I submit that most would not care to read about this, and would not care about it even if they knew.

Before the Internet - mail between individuals was a matter for national post office firms, and they would then hand over and sort out differences at the border if a letter was going to a foreign address.

Today email.... just goes anywhere without being assigned a nationality of having multiple national emails etc..

I strongly think (like the Winklevoss twins) that it is a winner takes all market. If it is not the bitcoin it will be some other.

your thinking email is one technology.. well yea thats the blockchain. but we are not stuck in the days where compuserve or AOL were the only choices of mail client.. we have hundreds of them.. everything from 1to1, google, outlook, etc..

so in the future there will be multiple coins in circulation and each territory will have their own preference. but bitcoin due to its current circulation and usefulness will hold a place as the middleground between the alts.

[Holliday]

There is no point for a bank to use its own block chain.

The block chain is a cost of decentralization. The only reason the block chain serves any purpose is because it makes decentralization possible.

A bank certainly doesn't care for decentralization, so why should it care for a block chain. It makes no sense to implement a block chain if you want to retain central control.

There... I think I've said it enough different ways to get the point across.

[ransomer]

I submit that most would not care to read about this, and would not care about it even if they knew.

Before the Internet - mail between individuals was a matter for national post office firms, and they would then hand over and sort out differences at the border if a letter was going to a foreign address.

Today email.... just goes anywhere without being assigned a nationality of having multiple national emails etc..

I strongly think (like the Winklevoss twins) that it is a winner takes all market. If it is not the bitcoin it will be some other.

your thinking email is one technology.. well yea thats the blockchain. but we are not stuck in the days where compuserve or AOL were the only choices of mail client.. we have hundreds of them.. everything from 1to1, google, outlook, etc..

so in the future there will be multiple coins in circulation and each territory will have their own preference. but bitcoin due to its current circulation and usefulness will hold a place as the middleground between the alts.

This could happen.

But I think it lacks the logic.

Why would we have an altcoin if bitcoin can handle it?

And whatever the answer to that questions is...... then why use bitcoin at all? Why not use whichever cryptocurrency can do what we want? Just like I don't need to go through an exchange if I have a gmail account and want to sent an email to someone with an outlook account. There is no reason to make things complicated if its not necessary.

I think there will be one currency because that has benefits over having multiple, and having exchange rates etc to worry about.

[ransomer]

There is no point for a bank to use its own block chain.

The block chain is a cost of decentralization. The only reason the block chain serves any purpose is because it makes decentralization possible.

A bank certainly doesn't care for decentralization, so why should it care for a block chain. It makes no sense to implement a block chain if you want to retain central control.

There... I think I've said it enough different ways to get the point across.

Maybe you don't know, but several banks have already developed their own blockchains and are testing them for saving money. It is already happening.

[franky1]

I submit that most would not care to read about this, and would not care about it even if they knew.

Before the Internet - mail between individuals was a matter for national post office firms, and they would then hand over and sort out differences at the border if a letter was going to a foreign address.

Today email.... just goes anywhere without being assigned a nationality of having multiple national emails etc..

I strongly think (like the Winklevoss twins) that it is a winner takes all market. If it is not the bitcoin it will be some other.

your thinking email is one technology.. well yea thats the blockchain. but we are not stuck in the days where compuserve or AOL were the only choices of mail client.. we have hundreds of them.. everything from 1to1, google, outlook, etc..

so in the future there will be multiple coins in circulation and each territory will have their own preference. but bitcoin due to its current circulation and usefulness will hold a place as the middleground between the alts.

This could happen.

But I think it lacks the logic.

Why would we have an altcoin if bitcoin can handle it?

And whatever the answer to that questions is...... then why use bitcoin at all? Why not use whichever cryptocurrency can do what we want? Just like I don't need to go through an exchange if I have a gmail account and want to sent an email to someone with an outlook account. There is no reason to make things complicated if its not necessary.

I think there will be one currency because that has benefits over having multiple, and having exchange rates etc to worry about.

because banks own governments and governments own legislation. such as the minimum wage and IRS rules that stipulate people to be paid in a certain currency..

so while the dollar may be replaced with bank of america's infinite coin. and bank of england may do another altcoin. making workers receive those bank favoured altcoins.. again people will hate the inflationary nature of them and instantly exchange them for bitcoin.. ...  or another rare coin.

so i agree many people (using the mail analogy) may stick to a certain service(local bank favoured coin).. but for international exchange and investments/savings there would be single major contender as the go between.. ie bitcoin.

and who knows.. that might then be the tipping point where people get annoyed with swapping the local bank favoured coin. and people start demanding bitcoins for direct wage payments. which would start a financial revolution...
who knows.. its just theory and speculation at this point

[Holliday]

There is no point for a bank to use its own block chain.

The block chain is a cost of decentralization. The only reason the block chain serves any purpose is because it makes decentralization possible.

A bank certainly doesn't care for decentralization, so why should it care for a block chain. It makes no sense to implement a block chain if you want to retain central control.

There... I think I've said it enough different ways to get the point across.

Maybe you don't know, but several banks have already developed their own blockchains and are testing them for saving money. It is already happening.

There is no rule that says banks will do the smart or correct things, of course. If they want to throw away money experimenting with distributed consensus ledgers, so be it.

[ransomer]

I submit that most would not care to read about this, and would not care about it even if they knew.

Before the Internet - mail between individuals was a matter for national post office firms, and they would then hand over and sort out differences at the border if a letter was going to a foreign address.

Today email.... just goes anywhere without being assigned a nationality of having multiple national emails etc..

I strongly think (like the Winklevoss twins) that it is a winner takes all market. If it is not the bitcoin it will be some other.

your thinking email is one technology.. well yea thats the blockchain. but we are not stuck in the days where compuserve or AOL were the only choices of mail client.. we have hundreds of them.. everything from 1to1, google, outlook, etc..

so in the future there will be multiple coins in circulation and each territory will have their own preference. but bitcoin due to its current circulation and usefulness will hold a place as the middleground between the alts.

This could happen.

But I think it lacks the logic.

Why would we have an altcoin if bitcoin can handle it?

And whatever the answer to that questions is...... then why use bitcoin at all? Why not use whichever cryptocurrency can do what we want? Just like I don't need to go through an exchange if I have a gmail account and want to sent an email to someone with an outlook account. There is no reason to make things complicated if its not necessary.

I think there will be one currency because that has benefits over having multiple, and having exchange rates etc to worry about.

because banks own governments and governments own legislation. such as the minimum wage and IRS rules that stipulate people to be paid in a certain currency..

so while the dollar may be replaced with bank of america's infinite coin. and bank of england may do another altcoin. making workers receive those bank favoured altcoins.. again people will hate the inflationary nature of them and instantly exchange them for bitcoin.. ...  or another rare coin.

so i agree many people (using the mail analogy) may stick to a certain service(local bank favoured coin).. but for international exchange and investments/savings there would be single major contender as the go between.. ie bitcoin.

and who knows.. that might then be the tipping point where people get annoyed with swapping the local bank favoured coin. and people start demanding bitcoins for direct wage payments. which would start a financial revolution...
who knows.. its just theory and speculation at this point

This is ok, and is the situation we have now. Countries have their own currencies, and we have bitcoin. It could certainly continue like this.

My point was more that I see little to no reason for alternative altcoins - unless it is because a country has it's own government-issued altcoin.

[n2004al]

Some argue that banks could just use the blockchain technology to lower their costs related to transacting and recording - and make money on lending, advice etc etc. Thus no need for bitcoin - banks might use an agnostic blockchain that uses dollars etc.

Others say "but wait" - the the downside is still that bitcoin makes banks obsolete and, more importantly, that the supply is limited and cannot be increased like FIAT.

Well.... really those downsides of banks slotting FIAT through a blockchain constrution - are they real consumer downsides, or are they merely downsides from an ideological or political angle? It seems to me it might be the latter-- and if that is the case then they might be irrelevant 'downsides' for most of the world.

I think must adopt both. But if it will be fulfilled one condition. Bitcoin can be the currency of currencies. Read more about this here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191118.0. If this will happen (almost or totally impossible according to me) the bank must have bitcoin (more will have better it will be) because it can and will be the most liquid currency of all and can save they in every situation of trouble. While must use the blockchain technology too for the reasons mentioned in the principal post.

[mordekaiser]

Some argue that banks could just use the blockchain technology to lower their costs related to transacting and recording - and make money on lending, advice etc etc. Thus no need for bitcoin - banks might use an agnostic blockchain that uses dollars etc.

Others say "but wait" - the the downside is still that bitcoin makes banks obsolete and, more importantly, that the supply is limited and cannot be increased like FIAT.

Well.... really those downsides of banks slotting FIAT through a blockchain constrution - are they real consumer downsides, or are they merely downsides from an ideological or political angle? It seems to me it might be the latter-- and if that is the case then they might be irrelevant 'downsides' for most of the world.

I'll probably choose biticoin because I heard so many good things about it and I think it is more popular than the blockchain anyway that's my opinion.

[Furio]

Some argue that banks could just use the blockchain technology to lower their costs related to transacting and recording - and make money on lending, advice etc etc. Thus no need for bitcoin - banks might use an agnostic blockchain that uses dollars etc.

Others say "but wait" - the the downside is still that bitcoin makes banks obsolete and, more importantly, that the supply is limited and cannot be increased like FIAT.

Well.... really those downsides of banks slotting FIAT through a blockchain constrution - are they real consumer downsides, or are they merely downsides from an ideological or political angle? It seems to me it might be the latter-- and if that is the case then they might be irrelevant 'downsides' for most of the world.

I'll probably choose biticoin because I heard so many good things about it and I think it is more popular than the blockchain anyway that's my opinion.

Bitcoin = the Blockchain technologie, just like blockchain is bitcoin. The public ledger itself combined with all the cryptographic control and security implemented, makes bitcoin to what it is. It's could be easily be taken over by another crypto, just like it could be implemented by banks, if that happens before mass adoption, bye bye bitcoin...