Will the Banking Industry kill Bitcoin and keep the Blockchain?

[n2004al]

Every financial institution and every Bank seem to have their eyes set on the bitcoin and bitcoin these days... But being Bitcoin as a currency the main competitor to banks and the traditional financial system, won't it be possible to see Banks trying to stifle bitcoin while investing in the Blockchain?

This is is a way which can be used by the banks to attenuating bitcoin. But are not they which decide about its future but the Authorities of every country which make decisions about the money. So the Central Banks and various Governmental Agencies. If bitcoin will be regulated he is superiors from everything known since today in its field of "work". So will not have concurrence. Then to not forget that bitcoin is a world currency. The banks, even the most powerful of those, are not world banks. This is one more reason about the need of the regulation and the official known of bitcoin.

[avatar_kiyoshi]

Every financial institution and every Bank seem to have their eyes set on the bitcoin and bitcoin these days... But being Bitcoin as a currency the main competitor to banks and the traditional financial system, won't it be possible to see Banks trying to stifle bitcoin while investing in the Blockchain?

I see the future from both.

[Amph]

Banks will try but fail miserably.
They can always create an altcoin dedicated to banks, so they will own their own blockchain.

they are already doing this with citycoin, but what would be the point? it would be like having fiat 2.0, nothing added

it seems that the only thing that the blockchain can bring to bank, as advantage vs their current setup is proof of integrety

[RKing]

Banks will try but fail miserably.
They can always create an altcoin dedicated to banks, so they will own their own blockchain.

they are already doing this with citycoin, but what would be the point? i would be like having fiat 2.0, nothing added

it seems that the only thing that the blockchain can bring to bank, as advantage vs their current setup is proof of integrety

No other organizations will use city coin. Why would a bank use a money issued by another bank and has no control over it?

[Denker]

Banks will try but fail miserably.
They can always create an altcoin dedicated to banks, so they will own their own blockchain.

Their altcoin will be nothing more than the actual fiat money. Total control, centralized, permissioned, premined with possibility of changig the supply whenever they want.

[Oscilson]

Banks will try but fail miserably.
They can always create an altcoin dedicated to banks, so they will own their own blockchain.

I will not use their coins.

[zimmah]

Every financial institution and every Bank seem to have their eyes set on the bitcoin and bitcoin these days... But being Bitcoin as a currency the main competitor to banks and the traditional financial system, won't it be possible to see Banks trying to stifle bitcoin while investing in the Blockchain?

Remember the early Internet? Where every company wanted to make their own localized version of it?

Remember how that ended?

Same with Bitcoin, Bitcoin is much better when it's global and all inclusive. Banks that make their own block chain will eventually be almost forced to just join the global block chain, because there is little to gain from having your own bubble.

That is the correct analogy, the real question is how long will it take for all those "intranet blockchains" to die. I wonder if it will be a matter of a couple of years or we will stuck with that shit for decades before we can see Bitcoin shine and go to 1 million dollars per coin where it should be once all businesses run under the protocol.

Indeed, the question is how long it will take for the people to realize the true potential of the blockchain/bitcoin, and not just the crappy intranet version.

Just like it took a while for people to figure out AOL/CompuServe was not the same as the internet.

Maybe people will figure it out a bit faster this time, especially if the bitcoin community helps the not so tech savvy out, but it might take a while still.

[zimmah]

Remember the early Internet? Where every company wanted to make their own localized version of it?

Remember how that ended?

That is the correct analogy, the real question is how long will it take for all those "intranet blockchains" to die. I wonder if it will be a matter of a couple of years

you forget that the banks already have a very expensive legacy electronic value transfer system that can be upgraded with blockchain tech to start saving them money immediatly.  Banks are not going to lose money when they integrate blockchain tech. they are going to profit immediately from it, based on the massive cost savings they will get, and they will never go back to the old expensive pre-blockchain method.  Why would they.

Blockchains, although expensive to maintain and operate, make ridiculously expensive networks permanently more efficient.

Remember that banks are not using the "store of value" app of blockchain tech, but the "value transfer" app

apples and oranges here folks, and therefore, no direct competition. The value of BTC is due to the decentralzed nature of its network.

yes but bank X will use their own version and bank Y will use a non compatible version of their own and bank C will even use another version, not compatible with either of them.

This doesn't solve anything, and even though the banks might shave a bit of their overhead costs with it (which they will probably not pass on to the customer, because they're greedy), it will not kill bitcoin in any way.

In fact, it will only make the people aware that such technology exists, they become familiar with it. (Even if it's only the employees of the bank that come in contact with the technology), and eventually they get to know the real blockchain. And they will convert to the real thing because it's not nearly as limited.

All this takes time though. But banks having their own blockchain will eventually all have to get rid of their own chain and adapt the real thing. Just like AOL and the like.

[QUEDOS]

The banks have already began adopting various iterations of the blockchain. However, the most powerful and therefore most secure blockchain belongs to bitcoin

They will present their own versions of bitcoin, but these will always be inferior due to the immense (and growing) hashing power that is allocated to the bitcoin network

So quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the banks think, do or say - bitcoin isn't going anywhere

[RKing]

The banks have already began adopting various iterations of the blockchain. However, the most powerful and therefore most secure blockchain belongs to bitcoin

They will present their own versions of bitcoin, but these will always be inferior due to the immense (and growing) hashing power that is allocated to the bitcoin network

So quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the banks think, do or say - bitcoin isn't going anywhere

If a bank open its coin network, it will be attacked by the immense computing power of the cryptocoin society. We have so many GPU, CPU etc.

[RustyNomad]

Bitcoin will not disappear but all these other coins will have a major impact on the adoption of bitcoin.

People will go for whats convenient so a 'bank-coin' which is well integrated into their everyday banking will be their choice instead of bitcoin. Some of the banks are already working together so they can set a certain standard between them so that your coin from bank A will also be accepted and work with bank B etc...

Similar with digital currencies launched by the various countries like Ecuador, Scotland etc... Few people truly understand what it is that makes bitcoin so unique and different from any of these other digital currencies.

I however do believe that bitcoin adoption will grow over time and especially so if and when some of these 'fiat coins' go down with their creators as that is bound to happen in the [near] future. The moment the first one goes down people will start to realize that bitcoin is still standing and that will in time drive adoption on a far larger scale. All you need is for the first 'bank-coin' to go 'tits-up'.

[Oscilson]

Bitcoin will not disappear but all these other coins will have a major impact on the adoption of bitcoin.

People will go for whats convenient so a 'bank-coin' which is well integrated into their everyday banking will be their choice instead of bitcoin. Some of the banks are already working together so they can set a certain standard between them so that your coin from bank A will also be accepted and work with bank B etc...

Similar with digital currencies launched by the various countries like Ecuador, Scotland etc... Few people truly understand what it is that makes bitcoin so unique and different from any of these other digital currencies.

I however do believe that bitcoin adoption will grow over time and especially so if and when some of these 'fiat coins' go down with their creators as that is bound to happen in the [near] future. The moment the first one goes down people will start to realize that bitcoin is still standing and that will in time drive adoption on a far larger scale. All you need is for the first 'bank-coin' to go 'tits-up'.

Who will control the issue of Bank A and B's coin? Their value will be based on the common coin called bitcoin.

[zimmah]

Bitcoin will not disappear but all these other coins will have a major impact on the adoption of bitcoin.

People will go for whats convenient so a 'bank-coin' which is well integrated into their everyday banking will be their choice instead of bitcoin. Some of the banks are already working together so they can set a certain standard between them so that your coin from bank A will also be accepted and work with bank B etc...

Similar with digital currencies launched by the various countries like Ecuador, Scotland etc... Few people truly understand what it is that makes bitcoin so unique and different from any of these other digital currencies.

I however do believe that bitcoin adoption will grow over time and especially so if and when some of these 'fiat coins' go down with their creators as that is bound to happen in the [near] future. The moment the first one goes down people will start to realize that bitcoin is still standing and that will in time drive adoption on a far larger scale. All you need is for the first 'bank-coin' to go 'tits-up'.

There are two outcomes:

Either the banks have their own centralized coin, which is only secure if they strictly hold their own control. They will sooner or later face the same fate as AOL in this case. On top of that there's huge security risks this way.

They could alternatively make an open decentralized coin, but that means they'd give up control, which is exactly what they want to avoid. Also, if they do this, bitcoiners would soon control the entire network with their quadrillions of hashing power.

[grashopr]

I dont think banks are savvy enough to be even considering trying to kill bitcoin. In most cases the attempts at doing just something/anything with blockchain is to deal with the Strategic risk that virtual currencies pose.

I havent seen a use case from a bank that contributes anything and most are just playing around. I think if someone can come up with a use case for blockchain which doesnt have a token and is useful in permissioned, bounded and trusted environments then probably that would be as significant as inventing bitcoin all over again.

What I'd like to understand is why the banks dont accept btc as there in quite a strong position with there existing customer base and compliance activities ?

With the introduction of Bitlicense then its saying that cryptocurrency orgs in NY, which I guess will go on to be something of a blueprint globally, need to act like a bank to be allowed to work with btc so have aml, sanctions, kyc, SARs etc. But why dont the banks with all of that already in place offer btc services rather than trying to reinvent it ? Is there some legal restriction that applies to banks but not bitlicensees ?

[Kazimir]

Would you build your business on top of a technology controlled by external entities that are mostly unknown?

controlled by entities mostly unknown?

You mean: controlled by math, open source, and well known and extensively studied cryptography. That's the controlling foundation of this tech. It's not being controlled by anyone in particular.

[mayax]

Would you build your business on top of a technology controlled by external entities that are mostly unknown?

controlled by entities mostly unknown?

You mean: controlled by math, open source, and well known and extensively studied cryptography. That's the controlling foundation of this tech. It's not being controlled by anyone in particular.

Yes, BTC is controlled by developers, miners and exchangers. All of them are owned by a small group of people called , "investors" .

Make a little search and you will see who "owns" Bitcoin

[Amph]

Would you build your business on top of a technology controlled by external entities that are mostly unknown?

controlled by entities mostly unknown?

You mean: controlled by math, open source, and well known and extensively studied cryptography. That's the controlling foundation of this tech. It's not being controlled by anyone in particular.

Yes, BTC is controlled by developers, miners and exchangers. All of them are owned by a small group of people called , "investors" .

Make a little search and you will see who "owns" Bitcoin

what is your definition of decentralization then? we need something that is controlled by the all 7B people to be called decentralized?

as long they are not a single entity, there is no real owner

[VirosaGITS]

Would you build your business on top of a technology controlled by external entities that are mostly unknown?

controlled by entities mostly unknown?

You mean: controlled by math, open source, and well known and extensively studied cryptography. That's the controlling foundation of this tech. It's not being controlled by anyone in particular.

Yes, BTC is controlled by developers, miners and exchangers. All of them are owned by a small group of people called , "investors" .

Make a little search and you will see who "owns" Bitcoin

what is your definition of decentralization then? we need something that is controlled by the all 7B people to be called decentralized?

as long they are not a single entity, there is no real owner

Having BTC, receiving a big portion of the traffic, submitting code changes, etc, everything. This does not give administrative power to any of these. It give power over their own portion of BTC, but BTC itself is controlled by the wallet. And it is enforced by the hashrate.

So if you want to bash anyone for centralizing Bitcoin, bash the Chinese for centralizing a big portion of the hashrate. ;P

Still remain decentralized.

[maokoto]

I do not think banks have the intention to kill Bitcoin. It would probably be a war that will wear them out, and the outcome is uncertain. Trying to do that would make attention focus on Bitcoin and have just the opposite effect they are looking for.

[Cereberus]

The banking industry is ancient and a crafty entity. It has been around since the jews made it to offer loans.
Don't say never because it can happen.