There is no currency that banks hate.

[Cuidler]

anyone can verify no more than 21 million Bitcoin ever exist - the trully transparent public ledger is real future.

<20 million, if theymos has his way

Sure, but once you start modifing the Bitcoin protocol in a way some of previous coins cannot be used anymore, its almost sure Bitcoin death.

So I guess while theymos pointed to a problem some coins are less secure than others (so owners should reconsider to secure these), trying to remove these coins from Bitcoin supply is much more dangerous, as it remove all the trust Bitcoin users (especially longtime holders) have.

[unamis76]

There is no currency that banks hate.  Not if they can make money on it.

Once the regulatory and tax and volatility issues are settled out or predictable, they'll cheerfully accept bitcoin, or even denominate accounts in bitcoin.  Of course the depositor won't have the keys to those accounts.

We can stop here... If someday banks accept Bitcoin and/or have Bitcoin denominated accounts nobody would really use them... Do you see anyone having accounts which they do not control the keys for in a few years? Seems highly unlikely. Even if people accepted that, they would most likely choose a more trusted service (which obviously has risks too).

That being said, banks can profit from having Bitcoin services... if we allow them to

[Cryddit]

Do you see anyone having accounts which they do not control the keys for in a few years? Seems highly unlikely.

Seems highly likely to me.  There is less risk to them of losing their coins to a hack or a crack or a botnet, if they let pros keep the keys secure.

[avikz]

True indeed! Banks will not hate any currency which will bring profit in to their treasury.

Bitcoin is doing good and that's why banks are after it. They are even planning to start their own blockchain.

But till the time bitcoin can be earned freely and without regulation, they will not be able to make much impact on its distribution.

[Cuidler]

They'll even offer interest, provided it's slightly less than they can make by loaning those bitcoins out.  And they'll loan it out by handing people (slips of paper that say they own) a particular amount of bitcoin.  Which allows them to loan out more to debtors than they actually have from depositors.

I like how you described how Banks works, but the poblem is the loaned "Bitcoins" cannot be real Bitcoins which can be used on Bitcoin public ledger. In fiat world, fractional reserve banking can work because the ledger is not public, but if the fiat ledger become public it would become obvious to normal people banks creating money out of nothing, and people could start question why they cant create money out of nothing as well when banks can loan more money than they have (from deposits).

Thats why Bitcoin is not fractional reserve currency, you can only loan Bitcoins you actually have. Thankfully. I owe you Bitcoins notes are useless on Bitcoin public ledger, these can be created in any number and should be valued accordingly.

[SFR10]

There are some points that your missing. Each bank actually does hate some currencies (it depends on under the law they operate based on it's respective origin). One thing I've noticed as of late, is the fact that more major trades are taking place with other currencies as opposed to the past, in which was $. Many countries are making joint banks, just so they would ditch the use of foreign currencies, simply due to them not liking the idea of using foreign currencies since they have to comply with certain rules as well. Now BTCitcoin on the other hand, is actually a major treat to the whole banking system, "BTCitcoin will lessen banks operation, the way internet lessened TV and newspaper usage". They can't give loans in BTCitcoin since it's value could change overnight and they might end up on receiving less that they give out. One of BTCitcoins nature is it's decentralized nature and by letting banks regulate it to any extent, it destroys it's purpose on that front.

[practicaldreamer]

  In most countries, the system worked.

 It worked ? It worked for who ?

 

The fatcats got immediate handouts to prevent systemic collapse, which pissed a bunch of people off since the fatcats were mostly responsible for the crisis in the first place.  But in almost all nations, including the US, the handouts stopped and the fatcats have mostly been required to repay them as loans.

In the UK the Govt.(we the taxpayer) bailed out RBS (amongst others) to the tune of £45billion. The Chancellor lately decided to sell the stake that the Govt. hold at a price less than what they (we) paid for it. It means a loss to the UK taxpayer of £13billion.

Meanwhile my brother in law is still sat on at least £25k negative equity:-





But it wasn't really this that I was referring to in my post. More, it was the central bank creating money out of thin air and placing it on the balance sheets of the commercial banks that I was referring to. The ECB is still pumping an extra $63 billion per month into Europe.

We are all aware of Japans history of QE (ongoing - only now with the added "bonus" of a NIRP) - and it looks like, as you say, China is heading down the same route.

Bitcoin means Governments will lose a large tranche of their nation states control over monetary policy, were it ever to be adopted wide scale. Where would that control go ? It strikes me that by default it would go (back) to the people who were previously carrying the can (carrying the can precisely because they had no control).

The commercial banks could do the fractional reserve once, but they wouldn't be able to do it twice if they got it wrong the first time round. That, to me, means that when the safety net is taken away there would be a very great incentive to conduct business in a professional, transparent and above board manner the first time around.

[ricardobs]

Banks should really be scared of bank runs, if everyone took out their money at the same time. It would expose how they run on unsustainable fractional reserves and exorbitant fees. They are "good" at lending out that isn't even there.

Won't banksters just print more of their filthy fiat out of thin air? Ain't that what they do?

I'm not in a position to have a proper say on that statement, but in my opinion, not all banks do that. I know a few good banks who just rather closed down than print dirty money. I think only the greedy banks would print out money to sustain themselves.

[whored]

  In most countries, the system worked.

It worked ? It worked for who ?

*Whom. For all of those whose economies didn't collapse?

It means a loss to the UK taxpayer of £13billion ... it was the central bank creating money out of thin air and placing it on the balance sheets of the commercial banks that I was referring to.

What you're doing here is not making any sense. How could bailing out banks cost the taxpayer anything above the printing cost of the filthy fiat that's printed out of thin air?
Intrinsic consistency is super important.

Bitcoin means Governments will lose a large tranche of their nation states control over monetary policy, were it ever to be adopted wide scale.

"Gentlemen, let's adapt bitcoin instead of trying to stop it. One very intelligent bitcoiner explained to me how then we'll be able to successfully lose control of the monetary policy, crawl in some corner and die. Seems pretty attractive, so let's hurry up and stop printing our worthless scrip and embrace bitcoins!" -- Every Government Ever

[anonEmouse]

Or is there?

As long as they can make it they'll love it. Can't make btc!!

[practicaldreamer]

  In most countries, the system worked.

It worked ? It worked for who ?

For all of those whose economies didn't collapse?

What ? - like those whose economies weren't complicit in the fraud ? Good for them (if they were one of the western economies that were able to avoid having the pain meted out to them from those above that is). The UK (and US) on the other hand relies on "financial services" for 10% of its GDP - and for the people therein there was (and is) no escape. As indeed there wasn't for the people of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy .........

It means a loss to the UK taxpayer of £13billion ... it was the central bank creating money out of thin air and placing it on the balance sheets of the commercial banks that I was referring to.

What you're doing here is not making any sense. How could bailing out banks cost the taxpayer anything above the printing cost of the filthy fiat that's printed out of thin air?

QE isn't a one off payment/windfall to banks, its an ongoing subsidy. Also monetary debasement/devaluation/direct vs indirect costs to the average Jo.

"Gentlemen, let's adapt bitcoin instead of trying to stop it. One very intelligent bitcoiner explained to me how then we'll be able to successfully lose control of the monetary policy, crawl in some corner and die. Seems pretty attractive, so let's hurry up and stop printing our worthless scrip and embrace bitcoins!" -- Every Government Ever

Thanks for your input Mr. Osborne/Yellan/Dimon.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

The reason for why banks may hate Bitcoin in the fututre, there is currently no reason for any bank to hate any currency. It may be possible for banks to somehow hold bitcoin funds, but I predict people would be both more free and more responsible in the future than we are now.

for example, a night of drinking at bars and spends all his money. With Bitcoin, we would;d have to be more mindfull as to how they spend their money at the bar.

[PacePay]

And I will say that if banks and governments started to adopt and use bitcoin then its volatility, tax and especially anonymity(which is totally against the banks rules) issues will be solved efficiently and after that bitcoin will be used as a normal currency and with that bitcoin will be a powerful and more stable currency, so every business owner will adopt it.

[whored]

  In most countries, the system worked.

It worked ? It worked for who ?

For all of those whose economies didn't collapse?

What ? - like those whose economies weren't complicit in the fraud ? Good for them (if they were one of the western economies that were able to avoid having the pain meted out to them from those above). The UK (and US) on the other hand relies on "financial services" for 10% of its GDP - and for the people therein there was (and is) no escape.

As someone living in US, can tell you it's working fine thus far. Live in a nice house, eat good snacks, drive a fun car, streets are safe.
So your suggesting that "for the people therein there was (and is) no escape" begs the question: WTF you talkin' bout?
No one is trying to escape, Mexico ain't building no wall to keep Amerifats out, we're good were we're at, brah.

It means a loss to the UK taxpayer of £13billion ... it was the central bank creating money out of thin air and placing it on the balance sheets of the commercial banks that I was referring to.

What you're doing here is not making any sense. How could bailing out banks cost the taxpayer anything above the printing cost of the filthy fiat that's printed out of thin air?

QE isn't a one off payment/windfall to banks, its an ongoing subsidy. Also monetary debasement/devaluation/direct vs indirect costs to the average Jo.

An ongoing subsidy you say? So they're printing filthy government scrip out of thin air on ongoing basis? Horrifying! The power bill for those printers must be astronomical.  Hey, now that I think about it, fiat is a bit like bitcoin, costs money to print it out of thin air. Neat.

"Gentlemen, let's adapt bitcoin instead of trying to stop it. One very intelligent bitcoiner explained to me how then we'll be able to successfully lose control of the monetary policy, crawl in some corner and die. Seems pretty attractive, so let's hurry up and stop printing our worthless scrip and embrace bitcoins!" -- Every Government Ever

Thanks for your input Mr. Osborne/Yellan/Dimon.

Just making sure you understand that the odds of any government letting that shit happen are zero. Partially due to edgy bitcoiners like yourself

[practicaldreamer]

Just making sure you understand that the odds of any government letting that shit happen are zero.

Sounds like $ is working just fine for you man, eating your nice snacks and what have you.  Zero crime neighbourhood. Nice car.

Does kind of beg the question though - what are you doing here ?

Whored - is the clue in the title ?

[whored]

Just making sure you understand that the odds of any government letting that shit happen are zero.

Sounds like $ is working just fine for you man, eating your nice snacks and what have you.  Zero crime neighbourhood. Nice car.

Does kind of beg the question though - what are you doing here ?

Whored - is the clue is in the title ?

Trying to educate and engage. Something that state-sponsored schools brainwash factories clearly failed to do.
And, won't lie, to have a few laughs

[Cryddit]

They'll even offer interest, provided it's slightly less than they can make by loaning those bitcoins out.  And they'll loan it out by handing people (slips of paper that say they own) a particular amount of bitcoin.  Which allows them to loan out more to debtors than they actually have from depositors.

I like how you described how Banks works, but the poblem is the loaned "Bitcoins" cannot be real Bitcoins which can be used on Bitcoin public ledger.

Why's that a problem?  People won't object, any more than they objected when MtGox did it.  Remember that, even today, more than half of Bitcoin owners don't remember MtGox.  They weren't here when it happened.  They already keep their coins in online wallets where they don't have the keys, make transactions with other people using the same online wallet which don't appear in the block chain, and never check the blockchain to see if their particular transaction went through. 

Banks just take it to the next level, where they can do the same thing between *ANY* two bank account holders, not just the ones that use the same bank.  People will never notice the difference.

[practicaldreamer]

Can business work out ways of exploiting/utilising an immutable public ledger that has the potential to register "everything that can be known"/digitised about an individual ? Most definitely.

Will they be able to do it via central banks QE and/or commercial banks fractional reserve banking ? I think (probably) not.

I hate to bang on about it, but for me the real issue is the ownership of the means of production. I know some say that in the knowledge/information age that this (Marxist) paradigm has shifted/been supersceded. But I'm not convinced. It just means that the means of production have altered - but these "means" can still be owned, as they always have. Knowledge and understanding can still be garnered in the service of wealth/power/privilege, its acquisition, and its protection.

[Hirose UK]

While banks are not exactly anitibicoin force they see Bitcoin as major competitor. Mainly because Bitcoin has same properties that services that banks are offering people.
Bitcoin will eliminate need to have bank account, to keep money in a bank vault and to be able to send money wherever you want without 3rd party taking care of transaction.

agree with this. having same properties make bank and bitcoin be competitor. and in other side bitcoin is easy use, don't need to go in and go out to make or transfer money.

but OP's right either, banks can use bitcoin as their new feature to make costumers. well, just see what will happen

[Harpua]

While banks are not exactly anitibicoin force they see Bitcoin as major competitor. Mainly because Bitcoin has same properties that services that banks are offering people.
Bitcoin will eliminate need to have bank account, to keep money in a bank vault and to be able to send money wherever you want without 3rd party taking care of transaction.

You're forgetting a very important feature of banks that make banks "profitable", and that is that they lend out loans for profit.  I mean, in a sense people are in a way becoming their own "banks" by doing this exact thing... just look on the lending board in the market place.  People are making profits that way there, or even on exchange sites like poloniex.

Truth is, is that a large majority of people on the planet don't know what Bitcoin is, and this, in itself, makes it not a "hot" asset for banks to accumulate or offer to their customers. Plus, "normal" people don't need Bitcoins to start up a business idea or pay off student debts... they need fiat.