There is no currency that banks hate.

[Cryddit]

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.

The UK though was handicapped going in.  It had just gotten burned worse than anybody else in the Eurozone by the mideast Asian banking crisis, before it had really gotten fully and completely recovered from Barents' bank getting Leesoned.  Plus there were Eurozone treaties intended to prevent countries from dragging each other down which had the unfortunate effect of preventing them from working together very easily as well.  I mean, yeah, it did completely suck on the ground, but the guys at Downing Street could have done a hell of a lot worse.  

And most of that money?  Didn't really exist in the first place.  The £45billion was less than the replacement value for a £65billion bezzle,  ie, the money that people were pretending was real in order to continue their scam.  It was distributed throughout the economy, in everybody's pockets, including the fatcats.   When they printed more money, the fatcats' holdings were devalued way more than the ordinary taxpayers'.  And now the £45billion that they printed is distributed through the economy, and they're coming back and making the fatcats pay back about £32billion of it.  So, yeah, you got ripped off, but you and the fatcats lost a very similar percentage of your wealth.  And as for your graph?  Smooth out that bump and you've got a net *increase* in property value over the last few years, so the bubble got popped but your economy didn't sink.  

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).

Back to the uncontrolled six-to-eight year boom/bust cycle that characterized the "natural" state of the economy before economists figured out effective monetary policy, unless I miss my guess.  It was a lot rougher than the ride we've been having since WWII.  

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.

Your faith in the wisdom of crowds is charming, but misplaced.  You can fleece sheep every year.

[justspare]

Banks just want to make money. They do this by giving out loans along with other things. Bitcoin could also adapt to this. Banks just need to agree with using Bitcoin. A lot of people could get Bitcoin loans.

[whored]

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.

Would you be willing to have "everything that can be known"/digitised about" YOU recorded and available to anyone who cares, forever?
Sounds a bit Orwellian to me, but what do I know...

[Evildrum]

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.

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.

In short they'll just treat it as one more currency.  One that has its own slightly peculiar inter-bank settling channel.  

Pay day loans are around because banks refuse to deal with people that are going to potentially forfeit their amount owing.
This should tell you how excepting a bank is of stepping into a new rung of finance,the regulation is the death of bitcoin in my eyes.
You hand them that and its time to go back to the drawing board for a currency outside the government and the banking system.
The point for me is that bitcoin has the potential to work outside both these fields and lately I keep reading people wanting to submit,for what?

[Harpua]

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.

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.

In short they'll just treat it as one more currency.  One that has its own slightly peculiar inter-bank settling channel.  

Pay day loans are around because banks refuse to deal with people that are going to potentially forfeit their amount owing.
This should tell you how excepting a bank is of stepping into a new rung of finance,the regulation is the death of bitcoin in my eyes.
You hand them that and its time to go back to the drawing board for a currency outside the government and the banking system.
The point for me is that bitcoin has the potential to work outside both these fields and lately I keep reading people wanting to submit,for what?

That's also a very good point... People tend to want to just stop everything that Bitcoin users have been advocating for years, and that's to create a system without banks.  People want the secure feeling of a "government backed" currency I guess... even though I would trust millions of other people world wide before trusting a few old crusty folks up on the hill secretly dealing plans behind close doors.

Then on the other side, I mean what happens to people who need to take out loans to start up businesses or to go to school to get a college education? 

There is a lot to consider when thinking about trying to take down a very fundamental part of normal everyday life for billions of people world wide... A lot of stuff could go horribly wrong, but then again, the current central banking system isn't really cutting it either...

[Blackmet]

Any currency that can make money for bank can't be hated. Bitcoin is one of an exceptions and banks really hate it, but it's seems very stupid to do this. Banks need to try to take control on bitcoin, but i don't know how 

[streazight]

banks dont hate bitcoins

[practicaldreamer]

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.

The £45billion was less than the replacement value for a £65billion bezzle....It was distributed throughout the economy, in everybody's pockets, including the fatcats.

It was used to quadruple household and personal debt.







  

When they printed more money, the fatcats' holdings were devalued way more than the ordinary taxpayers'.

Possibly - but the relative gap between the have and have nots has increased post 2008. You could say that inequality has spiralled off the back of it.

My brother in law is making real interest payments on collateral in his property that no longer exists. If it no longer exists (the £25k negative equity) how about the banks wiping it off his outstanding mortgage ?  Private debt is the ongoing problem here that is subduing growth - but we are all being told its public debt (which entails austerity and cuts to public services and welfare)  

 

You can fleece sheep every year.

You can - but in this day and age it costs around 20% more to shear a sheep than you'll get for the fleece  

[Denker]

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21694531-all-money-spent-technology-banking-not-efficient-high-tech-meets-low?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/high_tech_meets_low_finance

The international payments system still looks like a “spaghetti junction”, in the words of Andrew Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, with money passing through several hands on the way from payer to recipient. The annual revenues earned by the banking system for processing payments are huge, at $1.7 trillion, and rising (see chart).

One reason for this inefficiency is that technology has been tacked on to a centuries-old banking model. Much bank spending on technology is devoted to maintaining existing systems, a desperate effort to keep the show on the road.

Hence the hype around “fintech”—the hope that the whole system can be overhauled by disruptive innovators, much as Uber is revolutionising the taxi business and Airbnb is taking on hotels. Fintech firms operate in many areas, from digital payments to automated wealth management. But at a London Business School conference this week, the greatest excitement was reserved for blockchain technology. A blockchain is a “distributed ledger” under which transaction records are held by a wide number of participants in a network; it is the technology behind Bitcoin, a digital currency.

[whored]

...
My brother in law is making real interest payments on collateral in his property that no longer exists. If it no longer exists (the £25k negative equity) how about the banks wiping it off his outstanding mortgage ?

Your brother-in-law made some disastrously bad financial choices, apparently. As did the banksters.
Oddly enough, if banks collapse, they take down your country's economy with them. Your brother-in-law"? Not so much.

Tell your brother-in-law to consider personal bankruptcy, that's sorta like bailout for small-time losers.

[GreenBits]

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.

This. With the amount of money in bitcoin being so little compared to other currency markets, banks don't really have an incentive to block or hinder bitcoin. It's more concerning because of the aml/kyc issues it raises, which is why banks are embracing the technology and not the protocol.

[practicaldreamer]

Your brother-in-law made some disastrously bad financial choices, apparently.

Yes - him and half a million other UK households still in negative equity - not to mention those who sold at a loss. But to suggest that it was a choice on his/their part is to misunderstand the debt based economy.



Kind of reminds me of The Great Depression/the Installment Plan. History repeating. The punctual always have to pay the price for the tardy - or, to put it another way, the little guy always picks up the bill.

Banks could issue promissory notes backed by bitcoin ie. credit - but in the event of a default there would be none of the traditional (Friedman monetarist) solutions. It would help to rewrite the question - and so the answer- in large ,clear, legible and bold text.

    BTC

[whored]

Your brother-in-law made some disastrously bad financial choices, apparently.

Yes - him and half a million other UK households still in negative equity - not to mention those who sold at a loss. But to suggest that it was a choice on his/their part is to misunderstand the debt based economy.

[img ]http://www.workableeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MoneyVsDebtProgress-InflAdj1.jpg[/img]

Kind of reminds me of The Great Depression/the Installment Plan. History repeating. The punctual always have to pay the price for the tardy - or, to put it another way, the little guy always picks up the bill.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that your brother-in-law didn't make some disastrously bad financial choices?
He did, unless you consider paying a mortgage on nonexistent property a win.

Since he's making those payments -- not living behind some dumpster; not considering being bailed out himself, via personal bankruptcy, the small-time loser's bailout, he could be doing worse.
Yes, poor people always get the short end of the stick, always have, probably always will. Life's unfair like that, Snowflake. Your brother-in-law, otoh, is far from poor. Half of mankind is living on less than TWO DOLLARS A DAY, you entitled prick.

[erikalui]

I doubt they would accept bitcoins but rather they could have their own crypto currency but I also agree that the tax and volatility issues being resolved would become easier for them to accept. If volatility doesn't exist, there wouldn't be much left for users to choose this currency rather than fiat as both are stable and fiat too can be used online and virtually. It would not even be like shares whose price keeps increasing.


Instead, if the volatility is retained, banks could have separate bitcoin accounts without any interest applied on it but the currency would be taxed only.

[practicaldreamer]

Half of mankind is living on less than TWO DOLLARS A DAY,.

Kind of off topic whore, it has to be said.

But when you consider that of the Nepalese working in Qatar to provide us all with an enjoyable World Cup experience come 2022, they are paying between 3% and 8% of their pitiful earnings to the banks in order to transfer it back home - well, I guess you aren't so off topic after all. And between 3% and 8% of $5.9billion p.a. is not an insubstantial amount.

[If indeed they aren't unfortunate enough to be one of those killed every 2 days on account of the atrocious working conditions in Qatar that is]

[RoommateAgreement]

good points and i want to agree with them.

but at the same time i look at the history and how banks have always been kinda against the bitcoin and only trying to adapt the blockchain, so i can't figure this two face thing out.

[whored]

Half of mankind is living on less than TWO DOLLARS A DAY,.

Kind of off topic whore, it has to be said.

But when you consider that of the Nepalese working in Qatar to provide us all with an enjoyable World Cup experience come 2022, they are paying between 3% and 8% of their pitiful earnings to the banks in order to transfer it back home - well, I guess you aren't so off topic after all. And between 3% and 8% of $5.9billion p.a. is not an insubstantial amount.

[If indeed they aren't unfortunate enough to be one of those killed every 2 days on account of the atrocious working conditions in Qatar that is]

As I said, life is hard, especially for the poor, but not for your loser of a brother-in-law. He clearly isn't working in Qatar, in atrocious working conditions. He's merely paying back the loan on ... I'm'a gonna guess some property he tried to flip & failed. Tough luck.
Chin up, Buttercup!

Regarding the rest, at the risk of repeating myself:

Not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that your brother-in-law didn't make some disastrously bad financial choices?
He did, unless you consider paying a mortgage on nonexistent property a win.

Since he's making those payments -- not living behind some dumpster; not considering being bailed out himself, via personal bankruptcy, the small-time loser's bailout, he could be doing worse.
Yes, poor people always get the short end of the stick, always have, probably always will. Life's unfair like that, Snowflake. Your brother-in-law, otoh, is far from poor. Half of mankind is living on less than TWO DOLLARS A DAY, you entitled prick.

https://49.media.tumblr.com/865cc694e306c68e696e886a34542eeb/tumblr_mramu1s2Rf1ql4e6oo1_250.gif
Next time you feel a fit comin' on, go outside and bitch. Bitch at the air. Bitch at the trees. But don't bitch at us!

[Jeremycoin]

A Bitcoin bank? I think that won't be possible. Even tho if any bank would do that, I'm pretty sure there will only a few people that'll interested by it.

[Denker]

A Bitcoin bank? I think that won't be possible. Even tho if any bank would do that, I'm pretty sure there will only a few people that'll interested by it.

In my opinion we already have a Bitcoin Bank!
Coinbase is doing exactly the same things a bank.You store your coins there and use of them for gambling, they will shut down your account immediately.I think they also had idea to loan out customers coins if I'm not wrong.

[aso118]

A Bitcoin bank? I think that won't be possible. Even tho if any bank would do that, I'm pretty sure there will only a few people that'll interested by it.

You forget that people are greedy.
If a bank offers me interest at very low risk, I would consider giving them custody over my coins.