Merging of bitcoin and banks

[botany]

it will  be great if banks can adopt the blockchain technology but it is impossible for them to do so because they can not show their transactions to everyone and then will never let anyone see each others balance

No, Banks dont need to adopt the blockchain technology because this will make the bank accounts anonymous. How about the government accounts ? What will happen to them ? How to know if this government officials are corrupting the country ? We need to know all the transactions of all the banks in a country and we need to know whos can be punished or not. And bitcoin will always be anonymous no matter what.

The blockchain does not make the banks account anonymous. The banks can correlate the account and user.

Lol this exactly. Is your account number 1234567 anonymous right now? Nope. Neither is your bitcoin address. If you don't know who is behind the address it's still not anonymous as you can follow the transactions. Anonymous would be people passing around a paper wallet and never actually spending it on the blockchain.

Or physical bitcoins (essentially the same thing as a paper wallet). Alternatively, if coinjoin and other privacy-enhancing measures take off, bitcoin's anonymity/pseudonymity could be improved much further.

[pooya87]

it will  be great if banks can adopt the blockchain technology but it is impossible for them to do so because they can not show their transactions to everyone and then will never let anyone see each others balance

No, Banks dont need to adopt the blockchain technology because this will make the bank accounts anonymous. How about the government accounts ? What will happen to them ? How to know if this government officials are corrupting the country ? We need to know all the transactions of all the banks in a country and we need to know whos can be punished or not. And bitcoin will always be anonymous no matter what.

The blockchain does not make the banks account anonymous. The banks can correlate the account and user.

Lol this exactly. Is your account number 1234567 anonymous right now? Nope. Neither is your bitcoin address. If you don't know who is behind the address it's still not anonymous as you can follow the transactions. Anonymous would be people passing around a paper wallet and never actually spending it on the blockchain.

Or physical bitcoins (essentially the same thing as a paper wallet). Alternatively, if coinjoin and other privacy-enhancing measures take off, bitcoin's anonymity/pseudonymity could be improved much further.

first of all why the hell would anybody want to choose changing "bitcoin paper wallet" or "bitcoin physical coins" without sending the transaction on the blockchain while there is this thing called "cash"?

second of all the anonymity is reached as long as the first address of yours is not linked to you personally.  and also there is always a lot of other solutions for more anonymity.

[Ziskinberg]

it will  be great if banks can adopt the blockchain technology but it is impossible for them to do so because they can not show their transactions to everyone and then will never let anyone see each others balance

No, Banks dont need to adopt the blockchain technology because this will make the bank accounts anonymous. How about the government accounts ? What will happen to them ? How to know if this government officials are corrupting the country ? We need to know all the transactions of all the banks in a country and we need to know whos can be punished or not. And bitcoin will always be anonymous no matter what.

The blockchain does not make the banks account anonymous. The banks can correlate the account and user.

Lol this exactly. Is your account number 1234567 anonymous right now? Nope. Neither is your bitcoin address. If you don't know who is behind the address it's still not anonymous as you can follow the transactions. Anonymous would be people passing around a paper wallet and never actually spending it on the blockchain.

Or physical bitcoins (essentially the same thing as a paper wallet). Alternatively, if coinjoin and other privacy-enhancing measures take off, bitcoin's anonymity/pseudonymity could be improved much further.

first of all why the hell would anybody want to choose changing "bitcoin paper wallet" or "bitcoin physical coins" without sending the transaction on the blockchain while there is this thing called "cash"?

second of all the anonymity is reached as long as the first address of yours is not linked to you personally.  and also there is always a lot of other solutions for more anonymity.

Exactly, but for me, I think why people like to use bitcoin in transaction is because they have a choice to stay anonymous of divulge there personal information, unlike banks that you are required to submit your identity in all transactions.

[tonythat]

It's very complex question that I'm back and BTC together since the merger of the two functions are different. Banks lent by the people and can be taken. Maybe not by the B TC future I hope I am, these are merged together will reach the sky btc

[bostiog1]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

[Ultrabat]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

That could be right. Banks can use anything to make profit. Money is just one medium/tool. They can use bitcoin as well.

[ASHLIUSZ]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

That could be right. Banks can use anything to make profit. Money is just one medium/tool. They can use bitcoin as well.

The use of Bitcoin by more people will attract the attention of media and that will force the banks to acknowledge Bitcoin and accept it on the same terms as hard currency.

[PancherBitCoin]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

That could be right. Banks can use anything to make profit. Money is just one medium/tool. They can use bitcoin as well.

The use of Bitcoin by more people will attract the attention of media and that will force the banks to acknowledge Bitcoin and accept it on the same terms as hard currency.

To banks began to recognize cryptocurrency, it should be more or less stable course. In the latter event with bitfinex, we see that the price of bitcoin depends not only on many factors, but also on the individual case, and banks to risk their finances will not. They are more suitable stability.

[cpfreeplz]

it will  be great if banks can adopt the blockchain technology but it is impossible for them to do so because they can not show their transactions to everyone and then will never let anyone see each others balance

No, Banks dont need to adopt the blockchain technology because this will make the bank accounts anonymous. How about the government accounts ? What will happen to them ? How to know if this government officials are corrupting the country ? We need to know all the transactions of all the banks in a country and we need to know whos can be punished or not. And bitcoin will always be anonymous no matter what.

The blockchain does not make the banks account anonymous. The banks can correlate the account and user.

Lol this exactly. Is your account number 1234567 anonymous right now? Nope. Neither is your bitcoin address. If you don't know who is behind the address it's still not anonymous as you can follow the transactions. Anonymous would be people passing around a paper wallet and never actually spending it on the blockchain.

Or physical bitcoins (essentially the same thing as a paper wallet). Alternatively, if coinjoin and other privacy-enhancing measures take off, bitcoin's anonymity/pseudonymity could be improved much further.

first of all why the hell would anybody want to choose changing "bitcoin paper wallet" or "bitcoin physical coins" without sending the transaction on the blockchain while there is this thing called "cash"?

second of all the anonymity is reached as long as the first address of yours is not linked to you personally.  and also there is always a lot of other solutions for more anonymity.

Mk champ let me dumb this down for you...

http://bitcoinsimplified.org/learn-more/anonymity/

As I was explaining, it's pseudonymous, not anonymous. If one of your addresses was 'outed' in the future people could link all of your other addresses with it. That's what the blockchain is. Get educated before trying to come accross like you know more than someone else.

[deisik]

Yes this is most likely how things will eventually play out. It's a little sad that so many here see in Bitcoin a means to stand against the government. How can Bitcoin fight the government when it's very existence depend on infrastructure/resources owned and maintained by the government? The government doesn't even need to acknowledge Bitcoin, it can simply turn around and absorb Bitcoin in its entirety and reconfigure it to its cause.
The government is but a reflection of the individual. The solution to government control lies not on the outside but rather on the inside

These resources and the infrastructure built on them and using them in no case belongs to the government. A government (or those who de-facto control the government) is essentially a group of people which openly or not so openly usurped power and then pretends that it obtained this power in a legitimate way. Legitimate ways may vary from country to country, though, lol...

But the homespun truth is that the real power is always taken and never given

[Herbert2020]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

That could be right. Banks can use anything to make profit. Money is just one medium/tool. They can use bitcoin as well.

The use of Bitcoin by more people will attract the attention of media and that will force the banks to acknowledge Bitcoin and accept it on the same terms as hard currency.

To banks began to recognize cryptocurrency, it should be more or less stable course. In the latter event with bitfinex, we see that the price of bitcoin depends not only on many factors, but also on the individual case, and banks to risk their finances will not. They are more suitable stability.

this whole topic was started based on a big misunderstanding of OP. you have to first understand the difference between bitcoin and blockchain.

as the title of the article suggest clearly and also based on my experience of what i have seen from the banks and financial institutes so far, they are only interested in blockchain which is the technology and they want to adopt that not bitcoin, which means they will create their own chain just as an altcoin has its own chain.

[deisik]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

That could be right. Banks can use anything to make profit. Money is just one medium/tool. They can use bitcoin as well.

The use of Bitcoin by more people will attract the attention of media and that will force the banks to acknowledge Bitcoin and accept it on the same terms as hard currency.

To banks began to recognize cryptocurrency, it should be more or less stable course. In the latter event with bitfinex, we see that the price of bitcoin depends not only on many factors, but also on the individual case, and banks to risk their finances will not. They are more suitable stability.

this whole topic was started based on a big misunderstanding of OP. you have to first understand the difference between bitcoin and blockchain.

as the title of the article suggest clearly and also based on my experience of what i have seen from the banks and financial institutes so far, they are only interested in blockchain which is the technology and they want to adopt that not bitcoin, which means they will create their own chain just as an altcoin has its own chain.

More generally, they may not even want to create a sort of altcoin. Why would they want that if they already have Visas and Mastercards? They apparently are more interested in using blockchain to build some decentralized infrastructure for their own (most likely nefarious) purposes...

For example, to keep a real-time track of all their debtors and insolvents (to avoid "double-spends", as it were)

[~Bitcoin~]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

Bank seem stable but they are not. If you are talking about value of fiat cash stable than the value cash have were determined by banks and government which is almost centralized decision. While as bitcoin value is determined by community,which is more realistic and fair system.

[deisik]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

Bank seem stable but they are not. If you are talking about value of fiat cash stable than the value cash have were determined by banks and government which is almost centralized decision. While as bitcoin value is determined by community,which is more realistic and fair system.

Banks, or rather a banking system with a Central Bank at the head, are an integral part of a state. So saying that banks are not stable is equal to saying that state is not stable, that is, any state is not stable...

This is no more than a sweeping erroneous generalization in form and meaningless claim in essence

[Wind_FURY]

Many have said that bitcoin will destroy and will bring an end to banking institutions but i read this article and find out that bitcoin will not destroy banks instead it will empower them.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/blockchain-empower-banks/

I will qoute some

"R3 has managed to organize every major western bank together on a project designed to imitate blockchain technology as it exists in Bitcoin. These firms are open-minded as to how this final form will take, even suggesting they could re-invent security altogether in pursuit of new banking systems.

Financial institutions are not going to surrender their industry. And consumers will appreciate easy-to-use more efficient systems of the future in banking."

So is it feasible or not?

Bitcoin was designed so that there would be no need for banks. We ourselves will have absolute control of our money. If you decide to use it or not is up to you. Let us just say that BTC is a safer alternative compared to banks but it is not out there to destroy them.

With R3 saying that they will utilize blockchain technology, surely that will be beneficial to them and their clients. They could even invent new types of products and services. So there's no problem. Actually it is good for society as a whole.

[Ultrabat]

Many have said that bitcoin will destroy and will bring an end to banking institutions but i read this article and find out that bitcoin will not destroy banks instead it will empower them.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/blockchain-empower-banks/

I will qoute some

"R3 has managed to organize every major western bank together on a project designed to imitate blockchain technology as it exists in Bitcoin. These firms are open-minded as to how this final form will take, even suggesting they could re-invent security altogether in pursuit of new banking systems.

Financial institutions are not going to surrender their industry. And consumers will appreciate easy-to-use more efficient systems of the future in banking."

So is it feasible or not?

Bitcoin was designed so that there would be no need for banks. We ourselves will have absolute control of our money. If you decide to use it or not is up to you. Let us just say that BTC is a safer alternative compared to banks but it is not out there to destroy them.

With R3 saying that they will utilize blockchain technology, surely that will be beneficial to them and their clients. They could even invent new types of products and services. So there's no problem. Actually it is good for society as a whole.

Maybe it is not intended to be used with banks. But with banks, the bitcoin will prosper. The banks are regulated, much safer than scam sites.

[Ewinsane]

This merger is a recipe for disaster on both sides.
Bitcoin was meant to be a free form of payments on a global scale.
While the banks are the exact opposite being a fee charing/ pay for everything that is offered (no freebies for any of their services)/ conglomerate of an institution that does not like to be global. Just look at how much they charge you to send money to anyone overseas!  :
Does bitcoin currently face any of these problems? No!
But that might change if the banks have anything to do with it! I guaranteed this to anyone who says differently.

[deisik]

This merger is a recipe for disaster on both sides.
Bitcoin was meant to be a free form of payments on a global scale.
While the banks are the exact opposite being a fee charing/ pay for everything that is offered (no freebies for any of their services)/ conglomerate of an institution that does not like to be global. Just look at how much they charge you to send money to anyone overseas!  :
Does bitcoin currently face any of these problems? No!
But that might change if the banks have anything to do with it! I guaranteed this to anyone who says differently.

Your guarantee is not worth a dime

The difference between banks using fiat and banks using Bitcoin is that you basically can't send fiat to another side of the world without banks or similar payment systems. But it is entirely different with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a payment system in its own right, so no one can force you to use banking services if you want to send your bitcoins, say, from Europe to America. If banks are going to charge hefty commissions for sending bitcoins, no one will be using them. As simple as it gets. Why do you think web wallets pay the transaction fees for their clients?

[Xester]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

Bitcoin may not be able to destroy banks since banks adopts to new technology, but soon they will be competing with bitcoins or enjoy surcharges in converting bitcoins to cash.

To say banks is stable it is not very a reliable statement, many banks have already closed. It just means that no financial institution are stable enough to survive forever and so is bitcoin.

Well, soon banks will be the one to launch btc atm in big projects if cryptocurrency is at its height and Im looking froward to it.

[deisik]

Bitcoin will not destroy any bank. Bitcoin is not very stable, while banks are more stable

Bitcoin may not be able to destroy banks since banks adopts to new technology, but soon they will be competing with bitcoins or enjoy surcharges in converting bitcoins to cash.

To say banks is stable it is not very a reliable statement, many banks have already closed. It just means that no financial institution are stable enough to survive forever and so is bitcoin

Any single bank is not reliable of course, but we should always remember at least two things in this regard. First, there are banks that are considered by the government as "too big too fail", so they are basically insured by the government at large. This is not very good for the economy on the whole (laissez-faire economy and such things), but quite good for their clients. If such a bank fails, its losses are socialized, i.e. paid by the ordinary tax-payers. And, second, banks are an integral part of the bigger banking system (read your deposits are insured by all the banks in the system), and this system with a central bank at its top is pretty stable...

In fact, it is as stable as the government itself, economically-wise at least