[2017-06-19] Why banks need to start offering cryptocurrency wallets

[bbc.reporter]

Do you agree or disagree with this article? I am sure some of you will believe anything just to see that price of bitcoin go up to reach new all time highs. But the writer of the article did not do his research when he said that bitcoin is efficient in money movement. He did not take into account all those miners wasting energy to secure the blockchain. Someone should tell him that bitcoin is the most inefficient way of moving money on the internet.



But the immediate settlement of currency transfer on blockchains (such as Bitcoin and Etherium) is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s incredibly efficient at money movement; on the other, it allows bad players to transfer your cryotcurrency with the same speed. And if the wrong person gets unauthorized access to your cryptocurrency holdings and transfers the currencies to their own wallet, there will be no getting it back.

Read the article https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/18/why-banks-need-to-start-offering-cryptocurrency-wallets/

[1714318246]

1714318246

[1714318246]

1714318246

[1714318246]

1714318246

[1714318246]

1714318246

[1714318246]

1714318246

[1714318246]

1714318246

[CryptoBry]

Right now, we have the scaling problem and still clogged transactions on the blockchain that is why soon the Bitcoin community would be implementing the agreed solutions to these challenges. Once this can be over, then Bitcoin can be back being healthy and robust and can transfer money as fast as lightning as it should be.

I now understand that even the best technology in the whole world will need to upgrade inorder to avoid overload. Bitcoin right now is worldwide and the transactions are getting to be bigger and bigger.

[deeplink]

> Etherium

Misspelling the name of the technology is not a very promising start of the article.

[Iranus]

> Etherium

Misspelling the name of the technology is not a very promising start of the article.

It's not even a typo either, since the letter e is ages away from i on the keyboard...
The aim of banks will increasingly be a power grab, in the same way that some online wallets are already starting to do.

Coinbase tries to alleviate the pressure of transaction fees by having their own offchain transactions - people who think they're with Bitcoin for "freedom" might start using this or a bank-based equivalent, in which case the aim of Bitcoin would be lost.

[o0o0]

i wonder if banks running customer wallets will be a future possibility. sort of like an insurance scheme in a way. for those not comfortable protecting their bitcoin funds they can pay a yearly fee to be insured, protected and have the risk shifted. doubled up with 2fa that isnt a text message it could help adoption. banks can all cross insure each other to spread risk.

[bbc.reporter]

> Etherium

Misspelling the name of the technology is not a very promising start of the article.

It's not even a typo either, since the letter e is ages away from i on the keyboard...
The aim of banks will increasingly be a power grab, in the same way that some online wallets are already starting to do.

Coinbase tries to alleviate the pressure of transaction fees by having their own offchain transactions - people who think they're with Bitcoin for "freedom" might start using this or a bank-based equivalent, in which case the aim of Bitcoin would be lost.

Not only that, online exchanges and web wallets can hurt the fungibility of bitcoin by banning coins coming from gambling sites and other places or that they do not like. Read the article about Coinbase banning a white hat hacker's account for paying ransom to get back people's data. http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-white-hat-hacker-dont-want-bitcoin/

[Taki]

As it's written in the article "Banks are reliable alternatives because people trust them" and it's true. But to me all this looks as one more try to make bitcoin centralized and to government could see all my bitcoin earnings and push me to pay taxes for this kind of earnings too.

[1Referee]

As it's written in the article "Banks are reliable alternatives because people trust them" and it's true.

For you it might be true, but that's not the case in general. Over the last 10 or so years the confidence that people have in banks has only decreased, where each time a newer low has been set. Seriously, banksters are just toying with your money on the financial market, and you have to swallow every negative consequence that might be attached to their actions. Governments in financially difficult circumstances can opt for a general haircut of x percentage of people's savings and all, just to make up for their debt. In case you think you can quickly withdraw your funds from the bank, the bank will just be an extended arm of the government, and freeze everything you have. People are sick and tired of this, and that's why Bitcoin can bring them an ultimate form of financial freedom.

I am quite sure that a lot noobs see this as great news. Point however is that as long you aren't the sole owner of your private keys, you will always rely on whatever central authority to not turn its back on you... If you are looking for a total form of freedom, avoid online wallet services, avoid leaving your coins in your exchange account, don't make use of address generation sites, etc. Sure, they offer a good amount of convenience, but I never put convenience over total control of what I hold.

[Kprawn]

Banks fcked up the world economy and they were bailed out with taxpayers money.. Why would we want to trust them with Crypto currencies? A

popular misconception is that big corporations are interested in Bitcoin and Ethereum, but in reality they are more interested in using the tech

behind it to increase their profits. Banks will develop a Blockchain based technology and/or something similar to Ethereum to serve their needs,

but this technology must be under their centralized control. 

[SvenBomvolen]

Banks fcked up the world economy and they were bailed out with taxpayers money.. Why would we want to trust them with Crypto currencies? A

popular misconception is that big corporations are interested in Bitcoin and Ethereum, but in reality they are more interested in using the tech

behind it to increase their profits. Banks will develop a Blockchain based technology and/or something similar to Ethereum to serve their needs,

but this technology must be under their centralized control. 

There is no doubt in that. I'm sure it's not peoples' needs are standing behind this, it's only banks' interest which is based on profit and control.

[richardsNY]

People shouldn't want this to happen, but I am afraid that the demand for something like this will be there anyway. It's not that long ago that a Scandinavian internet bank decided to allow people to connect their Coinbase account to their bank account. It would give people the ability to see their crypto balance alongside their fiat balances through their internet banking interface. This article basically points at the next step -- banks being some sort of an online wallet service themselves.

[Siren]

As it's written in the article "Banks are reliable alternatives because people trust them" and it's true. But to me all this looks as one more try to make bitcoin centralized and to government could see all my bitcoin earnings and push me to pay taxes for this kind of earnings too.

LOL mate. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. How can you trust banks if they are charging you interest, or some banks have hidden chargers that you will be surprised. That's why most of us here hated banks and like the de centralized attributes of bitcoin. You are your own bank. No authority.

[bbc.reporter]

Banks fcked up the world economy and they were bailed out with taxpayers money.. Why would we want to trust them with Crypto currencies? A

popular misconception is that big corporations are interested in Bitcoin and Ethereum, but in reality they are more interested in using the tech

behind it to increase their profits. Banks will develop a Blockchain based technology and/or something similar to Ethereum to serve their needs,

but this technology must be under their centralized control. 

If the technology must be under their centralized control then why use a blockchain? There are some known Bitcoiners now who argue that it would be cheaper and more efficient for them to use a shared database.

In your opinion, why do they want a blockchain which is known to have problems with scalability?

[gueorguiev]

I feel as if it's useless to have a bank release a wallet. We spent all this time developing bitcoin to get the control out of the banks hands and into the users, and now that article is suggesting putting control back into the banks hands, good luck.