Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:02:59 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: New block chain owned by the banksters?  (Read 2159 times)
mpfrank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247


Cosmic Cubist


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 06:49:09 AM
 #1

I just had a troubling thought...  Bear with me for a scenario.

What if some smart person high up in the echelons of international banking took a close look at Bitcoin, and said, "You know, this would be a great mechanism for storing bank reserves, to handle inter-bank transfers and international settlements, to back sovereign currencies and make hyperinflation impossible, etc., etc."

They then convince their higher-ups at the World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, Bank of International Settlements, etc., to, by group consensus (and pressure on the world's governments, their puppets), institute a new kind of "gold standard," but one that was based on easily transferable, easily verifiable Bitcoins instead of on actual gold.

But, they consider, why give all the early adopters of the existing Bitcoin network a handout?  Let's instead just start a brand-new block chain, and a brand-new peer-to-peer network (from scratch), and agree among ourselves to use it instead of the existing one.  Outsiders (outside the financial industry) could be locked out of the new network, by some proprietary VPN with a login scheme known only within the banker old-boy network, never to be leaked (under penalty of Uncle Guido from Sicily coming to your house and breaking all your family's legs).

These "New Bitcoins" would exist only at the "back end" of the international banking system, and would never be seen by most people (any more than gold bullion is today).  Ordinary Dollars and Euros and so forth might come to be backed by them, and be theoretically convertible to them, but most people wouldn't be able to do so (because they don't have access to the bankers' internal network which is the only place that exchanges them).

So, the point of this post is, I'm worried that instead of *ever* accepting *our* (today's) Bitcoins, the bankers would just do the above instead - because it maintains power and control of the monetary system in their hands.  They are all about power.

Any thoughts?

If all the sovereign non-cryptocurrencies will eventually collapse from hyperinflation, you can't afford *not* to invest in Bitcoin...  See my blog at http://minetopics.blogspot.com/ .

Donations accepted at:  17twYNyqTiCTM2gJmumkytvhZh4sCVSKNH
1481191379
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191379

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191379
Reply with quote  #2

1481191379
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 06:53:59 AM
 #2

A new restricted chain is not as good as an old open chain. It's just a bunch of bits, it gets it's value from people wanting to have it.

If you want to restrict access just pick someone to hold the database. What you describe has the expense of hashing and not the benefit of being decentralized.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
cunicula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Stack-overflow Guru


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 06:56:36 AM
 #3

Currently the reserve currency is the USD. I hope you don't mind if I am a little flippant.

World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, Bank of International Settlements = Bitches of the US gov't

US gov't = happy that the reserve currency is the USD.

New plan = could open up opportunity for countries like China, Russia, which don't like using USD a reserve currency

->

World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, Bank of International Settlements = "status quo helps maintain stability of international financial markets"


I'd be more worried about private entrepreneurs developing a better bitcoin rather than the gov't doing it.

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
        AltCoinInternalExperts                Get Your Altcoin Promoted On Social Media       
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
mpfrank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247


Cosmic Cubist


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 07:03:31 AM
 #4

A new restricted chain is not as good as an old open chain. It's just a bunch of bits, it gets it's value from people wanting to have it.

If the bankers all agreed to use it as their reserve currency, *they'd* want to have it.  All the banks would set up big mining rigs in their basements.  Smiley

Quote
If you want to restrict access just pick someone to hold the database. What you describe has the expense of hashing and not the benefit of being decentralized.

It would be decentralized to a limited extent, among the banks.  It would not necessarily be any smaller than today's network.  Suppose today there are 60,000 nodes (number of Mt. Gox accounts).  There are probably at least that many banks in the world.

If all the sovereign non-cryptocurrencies will eventually collapse from hyperinflation, you can't afford *not* to invest in Bitcoin...  See my blog at http://minetopics.blogspot.com/ .

Donations accepted at:  17twYNyqTiCTM2gJmumkytvhZh4sCVSKNH
faille
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 07:04:15 AM
 #5

bitcoin gets it's value from being open source and transparent. Having a closed system that uses sometime similar loses a lot of that value.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 07:05:33 AM
 #6


BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 08:40:36 AM
 #7

A new restricted chain is not as good as an old open chain. It's just a bunch of bits, it gets it's value from people wanting to have it.

If the bankers all agreed to use it as their reserve currency, *they'd* want to have it.  All the banks would set up big mining rigs in their basements.  Smiley

Quote
If you want to restrict access just pick someone to hold the database. What you describe has the expense of hashing and not the benefit of being decentralized.

It would be decentralized to a limited extent, among the banks.  It would not necessarily be any smaller than today's network.  Suppose today there are 60,000 nodes (number of Mt. Gox accounts).  There are probably at least that many banks in the world.

Why would a bank want to hold these things? They can't loan them out to people, they can't buy stuff from people. It's just a database to them and it may as well not be in a block chain.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 08:58:44 AM
 #8

Nobody wants a currency that cannot be inflated EXCEPT PRODUCTIVE HUMAN BEINGS. Except a network of productive human beings.

The reserve currency is a burden that no country wants, provided the country as an entity, could think.

China, if it wants today, can overthrow the USD without any issues. It has a huge manufacturing capacity. With the Yuan, you can buy almost every manufactured good in the world. Yet China is only slowly expanding the usage of the yuan in trade, because it is afraid that seeing the future, a bunch of speculators will come and buy the yuan, reducing any cost advantage that chinese exporters have.

China has NUCLEAR WEAPONS, people. China is not afraid of the US dollar becoming too expensive, China is afraid of the US dollar becoming too cheap. If it were not for their relentless purchasing of treasury bonds, the USD would have become toilet paper a long time ago.

If the bank coin gets created, what is the incentive of the powerful to give up their trust based system to move to a non-trust based system, a proof-of-work system? In the trust based system, they are king, in a non-trust based system, they are another node.

If bankers wanted a non-inflationary system, they could have stuck to gold.

becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 12:49:00 PM
 #9

The reserve currency is a burden that no country wants, provided the country as an entity, could think.
This is completely wrong. If your domestic currency is the world reserve currency as well this is not a burden, but a huge competitive advantage! Some countries are even willing to start wars to keep the status quo.

18sNtvUmtW6nrQXfYt1wvviGockSWxhPBX
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
June 29, 2011, 12:58:04 PM
 #10

It turns out that various people high up in the echelons of intergalactic banking took a close look at Bitcoin, and said, "You know, this would be a great mechanism for storing bank reserves, to handle inter-bank transfers and intergalactic settlements, to back sovereign currencies and make hyperinflation impossible, etc., etc.", thus giving rise to Martian BotCoins, United Kingdom Britcoins, Canadian Digital Notes, CZech Bitcoins, {galactic|} United Nations Shares and on and on and on.

So don't worry about a few puny earthling bankers on one puny planet in one minor galaxy, they are not nearly as important as some of them might like to think they are.

-MarkM-



Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
TraderTimm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 03:05:51 PM
 #11

Banks are ponderously slow organizations. They fear new things, mostly because it has taken them so long to even integrate technology like Automated Teller Machines, and they don't like change. (Or spending anything on change. Don't snort, try working in an IT department in a bank. Bare minimum budget.)

They already have a method to transfer money on a private network. It's called SWIFT.

http://www.swift.com/about_swift/index.page?

What we're trying to do is circumvent them entirely, and we will, it just takes some time to have the idea percolate completely through the internet out into the world. Don't worry about concocting scenarios where bitcoin fails, rather, try to conceive of ways bitcoin can be integrated into transactions 'out there'.

The rest will follow, naturally.

fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 04:04:26 PM
 #12

Banks are ponderously slow organizations. They fear new things, mostly because it has taken them so long to even integrate technology like Automated Teller Machines, and they don't like change. (Or spending anything on change. Don't snort, try working in an IT department in a bank. Bare minimum budget.)

They already have a method to transfer money on a private network. It's called SWIFT.

http://www.swift.com/about_swift/index.page?


True, and SWIFT sucks. I pay fees of 0.5-1%, I have to submit EVERY TIME anti-money laundering documentation to prove that I am not an elephant, my money disappears for a few days, and they magically appear in the receiver's account. In the meantime, NOBODY can answer where is the money. It's supposed to be "moving". Plus I need to ask EVERY TIME for the bank to send me a receipt.

WAIT!!! Eureka !!! Maybe they are already using Bitcoin and they are waiting for 120 block confirmations !!!!! That's why it takes so long. Bastards...

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
beeph
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 04:41:27 PM
 #13

what you probably consider lots of money like 30 million to some early founders is nothing to a bank and they wouldnt even flinch at it..
many startup companies are valued in the billions when the banks come in and start buying shares/IPO'ing them

if they start a new block chain it will be for some other reason, the early founders having some chump change wont even enter their decision making process.

blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
June 30, 2011, 10:14:29 AM
 #14

The reserve currency is a burden that no country wants, provided the country as an entity, could think.
This is completely wrong. If your domestic currency is the world reserve currency as well this is not a burden, but a huge competitive advantage! Some countries are even willing to start wars to keep the status quo.

It is an advantage to the currency issuers, but not to those whose costs are denominated in that currency - which basically means almost all productive people in that country.
The only way that people will be happy with having a reserve currency is if the newly issued money is given to them.

mpfrank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 247


Cosmic Cubist


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 02:51:18 PM
 #15

what you probably consider lots of money like 30 million to some early founders is nothing to a bank and they wouldnt even flinch at it..
many startup companies are valued in the billions when the banks come in and start buying shares/IPO'ing them

if they start a new block chain it will be for some other reason, the early founders having some chump change wont even enter their decision making process.


If Bitcoin truly took over the world economy, the founders' piece of it would no longer be chump change.  There is ~$2 trillion in physical US bills (Benjamins etc.) out there, and only at most about 20 million BTC, so if Bitcoin was as widely used (as a base currency) as the US dollar is, then each BTC would be worth ~$100,000.  So, if Satoshi (for example) holds something like 1 million BTC, then he becomes worth the equivalent of *100 BILLION* US dollars.  Not that he doesn't deserve it.  Cheesy

If all the sovereign non-cryptocurrencies will eventually collapse from hyperinflation, you can't afford *not* to invest in Bitcoin...  See my blog at http://minetopics.blogspot.com/ .

Donations accepted at:  17twYNyqTiCTM2gJmumkytvhZh4sCVSKNH
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!