Arguments against bitcoin vs banking?

[TassosT]

Hello all,

I've only recently started looking into bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and I've found a whole lot of good solid arguments in favor, making a very strong case for them.

But being the eternal sceptic I'd also like to know the position of those opposing them. And so far I haven't found any solid arguments against bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies in general vs traditional banking.

If anyone here has any links to articles/videos or forum posts making valid and plausible arguments against bitcoins/cryptos I'd appreciate if you could share them with me.

Cheers!

Rolo

Just to clarify, I am not talking about arguing bitcoin against other cryprocurrencies, but rather arguments against bitcoin vs traditional banking.

[TassosT]

Surely the transaction fees are way lower than those of the banking system. That's actually one of the arguments in favor of cryptos. Saying they are high compared to other cryptocurrencies or if they could be improved is not an argument against cryptocurrencies as a whole.

[asdlolciterquit]

in my opinion, the most valid argument againt all the crypto, including btc is safety/security.

Too many scam, too many theft and, different fiat coin, there is no way to recover it.

Fiat money can't steal by a virus/malware..

[TassosT]

in my opinion, the most valid argument againt all the crypto, including btc is safety/security.

Too many scam, too many theft and, different fiat coin, there is no way to recover it.

Fiat money can't steal by a virus/malware..

Yes, that's a very good point. I remember how completely paranoid with security I was when I did my first transaction and still didn't feel safe enough.

And though hacking can also happen in a the banking system, they will assume the risk and you won't lose your money.

Food for thought there...

[Fahim]

For people who are not related to computer technology this can really be dangerous. You need to encrypt the keys, clear history of the browser. Do not give anyone your passwords. This is not a bank. The bank has a support service, there is a security service, etc.
Here in the world of crypto currency you are alone. Your wrong act can lead to loss of money. Hackers and virus developers do everything to get money from ordinary people and users. And no one will help you if you are in trouble.

[hieubigkool]

In my opinion, There will be a dispute over the fee transaction between Bitcoin and the banks.
As well as some issues related to security, safety
I hope My opinions can help you !

[sindikat]

Surely the transaction fees are way lower than those of the banking system. That's actually one of the arguments in favor of cryptos. Saying they are high compared to other cryptocurrencies or if they could be improved is not an argument against cryptocurrencies as a whole.

It seems to me that you are making your posts and do not understand the situation. What do you mean bitcoin transactions are cheaper than banking transactions? Lol. If you make a big transaction then it really is, but many people are interested in smaller transactions. Their cost is higher than in the banking system. Why not develop trade bitcoin and each user is forced to use Fiat.

[CETPENCET23]

Hello all,

I've only recently started looking into bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and I've found a whole lot of good solid arguments in favor making a very strong case for them.

But being the eternal sceptic I'd also like to know the position of those opposing them. And so far I haven't found any solid arguments against bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies in general.

If anyone here has any links to articles/videos or forum posts making valid and plausible arguments against bitcoins/cryptos I'd appreciate if you could share them with me.

Cheers!

Rolo

I think you need to encrypt the keys, and Never give anyone your password, because this is so fatal, you will lose all your currency because hackers are everywhere and do various ways to earn money

[ZenaXF]

Bitcoin is an experimental new currency in positive development. Despite its experimental are as it decreases in gradually increasing utilization rate, and but keep in mind that the currency is a new invention, it is to explore the concept of the past has never been tried, so no one can predict the future of the currency.

[Monartis]

Lack of marketing to encourage its actual use, rather than simply being held.

[TassosT]

Surely the transaction fees are way lower than those of the banking system. That's actually one of the arguments in favor of cryptos. Saying they are high compared to other cryptocurrencies or if they could be improved is not an argument against cryptocurrencies as a whole.

It seems to me that you are making your posts and do not understand the situation. What do you mean bitcoin transactions are cheaper than banking transactions? Lol. If you make a big transaction then it really is, but many people are interested in smaller transactions. Their cost is higher than in the banking system. Why not develop trade bitcoin and each user is forced to use Fiat.

As I clearly mentioned I am rather new to bitcoins. So the whole point of me asking is to get more info and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm making a mistake.

But I'm not new to banks, I know what the banking system is about. From your answer however, it's clear you're not very familiar with what banks do. You seem to limit your view of banking transactions to deposits/withdrawal from your account and paying your Netflix bill. That's really not all banks do. And yes, the cost of moving money around with banks is much higher than with bitcoins. Maybe do a bit of research and you'll understand why.

[HeRetiK]

The main argument that I accept against proof of work based cryptocurrencies is the amount of electricity that is consumed.

However I'd argue that it's still nothing compared to the labor and material cost of traditional banking.

[...]

And though hacking can also happen in a the banking system, they will assume the risk and you won't lose your money.

[...]

Well, only to a certain amount. And the cost of those amounts that are covered, is simply spread amongst all of the bank's customers and / or the tax payers. Someone still has to pay in the end.

[TassosT]

The main argument that I accept against proof of work based cryptocurrencies is the amount of electricity that is consumed.

However I'd argue that it's still nothing compared to the labor and material cost of traditional banking.

[...]

And though hacking can also happen in a the banking system, they will assume the risk and you won't lose your money.

[...]

Well, only to a certain amount. And the cost of those amounts that are covered, is simply spread amongst all of the bank's customers and / or the tax payers. Someone still has to pay in the end.

Oh absolutely, nothing is for free with banks They just calculate their risk, add it to their costs and adjust their prices accordingly. But my point was the deposits of the customer (all of them actually) are covered if the bank is hacked. In most cases we never even hear about it as Banks make a point to hide these things carefully.

[Aura]

I think the biggest argument against Bitcoin is the fact that governments don't have any information about the transactions so they can't check whether there should be taxes paid. That's basically why most exchanges now require to upload your documents. But I think there are still many ways to bypass this, because there is still the option to just make the transaction without an exchange. Although I don't think it's much worse than cash, other than the possibility to transfer funds online.

[tuapoma]

hey guys! Why BTC or BCH when you can DASH?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) made a resurgence last week, with many people thinking it might overtake Bitcoin (BTC) in market value. Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Craig Wright (the fake Satoshi) and others were busy promoting and pumping Bitcoin Cash (BCH) last week. Their main argument is that Bitcoin transactions are too expensive and it takes too long to confirm transactions. This assessment is accurate, but I believe it is a temporary condition and that we don’t need a new hard fork of Bitcoin in order to address the issue.

Why? Because several cryptocurrencies already exist that offer very fast transaction speeds at near zero costs. Not only have they been around for years, but they are technologically superior to Bitcoin Cash in many ways. Take a look at the graphic below for a comparison of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and DASH Digital Cash: https://goldstockbull.com/articles/why-bitcoin-cash-when-you-can-dash/

cheers

[TassosT]

I think the biggest argument against Bitcoin is the fact that governments don't have any information about the transactions so they can't check whether there should be taxes paid. That's basically why most exchanges now require to upload your documents. But I think there are still many ways to bypass this, because there is still the option to just make the transaction without an exchange. Although I don't think it's much worse than cash, other than the possibility to transfer funds online.

Indeed, that's the big question now. How will the establishment react. We'll just have to wait and see.

[stompix]

But being the eternal sceptic I'd also like to know the position of those opposing them. And so far I haven't found any solid arguments against bitcoin and the cryptocurrencies in general.

For bitcoin is always the problem of the confirmation time and the high tx.
Same only for bitcoin and some other coin but not all, the possibility of centralization due to mining.

For crypto in general the main problem (although it might be an advantage as well) if the irreversibility of transactions.
Once you send the coins it's done, you get hacked it's done, nobody will be able to get those coins back for you.

[mathiaslivis]

Bitcoin is actually a possibility to subvert the entire banking sector, so the government is very wary of it. Its transaction costs are a problem, but I think it is constantly improving and growing, and these problems will have a good solution.

[TassosT]

hey guys! Why BTC or BCH when you can DASH?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) made a resurgence last week, with many people thinking it might overtake Bitcoin (BTC) in market value. Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Craig Wright (the fake Satoshi) and others were busy promoting and pumping Bitcoin Cash (BCH) last week. Their main argument is that Bitcoin transactions are too expensive and it takes too long to confirm transactions. This assessment is accurate, but I believe it is a temporary condition and that we don’t need a new hard fork of Bitcoin in order to address the issue.

Why? Because several cryptocurrencies already exist that offer very fast transaction speeds at near zero costs. Not only have they been around for years, but they are technologically superior to Bitcoin Cash in many ways. Take a look at the graphic below for a comparison of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and DASH Digital Cash: https://goldstockbull.com/articles/why-bitcoin-cash-when-you-can-dash/

cheers

My question was more about finding plausible arguments against cryptocurrencies in general.  Not really to compare cryptocurrencies between them. If there's a better crypto than bitcoin that's fine. The concept is still valid and that's not an argument against cryptocurrencies.

But glad that you had this opportunity to plug your beloved currency

[HeRetiK]

Oh absolutely, nothing is for free with banks They just calculate their risk, add it to their costs and adjust their prices accordingly. But my point was the deposits of the customer (all of them actually) are covered if the bank is hacked. In most cases we never even hear about it as Banks make a point to hide these things carefully.

That's the thing though -- banks are only insured to a certain amount. For example in Europe (or maybe it's just my country) most saving accounts are "only" covered until EUR 100,000,-. That's still a whole lot of money, but not all of it. Anything you hold in a savings account beyond that amount is basically at counterparty risk. Now banks usually are a lower counterparty risk than say cryptocurrency exchanges, but I guess you get my point.

Apart from that I agree with you.