Can the idea of creating a Bitcoin Bank solve the problem of transactions?

[Palmerson]

Everyone understands that without solving problems with the time of confirmation of the transaction and their price, bitcoin can not develop. The idea of segwit2x did not receive the support of miners. Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit. The functionality should be similar to the stock exchange. Inside the Bank bitcoin can be moved instantly and for a small fee. Coins at the time of the transaction should be frozen and the transaction can be closed only after confirmation by both parties. To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence. Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

[1715477777]

1715477777

[1715477777]

1715477777

[1715477777]

1715477777

[stompix]

Everyone understands that without solving problems with the time of confirmation of the transaction and their price, bitcoin can not develop. The idea of segwit2x did not receive the support of miners. Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit. The functionality should be similar to the stock exchange. Inside the Bank bitcoin can be moved instantly and for a small fee. Coins at the time of the transaction should be frozen and the transaction can be closed only after confirmation by both parties. To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence. Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

So rather that solving problems we concede defeat and we transform bitcoin into digital fiat, and be done with it.
Probably you wanted to use different words for it, but man you nailed it...

Do you think such a system has the right to life?

No, such system doesn't have the right to live and hopefully it will never be born.
For the millionth time, what is the point of ahaving you coins stored in a bank?
It defeats the whole purpose of BTC

[rehydrogenated]

Do you mean make bitcoin into ripple? Why would anyone want that?

I'll concede bitcoin currently has a governance problem. It's ability to change and evolve is important going forward, but we need to find a decentralized solution to the problem, not a centralized one. I'm not even sure what you mean by an audit...how is that necessary?

Eventually bitcoin will solve its problems are be left in the dust. My bet is that the miners gunking up the process will slowly lose power over time, we are already seeing that happen now. There are great examples of how to govern from DAO coins, especially Decred. One of their styles will be adopted eventually.

[Aura]

The purpose of Bitcoin's blockchain is too keep it decentralized, with your system it's not. That might increase the confirmation time, like it does for Ripple but that isn't really considered a decentralized currency. More problems wil follow if you would use it, for example how are you going to do distribution of coins? Also in Bitcoin there shouldn't be one party that can control whether a transaction needs to be frozen or not, that's exactly what the central bank does and what Bitcoin users don't want.

[ivakar]

Do you think such a system has the right to life?

Actually during last couple of month the speed of bitcoin transactions has already improved, haven't you noticed that? now almost btc payments are flying like bullet, comparing to 3 month back. so btc is evolving

[littlebill16]

The fees are already much  lower than they were previously and there are developments in the pipeline to make things even better.

Moving to a bitcoin bank goes against everything that bitcoin aims to be, that's an awful suggestion.

[player514]

Everyone understands that without solving problems with the time of confirmation of the transaction and their price, bitcoin can not develop. The idea of segwit2x did not receive the support of miners. Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit. The functionality should be similar to the stock exchange. Inside the Bank bitcoin can be moved instantly and for a small fee. Coins at the time of the transaction should be frozen and the transaction can be closed only after confirmation by both parties. To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence. Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

I'm sure it would fix some problems, but when you fix that problem using this solution, new problems come up. The main reason for bitcoin's creation was anonymity and secure transactions using blockchain technology. I don't think having centralization was a part of the idea.

It's likely that there will be altcoins (like Ripple) that come out with these ideas, and in that case, it seems like whoever supports the idea of a Bitcoin bank can just move over to those currencies. I don't understand why they have to change Bitcoin to adapt to what they want when there are already currencies that do everything they want if they just look for it.

[oni4an]

Bitcoin is young, I am for the fact that Bitcoin was decentralized and developed faster and more technologically. I hope that with time Bitcoin will be one of the fastest cryptocurrency.

[kil5478]

This would contradict the very idea of crypto currency.
Since the main goal is decintralization and independence from banks.

[daicavung]

Do you think such a system has the right to life?

Actually during last couple of month the speed of bitcoin transactions has already improved, haven't you noticed that? now almost btc payments are flying like bullet, comparing to 3 month back. so btc is evolving

Currently, Segwit is officially incorporated into Blockchain, which greatly alleviates the limitations of Bitcoin. Speed up your transaction with Bitcoin and reduce costs. This is an important milestone for Bitcoin, and now the Bitcoin market has increased the number of investors by 30% over the past.

[Washball]

A Bitcoin bank is not what we are waiting for. We need Bitcoin as a decentralized currency, not a currency that we can get from a bank, even if it's a Bitcoin bank. Developers are working on faster and cheaper transactions, so let's hope we'll see it working soon.

[1Referee]

Moving to a bitcoin bank goes against everything that bitcoin aims to be, that's an awful suggestion.

No need to exaggerate things. It goes against everything that Bitcoin stands for, when you are forced to make use of so called 'Bitcoin banks'. As long as you have the option to choose for that what YOU want to use, there is no such a thing as suppression from a centralized party, and thus it's not against what Bitcoin stands for, and never will be. If you personally don't like centralized parties offering their services to the public, then simply avoid them. If people think it contributes to their overall usability experience, then they will use it. Let people be free to like and choose something they want. Just because you don't like something, or don't see any value in it, won't mean others participating in this market think exactly like you.

[378budiman]

Bitcoin is young, I know the fact that Bitcoin is decentralized and is developing faster and more technologically. The cost is much lower than before and there is development making things better. I hope with time Bitcoin will be one of the fastest crypto.

[franky1]

anyone saying it goes against bitcoins ethos is correct.. but go look into LN hubs and realise thats the direction devs want to take bitcoin

oh and dont forget the cltv - 1-3 business day fund maturity before being able to spend
oh and dond forget the csv - chargeback

[Bonsaiav]

Maybe Segwit2x doesn't provide benefits to the miners but according to the information I heard some miners have agreed to use the lightning network (LN), Whether other miners will not support as well? .... Because LN is able to minimize transaction fees even into 0 %.

[Aura]

anyone saying it goes against bitcoins ethos is correct.. but go look into LN hubs and realise thats the direction devs want to take bitcoin

oh and dont forget the cltv - 1-3 business day fund maturity before being able to spend
oh and dond forget the csv - chargeback

Don't forget that Lighting is just a second layer, meaning that you don't have to use it. Every person that uses Lightning, means less space on the blockchain. In essence you'll have the benefits of Lightning without using it, so why would care? Also the people that already use services like Coinbase won't have more centralization than they already have.

[FrueGreads]

Everyone understands that without solving problems with the time of confirmation of the transaction and their price, bitcoin can not develop. The idea of segwit2x did not receive the support of miners. Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit. The functionality should be similar to the stock exchange. Inside the Bank bitcoin can be moved instantly and for a small fee. Coins at the time of the transaction should be frozen and the transaction can be closed only after confirmation by both parties. To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence. Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

What you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you try to centralize bitcoin? What's the point in having bitcoin if it would look like fiat, and the need for a third party (or bank) to verify transactions would exist.
We already have a solution for the scalability problem, and we just need to be patient and wait for it's implementation to be complete. We already have a lot of nodes running on the main net, and it's very promising. The fees are very low, to almost non existent, and the transactions as just super fast or instant, so what else do you need?

[franky1]

anyone saying it goes against bitcoins ethos is correct.. but go look into LN hubs and realise thats the direction devs want to take bitcoin

oh and dont forget the cltv - 1-3 business day fund maturity before being able to spend
oh and dond forget the csv - chargeback

Don't forget that Lighting is just a second layer, meaning that you don't have to use it. Every person that uses Lightning, means less space on the blockchain. In essence you'll have the benefits of Lightning without using it, so why would care? Also the people that already use services like Coinbase won't have more centralization than they already have.

lol
and do you really think that LN can function at its best if LN close channels are not prioritised above normal legacy transactions??

imagine it. a LN channel signed a TX with low tx fee, and its csv revoke tx is then obviously not accepted by the block intime due to onchain spam.. and ofcourse you cant get a LN partner to re-sign a new revoke with a higher fee. because the revoke is sent because a partner disapproves of the channel partnership
ofcourse the next stage is to prioritise LN transactions into blocks as a work around for LN channels with low onchain fee's
thus causing more dev created drama to the onchain delays debate, with the false premiss that doing so is beneficial for the smooth running of LN (at the further distress of normal onchain spenders)

[pooya87]

The idea of segwit2x did not receive the support of miners.

it had more than 90% support of the miners (hashrate) and even lots of big services like BitPay,... but it did not have the support of the developers so it never happened because the risk of split was too great.

Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit.

we already have banks, PayPal, credit cards,... we don't need a new one. we need a decentralized solution and try not to go back to the same centralized methods. that is why bitcoin is used in first place!

To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence.

just because someone is coding for a bitcoin client (aka core developers) it doesn't mean they are trusted to handle your money. again you are forgetting the most important aspect decentralized and trustless and you are killing both with this single comment.

Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

there already is a system like that, banks, PayPal, etc and also Coinbase, Xapo and possibly others similar to these.

[squatter]

Perhaps you need to create a bitcoin Bank that will combine the functions of a wallet and audit. The functionality should be similar to the stock exchange. Inside the Bank bitcoin can be moved instantly and for a small fee. Coins at the time of the transaction should be frozen and the transaction can be closed only after confirmation by both parties. To manage such a Bank should only core developers to whom you have confidence. Miners will process payments to external wallets. The rate of such payments will not make much difference. Do you think such a system has the right to life?

So rather that solving problems we concede defeat and we transform bitcoin into digital fiat, and be done with it.

I wouldn't call it "transforming bitcoin into digital fiat." The existence of Bitcoin banks doesn't fundamentally change what Bitcoin (the base layer) is. They're just applications built on top of Bitcoin. This is something that Hal Finney understood well:

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

I think there will be many applications with different risk profiles that Bitcoin users will have access to. Some will be fully decentralized, some less so, and some fully centralized. For example, the security guarantees of the Lightning Network are quite different than with Bitcoin. Same with sidechains. Same with Bitcoin banks. All can co-exist with different trade-offs and benefits.