Sir Lagsalot (OP)
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 323
Merit: 250
The lion roars!
|
 |
December 31, 2013, 05:33:05 PM |
|
Another banker is saying silly things about Bitcoin.  I wrote an article about it over on CCN. Basically, he thinks centralising and de-anonymising Bitcoin will improve security (somehow?), and that most users will be happy with that. Oh, and Bitcoin should be integrated within existing fiat and payment structures because... well, bankers dislike competition I guess. I'm sure someday a banker will present a decent argument against Bitcoin, but today is not that day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
yatsey87
|
|
December 31, 2013, 05:41:00 PM |
|
Another banker is saying silly things about Bitcoin. I wrote an article about it over on CCN. Basically, he thinks centralising and de-anonymising Bitcoin will improve security (somehow?), and that most users will be happy with that. Oh, and Bitcoin should be integrated within existing fiat and payment structures because... well, bankers dislike competition I guess. I'm sure someday a banker will present a decent argument against Bitcoin, but today is not that day. He just doesn't get it does he? Fucking bankers. |
|
|
|
|
|
ineedit
|
|
December 31, 2013, 05:49:33 PM |
|
Another banker is saying silly things about Bitcoin. I wrote an article about it over on CCN. Basically, he thinks centralising and de-anonymising Bitcoin will improve security (somehow?), and that most users will be happy with that. Oh, and Bitcoin should be integrated within existing fiat and payment structures because... well, bankers dislike competition I guess. I'm sure someday a banker will present a decent argument against Bitcoin, but today is not that day. Of course it will improve security....theirs  |
If I have been help then please show your thanks BTC: 127PRogAVZiV3fEmpJERh9KemK3a3Ffh6G LTC: LXghFL8mZffpTFkm2nRTesuDrV5DJQP3Js
|
|
|
Its About Sharing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
Antifragile
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:15:03 PM |
|
Another banker is saying silly things about Bitcoin. I wrote an article about it over on CCN. Basically, he thinks centralising and de-anonymising Bitcoin will improve security (somehow?), and that most users will be happy with that. Oh, and Bitcoin should be integrated within existing fiat and payment structures because... well, bankers dislike competition I guess. I'm sure someday a banker will present a decent argument against Bitcoin, but today is not that day.LOL at the bold. It is certainly and interesting ride. I just get the feeling that by the time they really can mount a good argument against BTC (and the Cryptos), it will be too late. And actually, I think that ship has sailed. But how they will attempt to co-opt things (their only real chance)?. With transparency, they will fail. Sort of ironic, we all want privacy, but I see transparency as being "their" downfall... |
BTC = Black Swan.
BTC = Antifragile - "Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Robust is not the opposite of fragile.
|
|
|
|
ohiofarmer
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:35:45 PM |
|
It's a silly proposal.
That said, banks do have a legitimate and serious problem when it comes to bitcoin. They have to register with their state as money transmitters. As money transmitters they're legally responsible to ensure that the transactions they process aren't aiding terrorists or money launderers. That requires adhering to a sea of laws and oversight from Dodd-Frank to OFAC checks (when lending) to keeping the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the Treasury happy. Bitcoin all but makes that impossible. It's one of the biggest hurdles bitcoin is going to have to get over, and I don't see a great way to do that... It's the No. 1 factor that makes me nervous about bitcoin's future.
|
|
|
|
Its About Sharing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
Antifragile
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:46:53 PM |
|
It's a silly proposal.
That said, banks do have a legitimate and serious problem when it comes to bitcoin. They have to register with their state as money transmitters. As money transmitters they're legally responsible to ensure that the transactions they process aren't aiding terrorists or money launderers. That requires adhering to a sea of laws and oversight from Dodd-Frank to OFAC checks (when lending) to keeping the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the Treasury happy. Bitcoin all but makes that impossible. It's one of the biggest hurdles bitcoin is going to have to get over, and I don't see a great way to do that... It's the No. 1 factor that makes me nervous about bitcoin's future.
But what does legally responsible really mean? I mean, look at Wochovia and HSBC, both of them were found guilty of laundering drug money. And it was close to 1 Trillion dollars between them (I've seen that number mentioned). Further, it was clear (due to the amount and the physical setup in the banks!) that they were complicit in it. But, they were "too big to fail" as the lie goes. Let's face it, LARGE banks in the U.S.A. are immune from real prosecution. Yeah, they will pay a penalty, but when the penalty doesn't deter the "reward" they will just continue. Their fine was like fining me .20 for speeding, or .05 for riding the bus without a ticket. It was like an invitation to continue. Now, I can see your argument being true for smaller banks. But they don't run things.  |
BTC = Black Swan.
BTC = Antifragile - "Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Robust is not the opposite of fragile.
|
|
|
Sir Lagsalot (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 323
Merit: 250
The lion roars!
|
|
January 01, 2014, 09:00:59 AM |
|
It's very true that the big banks get away with murder. They've become far too powerful, mostly because their owners are also shareholders in the central banks which fund governments.
I doubt the big banks would stoop to such unexciting and low-margin business, but small banks could find a market in providing escrow services. They have the experience in identification procedures and contract law, also they still have social trust (probably more than they deserve). If in 20 years half of global trade is done through cryptocurrency (or whatever bullish prediction), banks that provide supporting services could do well.
|
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
|
|
January 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PM |
|
this would be a good reason to use Zerocoin instead |
|
|
|
luqash3
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
January 01, 2014, 08:35:54 PM |
|
Wow man it’s great to hear that a person who write for CNN such big platform has come here to share his knowledge with us. So I welcome you this forum. Well bankers are the fraudsters who are greedy for money and now as their banking system along with fiat is coming to halt so they need to make bitcoins dirty too but they won’t succeed hopefully.
|
|
|
|
|
cr1776
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299
|
|
January 01, 2014, 08:48:13 PM |
|
Wow man it’s great to hear that a person who write for CNN such big platform has come here to share his knowledge with us. So I welcome you this forum. Well bankers are the fraudsters who are greedy for money and now as their banking system along with fiat is coming to halt so they need to make bitcoins dirty too but they won’t succeed hopefully.
He said: about it over on CCN. :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
