Can Bitcoins kill Central Banks?

[tygeade]

The loss of control is essentially equal to the death of the state. In addition, given the factor of influence of monopolized miners on the volatility / rate of bitcoin, such a "currency" can simply kill the economy from deliberate or unintentional actions of monopolistic miners.
And finally, the use of a deflationary currency in the economy, from the point of view of economic competitive advantages, loses to the deflationary model.

I believe governments can use this to their advantage as well, but they seem to be not doing something like that. Contact the biggest miners, get them to a room, talk to them about how much they can save, like get over 10 billion dollars of bitcoin saved, pay their costs, then when they have 10 billion dollars worth of bitcoin, tell them to all dump them at the very same time all over the crypto markets, just keep dumping more and more in top 10 exchanges constantly until the price is very low, then cover their loss from what the start price was and what the end price will be.

This will be at most few billion dollars, big governments call it a half a day worth cost, USA printed over 5 trillion dollars just in the last year, few billion dollars is nothing. So, we can't just come out and say "can bitcoin kill central banks", if central banks wanted it, they would have killed bitcoin in a day.

[Twentyonepaylots]

If enough people use bitcoin for their daily transactions, then central banks with their fiat currencies will lose their power over the economy. Soon after that people will be flocking in to buy cryptocurrencies because FOMO will be too much for them to take in. Banks will collapse as they won't have any relevance and fight if the enemy is literally decentralized currency. This will also boost the price of bitcoin, but at the same time will amp the transaction time and fee. So there are pros and cons in this kind of scenario coming into fruition.

[awik p]

If enough people use bitcoin for their daily transactions, then central banks with their fiat currencies will lose their power over the economy. Soon after that people will be flocking in to buy cryptocurrencies because FOMO will be too much for them to take in. Banks will collapse as they won't have any relevance and fight if the enemy is literally decentralized currency. This will also boost the price of bitcoin, but at the same time will amp the transaction time and fee. So there are pros and cons in this kind of scenario coming into fruition.

indeed there are many advantages of bitcoin compared to central banks. But we need to remember that the central bank is controlled by the state, so I don't think it's that easy to tear down bitcoin, we can see until now where the fame of bitcoin has soared, but the government doesn't seem to be going to legalize it globally

[Leviathan.007]

I believe bitcoin and fiat both got their own ways and you can not say bitcoin is going to kill central banks and fiat currencies because bitcoin has some benefits and fiat has some other benefits and you ca not compare these two. Regarding the central banks, some people withdraw their money from the banks and buy bitcoin to save themselves from the inflection rate and sure the governments will try to do anything to make people hold their money in banks because the decentralization of bitcoin can make everything harder for the banks and governments because they can not control anything here.

[DrBeer]

The loss of control is essentially equal to the death of the state. In addition, given the factor of influence of monopolized miners on the volatility / rate of bitcoin, such a "currency" can simply kill the economy from deliberate or unintentional actions of monopolistic miners.
And finally, the use of a deflationary currency in the economy, from the point of view of economic competitive advantages, loses to the deflationary model.

I believe governments can use this to their advantage as well, but they seem to be not doing something like that. Contact the biggest miners, get them to a room, talk to them about how much they can save, like get over 10 billion dollars of bitcoin saved, pay their costs, then when they have 10 billion dollars worth of bitcoin, tell them to all dump them at the very same time all over the crypto markets, just keep dumping more and more in top 10 exchanges constantly until the price is very low, then cover their loss from what the start price was and what the end price will be.

This will be at most few billion dollars, big governments call it a half a day worth cost, USA printed over 5 trillion dollars just in the last year, few billion dollars is nothing. So, we can't just come out and say "can bitcoin kill central banks", if central banks wanted it, they would have killed bitcoin in a day.

And what is the point of such steps? Banks can simply prohibit operations with exchange accounts, thereby effectively stopping the operation of converting crypto to fiat. This means that the majority of crypto users will not be able to make purchases for fiat. There are very few points of sale for crypto now, and they definitely do not cover even 1% of the needs of the population.
Ninado no spending, no negotiation. Just blocking accounts. Or they will make an even more interesting option - withdrawal to fiat will be possible through trusted banks, which will preemptively remove tax from the withdrawn amount
Well, the question about the Chinese miners, who are monopolists today - do you think they will actually negotiate, where the result will be a drop in the price of the cue ball? Moreover, this is China - a country with a rather specific policy, and its own interests

[sapnu]

If we are going to take consideration on what's best for a certain country, regardless if it is possible that bitcoin may take down central banks or not, it would be best if central banks would remain dominant over bitcoin. If ever bitcoin managed to collapse central banks and take over its place, a lot of detrimental effects towards the nations economy will surely follow afterwards. Also, central banks are capable enough of restricting cryptocurrency use or decreasing it since the government is at the top of their heads that's why I think there's no chance bitcoin will be able to eliminate central banks anytime soon.

[uneng]

I believe only in an anarchy society model bitcoin could kill central banks. But since we live in a centralized society the central authority will always exist and rule all its elements, including the economical life of the country through the central bank. Even crypto businesses aren't disposed to *kill* central banks and the traditional economical model, otherwise we wouldn't see an increasement in interest for stable coins, backed by fiat.
In fact, central banks are going to be integrated in crypto universe and there is some chance they are going to dominate it on long run, overcoming the first decentralization purpose brought up by bitcoin philosophy.

[Alisha-k]

Bitcoin is a digital asset controlled by a decentralized economy. On the contrary fiats controlled by the central banks are centralized. Both are running two parallel economy with different mode of operation so in that vibe I don't believe bitcoin can kill central banks block chain gets its value from fiat currency whioe fiat doesn't need crypto to maintain its value although its price can be slightly affected by cryptocurrency.

[CryptocurencyKing]

The answer is simple - no, bitcoin will not kill banks!
Why? Because governments will never allow an uncontrolled entity to replace a government-controlled, formal payment mechanism. The only thing that bitcoin, as a technology, can influence, is to push banks to use part of blockchain technologies in banking technologies.

On this note, I agree so well, bitcoin can never replace banks which is centralised and easily taxable by government for revenue generation.  No matter what truth or advantage it brings,  the government would always be blind to those deliberately.

This is the most plausible answer. At the moment governments hold all the power of the people. We are not ready for a regime change. But one day in the future this could happen. If enough people demand a change that the politicians need to react. While central banks who print money each year worked for many years, it doesn't mean it will be going to stay like this. We just need to work together to change the system.

I don't agree so well with this one. There is no way the banks are going away so long as we are still governed by a political body. They benefit from the system and as such, they have it to exploit.

On the part of the government holding all the power, I seriously doubt that. In this system of decentralisation even as it is not accepted by governments of the world, the power is clearly with the community as it should. This is observed in the nations that outlawed cryptos, citizens still traded it individually and government had little or nothing to do about it.

[TimeTeller]

The answer is simple - no, bitcoin will not kill banks!
Why? Because governments will never allow an uncontrolled entity to replace a government-controlled, formal payment mechanism. The only thing that bitcoin, as a technology, can influence, is to push banks to use part of blockchain technologies in banking technologies.

On this note, I agree so well, bitcoin can never replace banks which is centralised and easily taxable by government for revenue generation.  No matter what truth or advantage it brings,  the government would always be blind to those deliberately.

This is the most plausible answer. At the moment governments hold all the power of the people. We are not ready for a regime change. But one day in the future this could happen. If enough people demand a change that the politicians need to react. While central banks who print money each year worked for many years, it doesn't mean it will be going to stay like this. We just need to work together to change the system.

I don't agree so well with this one. There is no way the banks are going away so long as we are still governed by a political body. They benefit from the system and as such, they have it to exploit.

On the part of the government holding all the power, I seriously doubt that. In this system of decentralisation even as it is not accepted by governments of the world, the power is clearly with the community as it should. This is observed in the nations that outlawed cryptos, citizens still traded it individually and government had little or nothing to do about it.

Your points are valid and I don't think even the community will totally accept crypto in replacement of fiat.
It has been this way for centuries, and changing the current system will not be too easy.
Crypto can co-exist but will not replace the fiat system, even in the years to come.
Why is it that some people really think that crypto can totally replace Central Banks?
Do they have some rationale why they are thinking that way? Or just a wishful thinking?

[tbterryboy]

If enough people use bitcoin for their daily transactions, then central banks with their fiat currencies will lose their power over the economy. Soon after that people will be flocking in to buy cryptocurrencies because FOMO will be too much for them to take in. Banks will collapse as they won't have any relevance and fight if the enemy is literally decentralized currency. This will also boost the price of bitcoin, but at the same time will amp the transaction time and fee. So there are pros and cons in this kind of scenario coming into fruition.

I don’t know about this, but can’t really imagine there would be a  time that people will switch fully from making use of fiat to making use of BITCOIN. That’s not going to happen, the only thing that will happen to bitcoin is having a huge rate of adoption and for sure it will be used for a lot of transactions more than it’s being done (and I pray it is able to handle a high level of usage than now), but as for replacing central banks, I don’t think that’s going to happen, you’re still going to have so many needs to make use of fiat. They are both going to be playing their part.

[tygeade]

And what is the point of such steps? Banks can simply prohibit operations with exchange accounts, thereby effectively stopping the operation of converting crypto to fiat. This means that the majority of crypto users will not be able to make purchases for fiat. There are very few points of sale for crypto now, and they definitely do not cover even 1% of the needs of the population.
Ninado no spending, no negotiation. Just blocking accounts. Or they will make an even more interesting option - withdrawal to fiat will be possible through trusted banks, which will preemptively remove tax from the withdrawn amount
Well, the question about the Chinese miners, who are monopolists today - do you think they will actually negotiate, where the result will be a drop in the price of the cue ball? Moreover, this is China - a country with a rather specific policy, and its own interests

I do not mean that they will do it, or they should, I just mean that if they wanted to, they could have done that. If anything this is a good example, banks not allowing exchanges, governments working with miners, I am sure if we wanted to find a way, we could find a way to make sure bitcoin is under 1000 dollars again given the proper power to us, and we could make it 1+ million dollars as well, all depends on who is in charge and what type of laws they do in regards to crypto.

But nothing bad came out yet, sure china keeps banning crypto in talks, there were few other nations like Nigeria and India as the biggest examples but the reality is that most of the world is keep going into crypto more and more all the time and that is why I think it is obvious nobody is doing anything bad for crypto, they could but they are not doing it which is a good news.

[DrBeer]

And what is the point of such steps? Banks can simply prohibit operations with exchange accounts, thereby effectively stopping the operation of converting crypto to fiat. This means that the majority of crypto users will not be able to make purchases for fiat. There are very few points of sale for crypto now, and they definitely do not cover even 1% of the needs of the population.
Ninado no spending, no negotiation. Just blocking accounts. Or they will make an even more interesting option - withdrawal to fiat will be possible through trusted banks, which will preemptively remove tax from the withdrawn amount
Well, the question about the Chinese miners, who are monopolists today - do you think they will actually negotiate, where the result will be a drop in the price of the cue ball? Moreover, this is China - a country with a rather specific policy, and its own interests

I do not mean that they will do it, or they should, I just mean that if they wanted to, they could have done that. If anything this is a good example, banks not allowing exchanges, governments working with miners, I am sure if we wanted to find a way, we could find a way to make sure bitcoin is under 1000 dollars again given the proper power to us, and we could make it 1+ million dollars as well, all depends on who is in charge and what type of laws they do in regards to crypto.

But nothing bad came out yet, sure china keeps banning crypto in talks, there were few other nations like Nigeria and India as the biggest examples but the reality is that most of the world is keep going into crypto more and more all the time and that is why I think it is obvious nobody is doing anything bad for crypto, they could but they are not doing it which is a good news.

Thanks for the clarification, perhaps I missed the emphasis of the idea expressed by you. In this context, I agree with you!
But if we talk about China - on the one hand, they prohibit cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, they have in their hands, in fact, monopoly ownership of the world's bitcoin mining, and I suppose - not just like that, but for certain, controlled, processes, influence

[AndySt]

But nothing bad came out yet, sure china keeps banning crypto in talks, there were few other nations like Nigeria and India as the biggest examples but the reality is that most of the world is keep going into crypto more and more all the time and that is why I think it is obvious nobody is doing anything bad for crypto, they could but they are not doing it which is a good news.

Excuse me, but please let's not confuse "going into crypto" and " use crypto more and more" Otherwise, we really go to verbal constructions like "bitcoin kills central banks", which have nothing to do with reality. I think that after some time, even those countries that are now trying to ban cryptocurrencies will change their attitude to a more favorable one when they see how other countries successfully interact with bitcoin for the benefit of their economy, but there is no question of any "killing" of central banks by bitcoin, because this is a matter of state management of the economy and central banks are an important part for this.

[STT]

Crypto may agitate for change but its not the cause or weapon used to end anything, I dont see it as violent or aggressive as that.   There is still much development and usage that must occur, the majority of people still dont have a clue I reckon and you can fault the system for that or the people perhaps but not everyone grew up with a computer so I blame ease of use as still being not good enough but its a shared problem.
   Central banks have been rotting inside out from before the 70's  we are well past half a century of failure at this point and its not crypto's fault or the internet or any persons.   Most systems will fail, if anything crypto is the saviour for what is inevitable anyway; it is the life raft not the torpedo.

[DOH!]

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or institutions like Banks. By its very own definition, Bitcoin sounds well positioned to kill central banks. Could it?

Bitcoin is still viable in my opinion, as it has undermined old and outdated central banking technologies.  Bitcoin is not stagnant, unregulated, has no symptoms of system maintenance, no complicated voting papers, payment authorization, sec, collection authorization ... etc, cumbersome,  lax control, not clear.  No one can deny, the birth and existence of bitcoin is a threat to the rudimentary technology of banks.  When asked, where would you choose to preserve your assets, gold, bank or bitcoin?  As a loyal citizen, I will choose bitcoin!

[noorammak]

Bitcoin does not die because the central banks because the right to print money are theirs, and they are responsible for regulating their own economy. If we look closely, we only see that Bitcoin serves only a small part of the exchange, circulation of money and goods. So it can be said that Bitcoin cannot kill banks.
Bitcoin is simply changing economists' minds about money. Currently, countries like China, the US or the UK are researching blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and in the future they will create their own cryptocurrencies.
Banks have many functions such as lending, saving money, paying, extending, paying taxes, ... Cryptocurrencies are just trying to create financial products like a bank. Cryptocurrencies are fast-paced, but they won't be widely recognized or circulated more often than banks.

[jostorres]

No one can deny, the birth and existence of bitcoin is a threat to the rudimentary technology of banks.  When asked, where would you choose to preserve your assets, gold, bank or bitcoin?  As a loyal citizen, I will choose bitcoin!

Yeah, banks are slowly turning as old technology as they are not as competitive as what new payment systems are offering to ensure all the demands of common people. When something is outdated then we cannot expect that to survive, time will washout such things. This is what exactly going to happen with traditional banks but probably it may take centuries of time as bitcoin needs same kind of time to reach most people of this world's population.

Bitcoin may not kill banks but will make them outdated and noncompetitive. But in near future, both will co-exist and serve humankind.

[ivankoh]

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or institutions like Banks. By its very own definition, Bitcoin sounds well positioned to kill central banks. Could it?

Bitcoin is still viable in my opinion, as it has undermined old and outdated central banking technologies.  Bitcoin is not stagnant, unregulated, has no symptoms of system maintenance, no complicated voting papers, payment authorization, sec, collection authorization ... etc, cumbersome,  lax control, not clear.  No one can deny, the birth and existence of bitcoin is a threat to the rudimentary technology of banks.  When asked, where would you choose to preserve your assets, gold, bank or bitcoin?  As a loyal citizen, I will choose bitcoin!

Personally, I don't think so.  10% rate so that bitcoin can completely replace banks.  Central banks still win the people's confidence, in other aspects, banks also have certain advantages.  Banks need to exist in the world as a form to "balance" life, economy and society.  Anyway, the bank still has provisions on the authorization for the inheritance of assets.  Bitcoin will have a way of coexisting with banks to increase liquidity.
At least until the world has a common currency.  All internal currency will be deleted completely.

[omone1]

Central banks will remain for financial regulations, but the commercial banks that fail to adopt cryptocurrency in the future will be bought over by FINTECH firms that deals on cryptocurrencies. We need to understand that money is an evolution and that fiat has failed the world hence a clamor for a better money.