Bitcoin adoption by banks - good or bad?

[shield132]

As far as I see, a lot of people here are very happy when they read news about this or that bank adopting bitcoin exchange, offering crypto related services or doing something related to crypto.

At some point I understand that people like it because they want to see crypto everywhere but the downside of this is that crypto gets more regulated and I think it losses the magic/spell that it had before. Personally, I think that more adoptions and regulations won't do any good for bitcoin, it will just become a little bit different digital version of fiat. I think as time goes, anonimity, decentralization and these words are fading away and they turn into myths like Greek gods.

[1714684848]

1714684848

[1714684848]

1714684848

[1714684848]

1714684848

[1714684848]

1714684848

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Bitcoin is a currency and for it to function properly as one, it has to be adopted. The more adoption Bitcoin gets the more it moves closer to becoming a globally accepted means of exchange. The regulations will be for the service providers and not Bitcoin itself therefore it isn't doing much harm.

We'll always have decentralized alternative so that shouldn't be an issue. We can't achieve global adoption without regulations of the service providers and that's the sad true. We have to be ready to scarified some decentralized as we're already doing by undergoing KYC procedures on exchanges etc before we can make use of them. The adoption are good on a general scales as they help in creating more awareness about bitcoin.

[Hamphser]

As far as I see, a lot of people here are very happy when they read news about this or that bank adopting bitcoin exchange, offering crypto related services or doing something related to crypto.

At some point I understand that people like it because they want to see crypto everywhere but the downside of this is that crypto gets more regulated and I think it losses the magic/spell that it had before. Personally, I think that more adoptions and regulations won't do any good for bitcoin, it will just become a little bit different digital version of fiat. I think as time goes, anonimity, decentralization and these words are fading away and they turn into myths like Greek gods.

We dont actually need this and the first question should be asked out is that "Would banks adopt Bitcoin?" Yes we might had able to see some of them had already considered it out but doesnt mean that majority

of them would do the same yet we know that banks are heavily centralized and regulated by the government and we know that government does really hate up decentralized things which

its really normal for us to think off that banks wouldnt easily considered out on adopting or integrating bitcoin or crypto as a whole.

[Upgrade00]

Bitcoin adoption by banks - good or bad?

There's a bit of good, but overall I think it's bad for the network;
• Good, because with more adoption Bitcoin exposure reaches a wider audience getting it closer to going mainstream
• Bad, because it comes at a cost, these new users are exposed to a bank regulated version of Bitcoin, which doesn't function as the original version. A lot of people are already foregoing privacy and anonymity for ease and convenience using centralized exchanges, banks would exacerbate that situation and that could become the new normal.

Such a transition seems inevitable, with the large majority opting to use Bitcoin like fiat while a minority outliers would maintain the qualities that the network possesses, leading to different types of coins; the whitelisted ones which has been regulated by the banks and the darker ones which are still pseudo anonymous.

[BlackHatCoiner]

We want it to be globally adopted, but we don't want these big players to get involved?

Obviously, the adoption from the banks' side was inevitable to happen and will bring regulation, but hey, that's the cost. You couldn't except from the governments to hug bitcoin and its highly anarchic ideology warmly. It may be recognized as a better store of value asset, but I'm pretty sure they'll abuse their power on tracing us way too much.

As for your last words; anonymity is mostly gone since 1995 and decentralization isn't affected from banks' adoption.

[hatshepsut93]

I think as time goes, anonimity, decentralization and these words are fading away and they turn into myths like Greek gods.

If this is what it will take decentralization, then it would mean that Bitcoin was always a flawed project. We are powerless to stop banks or companies from using Bitcoin, and we are can't prevent other people from choosing to interact with Bitcoin through these centralized intermediaries.

But I don't believe that this is a cause for worry just yet, as long as the critical mass of Bitcoiners is devoted to decentralization, banks or any other groups won't be able to hijack Bitcoin so easily.

[arallmuus]

• Bad, because it comes at a cost, these new users are exposed to a bank regulated version of Bitcoin, which doesn't function as the original version. A lot of people are already foregoing privacy and anonymity for ease and convenience using centralized exchanges, banks would exacerbate that situation and that could become the new normal.

For some people this is much convenience so its not entirely bad. Imagine that you are telling someone that is over 50 years old to keep their private key safe and store their crypto in cold wallet lol, pretty sure that guy wont understand anything though and yeah people are so used to bank keeping 'their money safe' for them so the idea of keeping your own 'money' safe might sounds weird to some people

[Upgrade00]

For some people this is much convenience so its not entirely bad. Imagine that you are telling someone that is over 50 years old to keep their private key safe and store their crypto in cold wallet lol, pretty sure that guy wont understand anything

Private keys can be represented as a recovery phrase, and it's not to difficult to write down a couple of words and keep them in a secure location, if you do not trust yourself to keep that safe, you can store the backed up phrase or hardwallet in a bank vault.

and yeah people are so used to bank keeping 'their money safe' for them so the idea of keeping your own 'money' safe might sounds weird to some people

No one is forced to change that, Bitcoin is an alternative, that was created for those who wanted some form of freedom in their finances. There's no need to use Bitcoin as fiat, when you already have fiat.

[Vaculin]

As far as I see, a lot of people here are very happy when they read news about this or that bank adopting bitcoin exchange, offering crypto related services or doing something related to crypto.

If the banks will offer their services and allow crypto users/investors to store their crypto at them, that it gains more clients and many will choose them than keep their cryptos on the exchanges or in the custodial wallets as they have the safety assurance in the banks.

And to see this happens globally, really has a huge impact on crypto adoption and it encourages more people to invest in crypto as well. This could somewhat change the nature of being anonymous as KYC is surely mandatory for them. But it seems not a big deal because the most important is we keep our funds more secure.

[ElmedoRator]

Depending on your perspective on bitcoin, I see both bad and good when banks accept bitcoin. On the positive side, I see BTC being accepted by banks as much as it is being accepted in real life and its practical application is obvious. However, it is also possible that acceptance as a control restricts its use and can be known as regular fiat.

[Flexystar]

Adoption by banks is good only until it is limited to allowing the sending money to crypto exchange and when we sell it then receiving the fiat into bank account. Above and over that if banks starts interfering in all the operations then its not good. Then it would be able to track us down, gain the KYC's, exchanges wont be secure/anonymous one in the future and thus no use of the same.

Already many banks are refusing to allow crypto related transactions and thus directly/indirectly we need work on the p2p systems and get the transfers done. However, in the later times you have to show case for what that transaction was made and thus making it difficult for us to use p2p also.

So yeah, bitcoin must be adopted by the banks but only with some limits.  

[philipma1957]

As far as I see, a lot of people here are very happy when they read news about this or that bank adopting bitcoin exchange, offering crypto related services or doing something related to crypto.

At some point I understand that people like it because they want to see crypto everywhere but the downside of this is that crypto gets more regulated and I think it losses the magic/spell that it had before. Personally, I think that more adoptions and regulations won't do any good for bitcoin, it will just become a little bit different digital version of fiat. I think as time goes, anonimity, decentralization and these words are fading away and they turn into myths like Greek gods.

the bold type will happen.

and anonymity will shrink a lot.

Decentralization is gone ended years ago with big pools and asics.

I used to mine in-my garage with 22 gpus about 11gh the entire network was  22th

so 11000/22000000 is

11/22000 or 1/2000 of the entire network cost was 7kwatts an hour. about 91 cents an hour to mine 1/2000 of the network

simply should have mined a few blocks and held them. oh well

[crwth]

I'm quite confused with this. If I'm not mistaken, banks don't have the power to regulate it, just the transactions within their bank. So if some of their clients don't declare that it's crypto-related, I don't think they would be able to filter it in any way.

Adoption is good either way as long as people are getting in and being involved in the crypto space. I think it's always going to be a good thing from a marketing perspective.

[Darker45]

I beg to disagree. Bitcoin adoption by banks is generally good for Bitcoin. That's more or less a stamp saying Bitcoin is legit. That means more and more people will trust Bitcoin because it has already been adopted by powerful mainstream institutions like banks.

Why does it have to be bad, by the way? After all, banks adopting Bitcoin does not in any way diminish Bitcoin. It does not take away the pseudo-anonymity, decentralization, transparency, and other characteristics of Bitcoin. It doesn't change Bitcoin in any way; it simply provides other people options in getting access or storing Bitcoin. But they still have the full freedom to be their own bank with Bitcoin or trust third party banks with their Bitcoin.

It all boils down to how an individual makes use or makes the most of Bitcoin.

[Leviathan.007]

Can't just say with one word if the adoption by the banks is good or bad because if you look at this case for the banks about the bitcoin adoption it is definitely good for them because staying bitcoin unadopted in this own place and fully decentralized, not asking anyone for legal documents can make borderless for people and more people will get into it and fewer people will pay attention to the other methods, but in the other hand, this adoption is necessary for bitcoin survival to stay alive, because I think the adoption is necessary in this case.

[noorman0]

Saving bitcoins in a bank will only eliminate the function of bitcoin itself which has brought a full-featured replacement bank.

In some cases it may be fine, especially for those who are not interested in bitcoin but must engage in business with the people who use it. It's just a matter of principle, some people still prefer services that are regulated and under the control of the law because they will feel safe and secure. If banks adopt bitcoin, that means there is potential use there.

[Wexnident]

I'd reckon people are happy simply because it's a form of adoption, it's like at this point any adoption would probably make people happy. Still, though, those genuinely happy due to banks adopting it might be because the original process of Bitcoin transactions was tedious for them, and having it in banks, which is what they use most of the time adopting it, makes it much easier for their side. Though in the end, that just means that those people ignore what Bitcoin gives to users at its core, privacy, and anonymity.

[enhu]

As far as I see, a lot of people here are very happy when they read news about this or that bank adopting bitcoin exchange, offering crypto related services or doing something related to crypto.

At some point I understand that people like it because they want to see crypto everywhere but the downside of this is that crypto gets more regulated and I think it losses the magic/spell that it had before. Personally, I think that more adoptions and regulations won't do any good for bitcoin, it will just become a little bit different digital version of fiat. I think as time goes, anonimity, decentralization and these words are fading away and they turn into myths like Greek gods.

The people who deposit thier BTC to banks and do not handle to secure thier BTC to themselves which by keeping private key will lose that "magic/spell."

Ifyou mean the FDIC news which they are allowing banks to own cryptocurrency, I guess it's for insurance, or BTC holders can take a loan leaving BTC as collateral. It's true that banks are adopting and they want to make use of how DEFI works.

[Poker Player]

Neither good nor bad, inevitable if we want mass adoption, I would say. As others have pointed out, it is the price to pay. If Bitcoin had stayed in the original idea of P2P electronic cash system, and everyone who used it did it taking 100% care of privacy, etc. it would not have the price it has. If you like the price to go up and keep going up, you are going to sacrifice privacy and centralization, not of the network itself, which is decentralized, but of how people access to buy Bitcoins.

[goldkingcoiner]

Whether Bitcoin adoption by the banks is a good or bad thing is still too early to tell, if you ask me. But I don't see it as good or bad. I see it as another "Blockbuster" trying to desperately keep up with the new age because they know they will be left behind, otherwise.  

So really, banks don't have much of a choice. If they want to make money in the future, they will need to accept blockchain and start praying to Satoshi.

Personally, I would rather see the bankers becoming more and more desperate as they understand what is happening. To their horror, bankers are becoming slowly but surely redundant as they struggle against the tide... I doubt we will even have bankers  in the future.