The increasing development of bitcoin makes many banks owners worry, even countries that have full control of the economy choose banned, they think that the decentralization system brought by Bitcoin will damage the national economic order so that they do everything possible to stop Bitcoin.
No, the thing is they are not worried.... they have loads of money to hire the best Crypto currency developers in the world to develop new centralized digital currencies for them.
Take for instance a former Bitcoin developer like Mike Hearn that was a senior software engineer at Google... he left Bitcoin and started to work for a enterprise blockchain builder ...R3. (Corda) ....a platform that was developed specifically to be used by Banks and other centralized financial services.
People will always assume the very best for bitcoin but the reality is that we shouldn't be really worried about banks, they will always find a way to get involved. If push comes to shove, they will build their own exchanges, all those big banks that love to get your money do things with it? They will find a way to be like a wallet and an exchange at the same time so that you would store your crypto with them as well. What will they do with it?
I do not know but I am sure that they will find a way and not left behind. People put too much emphasis on how decentralized bitcoin is, and forget that we are not decentralized as humans, so we could just give our money to them if they offer good rates and security, which will be risky.
I just came across this thread, and as I was reading through the various comments, I was considering whether I should respond and/or from what angle to attack the issue - because I have some difficulties with a framework that this is an "inevitability of digital" issue or that "bitcoin is not innovating fast enough" issue or a "decentralized is preferred" issue or even a "crypto currency revolution" issue.
So, in some sense, I don't even know how I want to frame the matter of to attack the matter except to restate some of the obvious in regards to bitcoin having had created a paradigm shifting invention in which people, institutions and goverments can choose to build on it or try to compete with it or can just try to take some detached stance, and bitcoin gives no shits.
Sure, since 2008/2009 (and maybe even before that) there are already people who are already choosing to build on bitcoin and get involved in bitcoin, and surely the earliest days of bitcoin's being announced in 2008 or going active in early 2009, there were some people who already had been working in various related fields and felt that they could fairly easily identify with it (including the fact that they were in circles in which they actually heard about it and it resonated with them)... there are degrees of resonation for sure, and some people, institutions and governments find ways to work with bitcoin more than others at an earlier time than others, and it seems to me that the more that these actors get involved with bitcoin then the more than they are likely to advantage from such involvement.
The same is true with banks, and some of them will try to figure out ways to incorporate bitcoin into their business or build upon bitcoin (without overdoing it), and so yeah with Gresham's law value is going to continue to flow into bitcoin, and there are going to be some players (institutions such as bank and otherwise) who are well positioned 4-10 years down the road and some who might be just getting started 40-50 years down the road.. or maybe they dabbled earlier (and somehow still were able to survived) but 40 years later figured out that they need to innovate.. or maybe they got involved with a variety of shitcoins, and realized later that they were not really building on value .. but engaged in serial gambling and somehow (perhaps by miracle) had not totally reckt themselves over the years.
So yeah. there will be degrees of how connected folks incorporate bitcoin into their lives in terms of finances, time and psychology, including the extent to which some participants in this thread sound like they are a wee bit distracted in their keeping on saying "crypto" in their framing of how they believe that banks should consider incorporating bitcoin into their banking services.. as if some members here do not seem to know the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins, and the same is going to continue to be true with the public at large including institutions (such as banks) and governments, and seems to me that those folks who engage in "crypto thinking" are less likely to "make it" or to be focused, but surely some of those shitcoiners (or variants of shitcoiners) will still survive through their gambling and lack of focus, and some of those shitcoiners who fail refuse to build on bitcoin will still be able to make it in some kind of way that they might believe works for them and/or their situation, and some of them will likely try to be overly creative rather than figuring out ways to be prudent and reasonable by focusing and building on bitcoin ... Some will get recked and some will still survive whether they discover bitcoin or not and whether they build on bitcoin or not.
There are likely going to continue to exist a lot of value systems in the world in which people, institutions and governments are going to be able to build upon, and likely Gresham's law will continue to gravitate the built value upon the soundest of systems and the soundest of foundational monies, which many of us
(some of us more than others) already recognize and appreciate to be bitcoin.
It seems to me that there are going to be some people who are more ready, willing and able to take care of larger portions of financial aspects of their lives, and some of the apps are likely to become more and more user-friendly with the passage of time (but there still will likely be ongoing confusion about a lot of these matters), and there are still going to be business that want to provide services to people and I doubt that banks are going to completely disappear in terms of the need to offer various kinds of financial services - whether or not the dollar disappears which surely does seem likely that the dollar will disappear sooner or later, even if that disappearance of the dollar could happen in 5-10 years from now, but it could possibly take 50-100 years for the dollar to disappear.. .
It is not easy to know these kinds of dynamics in regards to the future because even with bitcoin there are human interaction and human preferences at play..
Bitcoin is not completely decentralized and turing complete.. would we even want that? Are we all bots?
There are likely going to continue to be human interactions and human preferences that motivate bitcoin's direction, even if bitcoin might be the most decentralized of secure value transmission and storage systems that have existed to date... but even the ongoing security and other features of bitcoin likely require some degree of human interaction and even acceptance of human preferences... even if a decent amount of bitcoin's value seems to come from the difficulties in changing aspects of bitcoin.. but I would think that we would want to be able to change bitcoin if it were clearly and unambiguously determined that bitcoin had started to eat babies, for example
(just a hypothetical.. I don't have evil thoughts)... but yeah, some people will try to make things up in regards to what bitcoin is doing that is not true.. so we are likely going to continue to have some of those kinds of value judgments that could end up coopting bitcoin if aspects of bitcoin are able to be changed due to hard and cold facts... or just that people come to believe certain matters to justify changes to bitcoin
(I am not even trying to imply that bitcoin is easy to change, but that it can be changed if there were some kind of human preference need rather than just having a robot (ie bitcoin) to tell us what we can do)Banks take advantage of the inability of their customers to store their savings and offer them services on that basis. As long as bank users are ignorant of the ways in which they can save and use their savings independently, banks will maintain their vital and active role. Bitcoin represents a solution capable of canceling the banking philosophy, but it remains technically complex and not accessible to everyone, so it is required to develop its mechanisms to deal with users with limited technical ability .
Lets just accept the fact that there are people whom do really stick out on traditional banking system or simply with those traditional things that they've been dealing since from the start and wont really be welcoming
for any changes or innovations around.There might be some considerations or usage but not on the essence that they would be completely changing up their ways on to those transactions.
Bitcoin does have that market which do serves out its purpose for those who do value much about anonymity and decentralization.It doesnt really need up that kind of changing
because it is really just enough on the features that it does currently have.
This is key, even if bitcoin is a great innovation in the field of money many people are simply not going to be able to adapt to it, they're going to see in bitcoin and its inability to chargeback transactions something they don't like, after all this is a safety net for them and if they happen to make a mistake they can always call their bank to help, in bitcoin this isn't possible, if you get hacked or you make a mistake those coins are basically lost, so we'll need a generational change so people aren't as used to those protections and people are able to accept the paradigm shift of being their own banks.
I think so too.. I think that there will likely ongoingly be needs for some handholding at various stages in the ways that people interact with financial systems, and whether we call them banks or we call them something else, it is likely that people will be willing to pay for such hand-holding services in regards to some aspects of their financial management.. and surely some people will need more handholding than others at various stages in their lives and also possibly depending on what kinds of financial considerations they might be juggling or be needing to consider (whether they know it or not).
