How would BTC ve further influence over the Fiats if we ain't safe with the bank

[EluguHcman]

Greetings to everyone.
In recent time about a week now, I made a thread about how safe it could be revealing to the bank that one is a BTC investor which with all necessary reasons every has contributed to it says it is unwise and unsafe doing so. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485527.0
Link to the formal thread.

With all Said and Dones that were being convincible that it was a big mistake of me, now to a very lengthy thought of reasonings, I kept wondering if it continues that way and if really it should be that way, how then can it be possible of BTC transactions take over the globe in placement of the fiats for payments and other angles of financial transactions in the future?
I came about a thread that discusses about the crytop currencies with the Possibilities to replace the fiats transactions in the nearest future https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5486183.msg63714096#msg63714096.

Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?
Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

[1714871333]

1714871333

[1714871333]

1714871333

[Orpichukwu]

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?
Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

Are you among those who believe Bitcoin will take over the world financial system? Do you even think Bitcoin was designed for such a complex purpose? The answer is NO.
 
Bitcoin was designed to serve as an alternative payment method, not to replace the existing one; the Bitcoin supply is too small to serve and replace a specific country's financial system because it is the only currency that can be used to make payments.
 
It can be globally accepted as its adoption has already spread, but the traditional financial system will still be there. You have the choice to choose what form of payment system you want to make use of and leave the rest.
 
I know you might say bitcoin is divisible in nature, which makes it a perfect fit for replacing the old monetary system, but there are really a lot of limitations to bitcoin in respect to that.

Such limitations are; Access to the internet in order to complete every single transaction, high cost when you want to buy goods that are less than $1, network congestion can also be a barrier, and many others, which I don't have the time to elaborate on.

[mk4]

Such limitations are; Access to the internet in order to complete every single transaction, high cost when you want to buy goods that are less than $1, network congestion can also be a barrier, and many others, which I don't have the time to elaborate on.

There are a lot of decent arguments as to why bitcoin shouldn't or couldn't replace the current financial system, but these are not the ones.

1. The world is slowly but surely moving to a purely internet-centric world. If you're thinking of the poorest areas that don't even have establishments and such, well, I'm pretty sure a lot of those places don't even have fiat money in the first place; they just do barter.

2. Most people won't be making transactions on the Bitcoin basechain. They don't do it now(the likes of Coinbase txs, sucks but yea), and they won't be doing it in the future.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin was never meant to "replace" the existing centralized monetary system. I don't think Satoshi ever introduced it as such either. In fact from what I've seen, Bitcoin is introduced as the alternative payment system which means it exists side by side of the existing payment systems. For example we have banks, we have PayPal, we have Credit Cards, and we also have Bitcoin.

This is in compliance with the nature of Bitcoin too. Bitcoin is the "option" provided for those who care about their financial sovereignty and not everyone cares.
It's like a lot of other things in this world. For example people who care about security don't use Windows and meanwhile Linux wasn't created to "replace" Windows, it was created as that alternative option for those who care.

[Zaguru12]

Such limitations are; Access to the internet in order to complete every single transaction, high cost when you want to buy goods that are less than $1, network congestion can also be a barrier, and many others, which I don't have the time to elaborate on.

I think the first limitation is the most obvious one that will hinder the global adoption of bitcoin by everyone there are many nations or underdeveloped countries that can’t access internet but that isn’t the only problem there are many people that can’t even operate a mobile phone talk more knowing how initiate transaction, setting bitcoin fees or even using RBF and it’s like features. The other things like scalability is still something that is discussed for further improvement, so that can be left aside. Satoshi projected all this things and that’s why he practically called this an alternative

[EarnOnVictor]

In recent time about a week now, I made a thread about how safe it could be revealing to the bank that one is a BTC investor which with all necessary reasons every has contributed to it says it is unwise and unsafe doing so. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485527.0
Link to the formal thread.

With all Said and Dones that were being convincible that it was a big mistake of me, now to a very lengthy thought of reasonings, I kept wondering if it continues that way and if really it should be that way, how then can it be possible of BTC transactions take over the globe in placement of the fiats for payments and other angles of financial transactions in the future?
I came about a thread that discusses about the crytop currencies with the Possibilities to replace the fiats transactions in the nearest future https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5486183.msg63714096#msg63714096.

I am not one of the everybody who advised you against declaring your BTC investment to your bank, so I did not support your regret feelings, you actually did the right thing in my opinion. What you could have done better is to declare it without external people knowing about it. I believe they would have given you a form to fill, which if you had filled it correctly without omitting the space initially, the bank official would just read it silently instead of asking you again to fill it for you to the point that people could hear your conversation. That's the only place I know you did wrong.

As for those who are advising you not to declare it even as this is your source of income, do they know that it's a criminal offence to falsify such a claim? It is still easy when you are nobody, but in the future when you become somebody, if you continue falsifying claims on your documents now, it might affect you badly then. For this, my advice remains that you continue to say the truth but just keep it as discreet as possible in an official environment.

Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?
Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

Bitcoin can't operate in isolation, it needs fiat even as fiat does not need it. I want you to note this today, though people often over-hype Bitcoin, it can never do the work of fiat in the economy and will not be able to do all the work of fiat in payment services. There will still be an end remittance after all which will always be the function of fiat.

However, Bitcoin has reached the peak of what it can do as far as I am concerned, you may only expect some reduced operation afterwards due to regulation. Regulation is inevitable in the crypto world and it has just started, we should not deceive ourselves, the world government are cooking enough that is still not open to many because they can't think deeper. Or do you think the centralised system and ETFs are a joke? They are further steps to oversee the transactions involving Bitcoin.

And the last time I read the Chainalysis remark about Bitcoin transactions, it was clear that a centralised system has the largest percentage of Bitcoin transactions. So expect more knowledge and control by the government even as Bitcoin will be decentralised but the government will force more oversight one way or the other.

[Helena Yu]

Alright there's nothing wrong if you think Bitcoin will replace banks and fiat because you're believing in Bitcoin.

May I ask you how frequent you use Bitcoin to buy foods, coffee, groceries, paying bills etc? if you still use fiat to pay everything in your country, it means you're one of among people who not believe Bitcoin will replace fiat and banks. It doesn't make sense if you hope or believe Bitcoin will replace fiat and banks, when you're not use Bitcoin as frequently as fiat.

[hugeblack]

Whether you declare your Bitcoin or not, the government will know that. Maintaining high privacy requires more effort and learning from you, but since you are not obliged to provide this information to the bank or any administrative body without judicial permission, do not do so.
Also, you are not doing anything bad, and Bitcoin is legal in your country, so there is no need to worry and overthink.

The future of Bitcoin is linked to increasing demand for it and considering it a neutral tool between governments, which is what it has succeeded in doing so far. If it can grow and avoid political and regulatory differences between countries, it will be a suitable currency for international trade.

[bluebit25]

(...)Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?
Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

Yep, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies operate on a decentralized system, as opposed to the centralized system of banks and traditional currencies run by governments. This leads to questions about the possibility of BTC dominating global financial trading trends. But I also recognize the harmony without wanting to separate them completely independently, when both decentralized and centralized systems need harmony to promote common development. Every issue has positive/negative aspects and based on how people perceive it, I can be very supportive of crypto but cannot deny the importance of the banking system.

[kentrolla]

I think you got it all wrong, I mean why would Bitcoin take further influence over Fiats?

I would like to clarify that the Bitcoin was not created for this purpose to compete with fiat or any other asset or even as any mean of investment but rather Bitcoin was created as an alternative to fiat and it doesn't have to compete with fiat as the job of Bitcoin is to enable P2P transfer without involvement of any financial institutions.

We have forgotten the basics and just getting confused, let's understand the core of Bitcoin because we would only be fooling ourselves with such expectations.

[SatoPrincess]

I don’t believe Bitcoin will replace fiat. However I do think both can coexist in the future. How do you think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat with the cost of high fees and busy network transactions. Bitcoin has a scalability problem. Lightning network helps in that regard but no everyone is a fan of LN. Bitcoin scalability is a problem that is yet to be solved, maybe a project will be developed in the future that will help solve this issue.

[tranthidung]

Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

Banks: centralized
Bitcoin: decentralized
Cryptocurrencies: centralized. Exception is Bitcoin.

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?

Bitcoin was not created by Satoshi Nakamoto to take over everything on Earth or take over global financial systems. It was designed to give us private keys of our bitcoins and have our own banks.

Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

Bitcoin will exist under the laws that exist and governments are entities to make laws and regulations. Bitcoin won't be killed by governments because it has an open-source code, a decentralized network and most important, there is no smart contract to seize your bitcoins in your non custodial wallets.

By non custodial wallets, I mean only you is the owner of your bitcoin's private keys. Governments don't have keys so they can not get access to your bitcoin.

Bitcoin Q&A: Not your Keys, Not your Coins

[Marvelman]

Well, predicting whether Bitcoin will replace regular money is about as easy as guessing the next meme coin that'll blow up - pretty impossible.  But let's play devil's advocate here. 

You make a good point - Bitcoin isnt exactly speedy or cheap when it comes to transactions.  The whole scalability issue is a beast, and even the Lightning Network is kinda divisive in terms of whether people like it and   

so how's Bitcoin going to dethrone regular money with all that baggage? Some folks think its rebellious nature gives it the power for revolution.  They see regular money as rigged by big banks, while Bitcoin is the underdog that'll bring financial freedom.

Others see it more as digital gold - a store of value that doesn't care about borders or inflation.  Theyre betting on the limited supply driving the price up over time.

But here's the thing - most people just need money that works.  And if we're honest Bitcoin isn't exactly easy to use day-to-day like getting a cup of coffee. 

So, most likely, theyll coexist in a multi-currency world, serving different purposes.  Bitcoin might be your fancy investment piece, while regular money remains the trusty daily option.

[kryptqnick]

Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement?

The governments are actually usually not in charge of the banks. Banks are normally private, although there can also be some major banks owned by the state (at least, in my country). Then there's the central bank of a country, and its relationship with the government is a trickier thing. I came across this article about this relationship. It has interesting info based on the surveys of 24 central banks, such as how much they annually meet with certain officials and the purpose of those meetings. Overall, it seems that central banks usually have some form of autonomy from the government, but they also cooperate closely when it comes to sharing information and monetary policies.
Bitcoin can coexist with banks and governments, as long as it's just an alternative to banking or perhaps even an asset (so, competing in a completely different category, so to speak).

[sokani]

So how can it be possible for BTC to ascertain this great height of advancement? Or should we just scrap that thought that BTC would take over the world in a global financial transactions trends and just say BTC would gets to its limits of authorized existence somedays in the future?

We've had this discussion over and over. Bitcoin was not created to take over the monetary system, it was designed as an alternative method of payment that's devoid of a centralized authority. If you compare the adoption rate of Bitcoin 5 years ago and now, you'd agree that Bitcoin is making a headway.

I think the first limitation is the most obvious one that will hinder the global adoption of bitcoin by everyone there are many nations or underdeveloped countries that can’t access internet but that isn’t the only problem there are many people that can’t even operate a mobile phone talk more knowing how initiate transaction, setting bitcoin fees or even using RBF and it’s like features.

Aside internet connectivity being a limiting factor to Bitcoin adoption in underdeveloped countries, there's also the issue of illiteracy. How can an elderly person who's not educated be able to spend Bitcoin on his wallet or even know how to keep it safe? These are some of the reasons Bitcoin can never replace fiat.

[hatshepsut93]

Now, the governments are in charge of the banks and other centralized monetary systems in a centralized networks while BTC and the cryptocurrencies are decentralized networking system of transactions which obviously the governments has no place of power on it.

They can't stop Bitcoin transactions, but a business is more than just sending money, because it's also about providing goods and services for those money. What incentive would businesses have to accept Bitcoin if government outlaws it? A simple audit would uncover the fact that they accept Bitcoin and they would be in a big trouble for it. The only way to have an economy without any control from the government is to get rid of the government first and live in anarchy.

[hugeblack]

Banks: centralized
Bitcoin: decentralized
Cryptocurrencies: centralized. Exception is Bitcoin.

We have some cryptocurrencies that cannot be described as centralized, such as Monero, and Ethereum cannot be considered central, but rather distributed, and therefore most of the tokens are built on the Ethereum blockchain.
Some cryptocurrencies do not have a single point of failure, but bridges and DEXs are the most centralized in the industry.

[EluguHcman]

With all being said and done by all members whom had challenged the contexts with those whom argued that Bitcoin would take over the world in replacement of the Fiats, to you all that stood that Bitcoin in anyways can not take over the Fiats due to its earlier initiative for alternative source of payment, I stand with you all and your contributions to challenge that arguements with facts are being undisputed.
After coming across the thread discussing how the Bitcoin would take over the fiats in years ahead at the other board, it was argued then i decided to bring it up to this board where Bitcoin itself has a home base of discuss.
After much comparison and deliberation concerning how risky and unnecessary it is letting the bank know about your Bitcoin personality because the government whom are biased and grudges against the technology approaches have full control over the banks so they wouldn't even give it a chance to have such possessions at the fiats.

Besides Bitcoin inventory technology has been able to reach this fair far due to it challenges with the fiat over massive adoptions as the alternative source of payment including its investment potentials that brings about income so, if Bitcoin should eventually takeover then it value would have such valuable influence again because the tussles of its increase on massive adoptions would be depreciated.

[btc78]

Greetings to everyone.

Because by so doing, it would be uneasy for BTC to penetrate the entire world if this bridge of government having legal roles of authorisation in the space of crytop currency.

It would be possible if the government itself would recognize bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as a legitimate and legal mode of payment. I don’t think it can actually replace every fiat in the world but it is not impossible for it to grow bigger than the other fiat currency. Bitcoin is already in the top 10 of currencies along other fiat money.

There would be limitations and struggles but I have no doubt that bitcoin is here to stay and it will be used by many people onwards. A lot of businesses are already using it and are accepting bitcoin as a payment method. Despite a long journey, bitcoin has more to offer and achieve.

[Su-asa]

It's impossible for Bitcoin to replace fiat, world Banks can not control crypto currencies because it's not owned to them, the fluctuation of Bitcoin price makes it difficult for fiat to takeover. Bitcoin is decentralized, it's trade p2p and fiat banks can't get a chance to manipulate it. Bitcoin is a store of value not like fiat currency. When economy is bad the currency reduces it's value but when you hold Bitcoin it adds more values to it, when people sell their Bitcoin values decrease and it makes more sense when you hold your bitcoin.