If the banks can control people they can control their Bitcoin

[5W-KILO]

I'm not trying to take a side here, we are all here to lecture ourselves about Bitcoin and crypto, and since few discussions about Bitcoin and Banks have been coming on recently due to the fact that banks will start giving loan services to Bitcoin holders ...

This have raised some concerns inside of me, and I need to let it all out ...
I read through one of this discussion and people are liking the idea so far...I don't completely hate it but...

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

Bitcoin, without it's people is nothing, if everyone decides to give up on Bitcoin in a go it will affects Bitcoin, on the other hand, if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

[BIT-BENDER]

I'm not trying to take a side here, we are all here to lecture ourselves about Bitcoin and crypto, and since few discussions about Bitcoin and Banks have been coming on recently due to the fact that banks will start giving loan services to Bitcoin holders ...

This have raised some concerns inside of me, and I need to let it all out ...
I read through one of this discussion and people are liking the idea so far...I don't completely hate it but...

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

Bitcoin, without it's people is nothing, if everyone decides to give up on Bitcoin in a go it will affects Bitcoin, on the other hand, if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

Well I don't think the bank is trying to confuse people like you said but rather it's better to use the word convince, and if one person decides to take a bank loan in Bitcoin it does not make Bitcoin be without its people.

Will this affect the anonymity of those who takes such loan yes, because a bank won't give out a loan without proper identity of they receiver of such loan, but the one taking such loan is already aware of that and their privacy is not more important to them than taking the loan and that's fine so long as they know what it entails.
.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?

if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

There's misused of word here, the bank is not confusing people to take fiat loan against their Bitcoin, it is rather convincing them. What I think is that those that will participate in such loan have self convinction before they decided to do so, else they won't just believe what ever the bank tells them. Such service is not breaching Bitcoin's decentralization at its protocol level but the way an individual chooses to use their Bitcoin is what makes them centralized. If you hold your Bitcoin in self custody and you control your private key, you don't need banks permission to do transaction, you still have your freedom, no centralized policy on you or your Bitcoin.

Banks are not controlling the people, everyone have the decision to either allows their Bitcoin to be under a third party custody or in their self custody, the bank is not forcing people to come and take loan against their Bitcoin.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?

if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

There's misused of word here, the bank is not confusing people to take fiat loan against their Bitcoin, it is rather convincing them.

That's exactly what I was going to say. The OP is wrong in his approach. Besides, it hasn't just been the banks pushing this narrative. The person who has done so the most—or at least did so back in the day—was Michael Saylor, although I don't think he talks about it as much anymore. [Banks control many things, but they don't exactly control people by "confusing" them to take out loans using their bitcoin as collateral.

[Luzin]

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

Are there people who borrow money by using Bitcoin as collateral? I think more people borrow from banks to buy Bitcoin. But I remember that companies like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Jeonbuk Bank offer services like this. But is it effective? I don't have clear details on how successful these programs are. Obviously, the bank makes an offer, and if someone has BTC and needs it, they will definitely take out a loan. Of course, the BTC will be stored by a special custodian institution, not held directly by the bank or kept off the bank's balance sheet. But in the end, I thought, they would not pledge Bitcoin to the bank to get fiat.

[Munshi Prem Chand]

...

If enough BTC ended up controlled by small number of identifiable entities (custodians, ETFs, banks, lending services, etc), we had have a decentralized protocol, but a small group of custodians.

That would be a problem in a situation like Executive Order 6102 (1933) when the US government ordered all gold to be turned over to the Fed. That order was possible because gold was sufficiently concentrated in a small number of institutions (banks). If all the gold was in the form of millions of coins held by individuals it would have been much more difficult (maybe impossible) to execute.

So its not so much about banks coercing individuals into loans, its that every loan/ETF share/etc is one more piece of BTC that has moved away from self custody and into the hands of an entity that would have to turn it over if ordered to do so by a government.

[Russlenat]

due to the fact that banks will start giving loan services to Bitcoin holders ...

Will start? Can you give me the  bank names?

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

There's nothing that was breached here, bitcoin is only decentralized in its system but we as owners of bitcoin can decide how to use our bitcoin.

So now if banks offer loans to bitcoin holders and they require us to put our bitcoin as collateral, then we are just allowing them to dictate how we use our bitcoin through their banking system as using it as collateral does not mean they will simply hold it until you pay off your loan. There's always a clause in the agreement that allows them to sell your bitcoin if its price drops below a certain level based on the agreed price range, so if that happens, your bitcoin is gone and you may still have to pay the remaining balance of the loan.

[Floxynice]

Using your bitcoin as collateral is a choice, banks are not forcing anyone to use their bitcoins as collateral. Decentralization will not be affected and there is no way that every bitcoiner is going to give up his bitcoins for fiat loans all at thesame time like you are insinuating in the op.

I have already said this before about bitcoin collateral, if you have another suitable asset, using bitcoin as collateral will not be neccessary. The only reason I am in support of such an idea is because, it will save you from selling your bitcoins when you are not ready to do so.

[Bryan jessy]

Not necessarily breaching, because the Bank only have control over their own acquired Bitcoin not the whole Bitcoin entirely, and whoever decides to use his Bitcoin for bank loan is the person's choice because the Bank can not force a person to use his Bitcoin because they do not even know if a person has some Bitcoin in possession, but it not possible to use an asset as collateral because Bitcoin is an asset and the person is also taking loan (money) which is also an asset, it is like an exchange of money for money, I have not experienced such exchange before unless the loan the person is getting with his Bitcoin is in form of something else.

[Spaceman1000$]

I'm not trying to take a side here, we are all here to lecture ourselves about Bitcoin and crypto, and since few discussions about Bitcoin and Banks have been coming on recently due to the fact that banks will start giving loan services to Bitcoin holders ...

This have raised some concerns inside of me, and I need to let it all out ...
I read through one of this discussion and people are liking the idea so far...I don't completely hate it but...

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

Bitcoin, without it's people is nothing, if everyone decides to give up on Bitcoin in a go it will affects Bitcoin, on the other hand, if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

First of all, I find it very intriguing to know that banks are convincing people to take loan on Bitcoin, the laws in my own country allows for bank to give loan in Fiat. However if the story is anything to go by, then it doesn't change anything, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is not changed, this is because the person that went to get the loan from the bank can decide to still control his assets without the interference of the bank, so for the fact that the bank is the one giving out the Bitcoin asset does not invalidate the fact that Bitcoin still has all it's trappings.

[Pandu Geddon]

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

The bank does not force people to pledge their Bitcoin. Everyone who owns Bitcoin has the choice to hold their own Bitcoin. You yourself said that the true power of Bitcoin lies in its users. The government through the bank certainly cannot follow a decentralized system, but Bitcoin users have their own choices. But surely you know, there are Bitcoin holders who may not care about centralization and decentralization. They just buy and make a profit.

[retreat]

It's as simple as this: “Not your keys, not your coins.” If someone hands over ownership to a third party, they no longer have full ownership of those Bitcoins. Regardless of multisigs schemes such as those offered by Sygnum Bank, or any other scheme offered by a bank, it cannot be said that full ownership remains with the holder – rather, the bank has full control over those assets. Whatever the bank chooses to do with those assets is a risk borne by the customer who has entrusted their assets to that bank. That is why, if users do not fully understand and are not prepared to accept that risk, they should not entrust their assets to a bank – but instead use other, more sensible forms of collateral for their loans.

[Rockstarguy]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

Bitcoin, without it's people is nothing, if everyone decides to give up on Bitcoin in a go it will affects Bitcoin, on the other hand, if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

It is not breaching decentralization; people only choose to give their Bitcoin as collateral to the bank, so you wouldn’t say the bank is controlling them. If they decide not to use Bitcoin as collateral or not to give it out, no one can have access to anyone's Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is decentralized, and people can choose to do whatever they want with their Bitcoin because they are in control of it. For those who understand the value of their holding, they would never trade it as collateral in a bank. It is only people who are desperate for money and want to make money by all means who will fall for something like this.

[MisFoxie]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?
I am not perfect and I am not trying to be, all I care about is knowledge acquirement.

There will definitely be some people who will take loans by keeping Bitcoin as collateral but not everyone is as foolish as them. Those who understand the decentralization of Bitcoin properly will never keep their funds in someone elses custody.

Bitcoin, without it's people is nothing, if everyone decides to give up on Bitcoin in a go it will affects Bitcoin, on the other hand, if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

Actually it is true that if people dislike bitcoin but bitcoin will have no value but why would people trust banks instead of Bitcoin when banks have a long history of fraud?

Centralisation has it's way of controlling and forcing people, if they can get their hands on people then they can control Bitcoin, the real strength of Bitcoin is it's people.

Do you think it is that easy to control people? If you look into history properly you will see that in some countries Bitcoin is illegal but in those countries transection are much higher than some legal countries.

[aoluain]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?

if the banks can control the people, what's left for Bitcoin ?

There's misused of word here, the bank is not confusing people to take fiat loan against their Bitcoin, it is rather convincing them.

and naking them believe its such a great idea to do so. But if those people keep to the loan
agreement they get to keep their Bitcoin at a cost of the interest.

Any serious Bitcoiner wouldnt avail of that service from any bank, if you cannot buy it outright
its better to not have it than to buy it at the cost of interest repayments.

I dont see how this move by some banks is breaching decentralisation. Decentralisation starts
with the code, the development, the miners and node runners and finally us. Not everyone is going
to take out loans based on their Bitcoin just the same as not everyone stores their coins on
centralised exchanges.

[Wahidcroposs]

Bank is a financial organization . It is managed some rules and regulation. Bank can use proper utilization of Bitcoin in secured investment they feedback positively from people. Bank can use Bitcoin like asset and distribute  credit system it may better in this digital word. If bank starting  exchange system people can more focus on Bitcoin with the bank.     

[Smartprofit]

I imagined Satoshi Nakamoto going to the bank for a loan, offering his 1,000,000 bitcoins as collateral... 🙋

The very idea of ​​getting a bank loan using bitcoin as collateral is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. It contradicts the original purpose of bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized money. Therefore, it should be used as money. If you use bitcoin as collateral to get bitcoin, then the very purpose of bitcoin loses all meaning.

As far as I understand, this idea of ​​getting a loan using bitcoin as collateral is actively promoted by Michael Saylor. However, it's important to understand that Michael Saylor is a Wall Street businessman. For Michael Saylor, Bitcoin is simply a way to earn fiat money and restore his reputation in the American financial community. I believe that Bitcoin and commercial banks are like matter and antimatter. They cannot coexist. Their convergence leads to annihilation, mutual destruction.  Bitcoin is insurance against the collapse of the modern financial system. Banks, even by the standards of the modern financial system, are long-outdated financial institutions. 🧑‍💻

[PrivacyG]

I'm thinking 🤔, if banks can confuse people to take loan from them using their Bitcoin isn't this breaching decentralisation?

No.  I can share my Private Key or Seed with any body I want, if they want to share their access to Bitcoin with a Bank or if they want to give up ownership to one then it is their problem and it has no thing to do with Bitcoin.  The Blockchain works in the same way.