How clueless central banks are? This.

[AZwarel]

I have just read this: http://www.coindesk.com/central-bankers-digital-money-institution-control/

TLDR: the central banks like bitcoin, the technology, for the part of it's cheap and fast way of moving money; (not so much for the property transfer)
They want to implement it because, quote
 "they posit that central banks could issue their own digital currencies that would benefit from the institutional backing of a central bank." italics are mine.
FEDCOIN  you know you want it, right? Except the part where they already issuing currency, which is already mostly in digital form, not in bills..

Fascinating!
They still do not get the whole idea, that distributed network was an answer for their corruptible, co-opted, single point of failure system, and that the very core principle
of bitcoin and the blockchain solution was decentralization!

Are there anyone here working in finance/banking to explain to us, do they really can not understand cryptos, which are going to destroy their business? Kodak 2.0 ?

[1714847940]

1714847940

[1714847940]

1714847940

[1714847940]

1714847940

[waldox]

central bankers with unlimited fiat can try to control bitcoin by infiltrating bitcoin devs and making them follow what they want
just like what they do to countries that dont sell their oil/minerals for us dollar or who are not controlled already by the imf/world bank, creating coups and removing the governments
currently the centralized bitcoin foundation pays for most of the core devs to work on bitcoin
it wouldnt take much money for central bankers to influence bitcoin foundation and thus influence bitcoin core development

[Benjig]

central bankers with unlimited fiat can try to control bitcoin by infiltrating bitcoin devs and making them follow what they want
just like what they do to countries that dont sell their oil/minerals for us dollar or who are not controlled already by the imf/world bank, creating coups and removing the governments
currently the centralized bitcoin foundation pays for most of the core devs to work on bitcoin
it wouldnt take much money for central bankers to influence bitcoin foundation and thus influence bitcoin core development

The good thing is that bitcoin core devs and bitcoin foundation members are already rich, so it will be a little hard to convince them via money, anyway im tired of fiat garbage money and banksters.

[Ron~Popeil]

I have just read this: http://www.coindesk.com/central-bankers-digital-money-institution-control/

TLDR: the central banks like bitcoin, the technology, for the part of it's cheap and fast way of moving money; (not so much for the property transfer)
They want to implement it because, quote
 "they posit that central banks could issue their own digital currencies that would benefit from the institutional backing of a central bank." italics are mine.
FEDCOIN   you know you want it, right? Except the part where they already issuing currency, which is already mostly in digital form, not in bills..

Fascinating!
They still do not get the whole idea, that distributed network was an answer for their corruptible, co-opted, single point of failure system, and that the very core principle
of bitcoin and the blockchain solution was decentralization!

Are there anyone here working in finance/banking to explain to us, do they really can not understand cryptos, which are going to destroy their business? Kodak 2.0 ?

Centralized crypto currency would fail miserably. Anyone that understands crypto currency understands that decentralization is the overall goal.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Centralized crypto currency would fail miserably. Anyone that understands crypto currency understands that decentralization is the overall goal.

So how come centralization is what we are seeing?
Big mining pools and , more importantly, farms.
And bitcoin ever becomes mainstream the current blockchain model doesnt scale. And who is going to control the datacenters with the super nodes?
Read the bitcoin whitepapers, decentralization cannot be the goal simply by design.

[Este Nuno]

Centralized crypto currency would fail miserably. Anyone that understands crypto currency understands that decentralization is the overall goal.

So how come centralization is what we are seeing?
Big mining pools and , more importantly, farms.
And bitcoin ever becomes mainstream the current blockchain model doesnt scale. And who is going to control the datacenters with the super nodes?
Read the bitcoin whitepapers, decentralization cannot be the goal simply by design.

I agree with you. What we're seeing now with bitcoin is something that is vastly more centralised than Satoshi could have ever imagined it would be.

I'm not sure the bitcoin community fully understands how centralised bitcoin actually is currently with the way mining has evolved.

[okthen]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

[SirChiko]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

Just read these posts above yours we are kind of centralised althought not as fully as these banks want their altcoin to be.

[okthen]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

Just read these posts above yours we are kind of centralised althought not as fully as these banks want their altcoin to be.

Being centralized would be someone or a government having full control.
Even if there is an unbalance of power, it is not the same, and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think it will kind of smooth out with time.

[Harley997]

Central banks are how banks can move funds to eachother.

Say for example someone with an account at bank1 wanted to send 10 billion dollars to an account at bank2. Bank1 would send funds to the central bank who would then credit funds to bank2 (the more likely scenario is that bank1 would borrow funds from the central bank, or an other bank or would instruct the central bank to debit their account at the central bank). If the central bank did not exist then bank1 would need to send cash to bank2 to facilitate this transfer.

The problem with central banks is that they often will issue their currency out of nothing. This is where QE comes into play.

The Bitcoin network serves as the same purpose that central banks play in my top paragraph, but the Bitcoin network cannot print money at the level that QE does.

It should be noted that the Federal Reserve and the Treasure (for the United States) facilitates hundreds of billions of dollars of transactions every day.

[Stn]

Central banks are how banks can move funds to eachother.

Say for example someone with an account at bank1 wanted to send 10 billion dollars to an account at bank2. Bank1 would send funds to the central bank who would then credit funds to bank2 (the more likely scenario is that bank1 would borrow funds from the central bank, or an other bank or would instruct the central bank to debit their account at the central bank). If the central bank did not exist then bank1 would need to send cash to bank2 to facilitate this transfer.

This is absolute nonce. No one central bank does it. Many banks have so called correspondent accounts between each other. So bank1 has account in bank2 and when client1 send money to client2, bank1 moves money from its account within bank2.

If bank1 and bank2 are rather small and distant and they don't have direct relation then they definitely have correspondent accounts in one of world largest banks (bank3). So bank1 moves money from bank1's account to the similar account of bank2 within bank3.

[AZwarel]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

Just read these posts above yours we are kind of centralised althought not as fully as these banks want their altcoin to be.

Being centralized would be someone or a government having full control.
Even if there is an unbalance of power, it is not the same, and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think it will kind of smooth out with time.

I kind of think of the same. By centralization i mean single point of failure. Even if it makes no sense to mine bitcoin with your home PC, since you are never going to get
a share most likely, in principle, you still can affect the network. In central banking method, there is 0% chance you can affect the network, and that 0% vs 0.00001%
in bitcoin system makes a whole lot of a difference in principle! The point is that you can have a voice - even if it is miniscule -, or no "voice" at all.

[okthen]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

Just read these posts above yours we are kind of centralised althought not as fully as these banks want their altcoin to be.

Being centralized would be someone or a government having full control.
Even if there is an unbalance of power, it is not the same, and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think it will kind of smooth out with time.

I kind of think of the same. By centralization i mean single point of failure. Even if it makes no sense to mine bitcoin with your home PC, since you are never going to get
a share most likely, in principle, you still can affect the network. In central banking method, there is 0% chance you can affect the network, and that 0% vs 0.00001%
in bitcoin system makes a whole lot of a difference in principle! The point is that you can have a voice - even if it is miniscule -, or no "voice" at all.

Yes!
It's basically the principles of democracy, your vote might not be worth much, but it's representative.

[Ron~Popeil]

Centralization would not only fail but defeat the whole purpose.
I'm sure they'll find some way to join the boat, but I don't think controlling the whole thing will be it.

Just read these posts above yours we are kind of centralised althought not as fully as these banks want their altcoin to be.

Being centralized would be someone or a government having full control.
Even if there is an unbalance of power, it is not the same, and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think it will kind of smooth out with time.

I kind of think of the same. By centralization i mean single point of failure. Even if it makes no sense to mine bitcoin with your home PC, since you are never going to get
a share most likely, in principle, you still can affect the network. In central banking method, there is 0% chance you can affect the network, and that 0% vs 0.00001%
in bitcoin system makes a whole lot of a difference in principle! The point is that you can have a voice - even if it is miniscule -, or no "voice" at all.

Yes!
It's basically the principles of democracy, your vote might not be worth much, but it's representative.

As mining hardware gets cheaper it will democratize the network even more. There are people working on these kinds of issues all the time. P2P mining is a great example of the community addressing such issues.

[pening]

They still do not get the whole idea, that distributed network was an answer for their corruptible, co-opted, single point of failure system, and that the very core principle
of bitcoin and the blockchain solution was decentralization!

Not quite:  trusted de-centralisation was the objective of Nakamoto's paper, a cryptographically secured blockchain is the solution.  Pedantry?  Maybe, the point is that anyone is able to apply that technology, including the banks.

[okthen]

They still do not get the whole idea, that distributed network was an answer for their corruptible, co-opted, single point of failure system, and that the very core principle
of bitcoin and the blockchain solution was decentralization!

Not quite:  trusted de-centralisation was the objective of Nakamoto's paper, a cryptographically secured blockchain is the solution.  Pedantry?  Maybe, the point is that anyone is able to apply that technology, including the banks.

Yes, objective and principles are very different definitions.
Not sure if Nakamoto had principals (i.e. moral) in mind.
Anyway, nothing will be immune from corruption.

[Ron~Popeil]

They still do not get the whole idea, that distributed network was an answer for their corruptible, co-opted, single point of failure system, and that the very core principle
of bitcoin and the blockchain solution was decentralization!

Not quite:  trusted de-centralisation was the objective of Nakamoto's paper, a cryptographically secured blockchain is the solution.  Pedantry?  Maybe, the point is that anyone is able to apply that technology, including the banks.

Yes, objective and principles are very different definitions.
Not sure if Nakamoto had principals (i.e. moral) in mind.
Anyway, nothing will be immune from corruption.

Trustless systems can get us close but a certain percentage people will always try to corrupt things to further their advantage. Sadly those people are in power in most countries currently.

[Harley997]

Central banks are how banks can move funds to eachother.

Say for example someone with an account at bank1 wanted to send 10 billion dollars to an account at bank2. Bank1 would send funds to the central bank who would then credit funds to bank2 (the more likely scenario is that bank1 would borrow funds from the central bank, or an other bank or would instruct the central bank to debit their account at the central bank). If the central bank did not exist then bank1 would need to send cash to bank2 to facilitate this transfer.

This is absolute nonce. No one central bank does it. Many banks have so called correspondent accounts between each other. So bank1 has account in bank2 and when client1 send money to client2, bank1 moves money from its account within bank2.

If bank1 and bank2 are rather small and distant and they don't have direct relation then they definitely have correspondent accounts in one of world largest banks (bank3). So bank1 moves money from bank1's account to the similar account of bank2 within bank3.

You are correct when speaking about smaller banks moving money. These banks generally only have a few billion dollars in deposits and assets. The smaller banks essentially use larger banks as a "central bank" however the larger banks like Chase, US bank, B of A, Wells, use the central bank to move funds to each-other. This is also how check clearing works.