Wake up people! Banks are not governments. They can't make things illegal!

[Cicero2.0]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

I agree with you on many levels, but unfortunately banks do run governments. Not the other way around.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I am starting to believe this.

[Elwar]

Banks can certainly influence governments and get their candidates elected just like large corporations or unions or any other large economic force.

But until a bank has the power of guns and can kidnap you and lock you in a cage in a socially acceptable manner, they cannot make things illegal. Only governments are allowed to do that.

And since no government has passed a law saying that they will kidnap you and lock you in a cage if you use bitcoins then it has not been made illegal.

Even the bank of Bolivia, as powerful as it may be, has not influenced their government to pass such a law. Hence, Bolivia (the country's government) has not banned bitcoins.

[CurbsideProphet]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

Pretty sure McDonald's doesn't have the authority to ban a Burger King product  

[CoolBliss]

Banks sometimes can be more cruel than worst governments are

[btcxyzzz]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Banks are countries, banks are states.

[hdbuck]

banks own you all.

[Willisius]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

As others have said, banks are integral to and have significant control over governments. I'd just like to add an addendum that we are all quite awake.

[jonsi]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

It may be but most of the time banks controls governments.

[Elwar]

Pretty sure McDonald's doesn't have the authority to ban a Burger King product  

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

[cryptnutter]

Unfortunately to many people the articles may as well read that the country itself banned Bitcoin.

What we really need is to counter those articles with articles which show how irrelevant the first article was 

[Ludi]

The power of FUD strikes again with this. Half of the time the banks or governments haven't even 'banned' bitcoin but people panic like they have. Misinformation spreads fear all too easily.

[johnyj]

As long as people have belief in their printed money, banks can print money and purchase everything including the governmet

[smoothie]

The fed is a bank and with enough monetary influence on the US government they can buy whatever law they want practically.

[lihuajkl]

put simply banks are banning their bank branches from handling out bitcoins.. just like banks wont hand out baked beans directly.

this does not stop individuals or private businesses from using bitcoins.... or baked beans 

banks are simply contracted to only touch fiat. (this has never changed, and is just a reminder)

summary:
you will not find a baked bean or a bitcoin inside your bank account balance or credit card statement.

yes，the announcement can't stop people from using BTC. But it effects the distributin and application of BTC. First. People who don't really understand what btc is get scared about BTC and get away with it. people heard the bad news and are convinced. Second. Banks ban all the transactions related BTC. If people who hold BTC is not easy to change to fiat through the domestic exchange.Even they can, how can they withdraw the fiat through bank?

[justusranvier]

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

I don't know what "authority" means in practice.

GE can get incandescent light bulbs banned because they want to sell more CFLs. Taxi cartels can get Uber and Lyft banned. Appalachian coal mining companies can get EPA regulations that flavor their dirtier coal over the cleaner Rocky Mountain coal. Child seat manufacturers are well on their way to getting driving banned if any child under 30 years old isn't sitting in one of their products. Monsanto can get seed lines that aren't Roundup Ready banned.

Do any of these companies have the authority to do this?

All that matters is whether they succeed or fail in getting what they want, and they succeed fairly often.

[Elwar]

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

I don't know what "authority" means in practice.

GE can get incandescent light bulbs banned because they want to sell more CFLs. Taxi cartels can get Uber and Lyft banned. Appalachian coal mining companies can get EPA regulations that flavor their dirtier coal over the cleaner Rocky Mountain coal. Child seat manufacturers are well on their way to getting driving banned if any child under 30 years old isn't sitting in one of their products. Monsanto can get seed lines that aren't Roundup Ready banned.

Do any of these companies have the authority to do this?

All that matters is whether they succeed or fail in getting what they want, and they succeed fairly often.

In each of your examples:
company -> government -> ban

In no instance can:
company -> ban
other than within their own company.

We get it. Banks have a lot of money/influence/lobbyists, etc.

But a bank cannot ban bitcoins.

Unless a bank has the power to kidnap people and put them in a cage after a socially accepted show of "fairness" they do not have the power to make something illegal. Only governments have such power.

[sumantso]

Governments are controlled by money men. Make no mistake, banks have a huge influence on them.

Virtually all the political events, decisions can be traced back to money motives by greedy people.

[justusranvier]

In each of your examples:
company -> government -> ban

In no instance can:
company -> ban
other than within their own company.

We get it. Banks have a lot of money/influence/lobbyists, etc.

But a bank cannot ban bitcoins.

Unless a bank has the power to kidnap people and put them in a cage after a socially accepted show of "fairness" they do not have the power to make something illegal. Only governments have such power.

You're just splitting hairs.

[rext]

technically the banks do pay them a certain percentage.

[Elwar]

You're just splitting hairs.

When a central bank's legal department recommends banning the use of bitcoins in the banks it is not splitting hairs to say that the country (Bolivia) did not ban bitcoin.