Why There Should Be A Bitcoin Central Bank

[Omikifuse]

Unlike money, you can't just print more money to satsfy the growing demand. There are only 21M Bitcoins going to be created, if the fractional stuff goes too far, we might have more than 21M to be given back to the customers, what is impossible to happens no matter what you do.

So I guess better no, thanks

[NikkieBeraj]

Forbes contributors aren't some unified body. They freelance contribute. I've read many good articles by contributors and many really terrible (and grammatically error-ridden) ones like this.

[Ondago]

Forbes contributors aren't some unified body. They freelance contribute. I've read many good articles by contributors and many really terrible (and grammatically error-ridden) ones like this.

Just look at Kashmir Hil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSfFdMeORO0l, a real live reporter for Forbes (as in, not a contributor) who was one of MSMs earliest bitcoin proponents. And the first reporter to live on only what she could buy with bitcoin for a week.
Forbes actually has a very good track record in terms of positive bitcoin articles.

[Jeramom]

Forbes contributors aren't some unified body. They freelance contribute. I've read many good articles by contributors and many really terrible (and grammatically error-ridden) ones like this.

Right, but this Forbes contributer is also a speaker for them e.g. at http://bitcoinexpo2014.com/

[ensurance982]

Well, then go and create an altcoin for that! I guess some governments are already trying and establishing such a currency. But it can't be a decentralized cryptocurrency! If there's one single thing that's centralized, it topples the whole idea of Bitcoin! Not a good idea, we'd introduce a single point of failure!

[Orjaner]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

[WineAndWhiskey]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes...

[minerpumpkin]

Not a good idea at all, I believe! This would destroy all the advantages of Bitcoin. Having a central authority is completely undermining everything Bitcoin has accomplished so far. Please make some Altcoin or something, but not with Bitcoin! (It would cause a hardfork anyways )

[BlockShame]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes...

Yeah, but it is still embarrassingly ignorant.

[wallpaperwallet]

This article is not written by "Forbes." It is written by Eric Mu. Eric Mu doesn't get it.

[FloodZone]

It is no secret that today, almost all modern banks operate on the basis of fractional reserves. To put in simpler terms: banks only has in their vaults a small percentage of the money that their customers gave them; if a large enough number of customers of a specific bank want to get their money back, the bank wouldn’t be able to meet the demand. Before there was modern central bank system, the bank could either have to borrow or file for bankruptcy. The central banks by design had infinite ability to lend, for they can legally conjure up money from thin air – there is a reason that modern currencies are called fiat money.

The Bitcoin world doesn’t have central banks, and this fact even appeal to some of its supporters with libertarian inclinations. Among these people, a widely-held belief is that bailing out insolvent banks is no different from highway robbing; if a bank screws up, the argument maintains, it should face the consequences alone, rather than letting all economy participants across the system to share the pain in the form of debased per unit currency value.

However, without a central bank system, a fractional reserve system can be risky. This is illustrated by the many failed banks in history and most recently, the spectacular fall of Mt. Gox. Before it became clear that the Bitcoin exchange was insolvent, users traded under the false assumption that they were trading their own bitcoins, when the reality is they were just trading in “Goxcoins”, which is just thin air. Later it is discovered that the exchange had lost tens of thousands of its customers’ coins; the cause remains a mystery to this day.

The collapse of Mt. Gox has great implications on the Bitcoin world. It shakes many people’s confidence in exchanges and security of the digital currency. Inevitably this has been factored into the price levels and employed by many Bitcoin critics – it is arguable that the psychological cost is even higher than the lost bitcoins.

In the aftermath, there was increasing demand for the exchanges to have 100% reserve ratio. In response, a cryptographic proof of reserve system was introduced to enable exchanges to prove that they can handle a Bitcoin version of run on the bank. Last week, OKCoin, a China-based Bitcoin exchange announced that they had passed a proof of reserve audit with its reserve ration of 104.86%. This means that the exchange has 4.86% in excess of the amount it owes its customers. While this is ensuring for OKCoin customers, it may not be a good thing for Bitcoin if you treat it as an economy system.

The benefit of fractional reserve banking is that it has positive effect on the economy by allowing banks to extend credit to people who are in need of it, provided the borrowers agree to pay back with an interest. In the Bitcoin world, such activities are rather discouraged. On one hand, the exchanges, which serve like banks in the sense that they are both custodians under obligation to safekeep customers’ assets, have to let all the coins sleeping in wallets in order to stay 100% solvent; on the other hand, market demand for coins in the market goes unmet.

A good solution for the problem at hand would be for the entire industry to agree to a certain reserve ratio, say 80%. This would cap the maximum risk, while giving the exchanges certain flexibility to engage in lending activity – one obvious benefit will be speeding up the circulation and increasing liquidity. Given that not all users have the same risk tolerance, they should be allowed to either opt for a zero-interest but full reserve account, or a fractional reserve but interest bearing one.

....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericxlmu/2014/08/24/why-there-should-be-a-bitcoin-central-bank/

I read all your words carefully and i don't understand why we need a Bitcoin Central Bank.  I mean there is a possibilty that a BCB will be created but talking about me - i don't need any Bitcoin Central Banks. Screw them.

[SanMerryDro]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes...

It‘s the opinion of the authors, not Forbes.

[TheMage]

I skipped pages 3-5, so sorry if this has been posted already.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Do you know what this is? This is the genesis block. Do you know why that was put in there? To keep pesky banks and fractional reserves and derivatives and other hellish abominations out of crypto's.




This isn't money that mommy and daddy use, this is the new generation that realizes the social and economic impact that our current system has RAPED society with.


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block

This was probably intended as proof that the block was created on or after January 3rd, 2009, as well as a comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking.

[yitingyou]

I cant agree with this view.

[cutepuppy]

Not a good idea at all, I believe! This would destroy all the advantages of Bitcoin. Having a central authority is completely undermining everything Bitcoin has accomplished so far. Please make some Altcoin or something, but not with Bitcoin! (It would cause a hardfork anyways )

I am pretty sure that the protocol already does the same functions that a central bank does. A central bank will do nothing more then control the supply of money (usually via interest rates, but sometimes though outright purchases/sales of the currency), however the protocol already does this for us when the difficulty changes due to average block times and when the block subsidy changes.

[Cortex7]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes...

Yeah, but it is still embarrassingly ignorant.

It is.

It may not reflect the opinion of Forbes.

But it does reflect badly on Forbes. Certainly to anyone who understands bitcoin and why it was created in the first place.

[master-P]

This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.

It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes...

Yeah, but it is still embarrassingly ignorant.

It is.

It may not reflect the opinion of Forbes.

But it does reflect badly on Forbes. Certainly to anyone who understands bitcoin and why it was created in the first place.

Media outlets often will try to find writers to write editorials that are contrary to their own beliefs. This adds some level of balance to the conversation. I certainly do not agree with this writer's opinion however I do think it is healthy to have these kinds of discussions.

[oceans]

Creating a bitcoin central bank would just ruin all what bitcoin is about. With bitcoin it is totally different to the currencies we use now. Creating a central bank for bitcoin is only doing what we already do with GBP, USD and such and it would only be following in suit to that and bitcoin is not the same.

A central bank for bitcoin would not work in my opinion.

[gonnafly]

This article is not written by "Forbes." It is written by Eric Mu. Eric Mu doesn't get it.

True enough. But unfortunately, the vast majority of people will only think: "I read on Forbes about Bitcoin, and they said..."
It seems that Mr. Mu has written several Bitcoin articles for Forbes. Perhaps if Forbes were to get enough complaints about Mr. Mu's obvious ignorance of the fundamentals of Bitcoin, these articles would cease.

[CokeCoin]

This article is not written by "Forbes." It is written by Eric Mu. Eric Mu doesn't get it.

True enough. But unfortunately, the vast majority of people will only think: "I read on Forbes about Bitcoin, and they said..."
It seems that Mr. Mu has written several Bitcoin articles for Forbes. Perhaps if Forbes were to get enough complaints about Mr. Mu's obvious ignorance of the fundamentals of Bitcoin, these articles would cease.

Link to complaint area then?