Topic: Bitcoin will do to bank what Email did to post office (Read 270 times)

A threat to banking sector, I wouldn’t say that rather the threat is to governments who are concerned that there exploits or manipulation of the local fiat currency will be exposed by bitcoin and one thing the government is concerned is the lack of that control or centralization that they wouldn’t have not bitcoin replacing banks. Should bitcoin be accepted by the government or not it is not here to replace banks because there are still use of institutional banks still, bitcoin is only here to act as an alternative

There is a misconception about these email, Gmail, Banks and bitcoin.

When they say bitcoin will replace the banks, it's not like they are going to make banks to be useless like Gmail electrically modernized mail. No, the two are parallel and there is limitations to both of them but they still coexist like two species. Banks are none to be centralized and often limit people when it comes to versatility of financial system but because Bitcoin is decentralized, nobody limit you how and when you should spend your money. If you go to a bank today to open an account, you have to under series of protocol with documents only to be giving a limited account but with bitcoin, it's permissionless as you don't need anyone approval to open a wallet, you can send in and out as many bitcoin thag you need. However, you can't do everything with bitcoin yet because of the legal status limitation. You can't spend bitcoin without the use of fiat and that's why I said in the beginning that bitcoin can't do same Gmail stunt to banks, it's still far from that but who knows maybe in the future.


To buy bitcoin, you need to buy with any recognized currency which is fiat, you definitely need bank interference to help you facilate transactions and this makes banks and bitcoin to exist together, to buy you need them and to sell, you also need them and addition, you have to py tax in fiat in some countries. This is why bitcoin and banks will live for years except if we see changes later on. The big banks are trying to chase out bitcoin though, the recent attack of SEC and other law enforcement says a lot about how they want bitcoin buried 10 feets under the ground.

I recall about the transaction fees, but there are already banks which loan bitcoin called exchanges.  I know that there is much less volume on exchanges, but at least it shows some people borrow in bitcoin.

Bitcoin is more like a replacement to saving in gold, rather than a replacement to banks.

Just as email has made communication faster, more efficient and decentralized, Bitcoin has played a role in making financial transactions faster, safer, less dependent on centralized banking systems. Bitcoin alone has the potential to revolutionize banking systems like email in the future. Now just as every user can email as they want and need, Bitcoin users will have complete control over their own money.

Yes, Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionize the financial system, as email has completely revolutionized traditional communication systems and disrupted the postal service. Bitcoin is able to conduct transactions without the need for intermediaries such as banks. Because Bitcoin gives its users direct control over their money. In the future, there is a possibility that traditional financial services will be discontinued if Bitcoin facilitates easier access to the entire world. People keep money in banks because they have maximum security of their money even though the bank gives very little profit by investing this money. But investing in Bitcoin has the potential to earn much more profit than banks. However, since Bitcoin is a virtual currency, if its security system can be strengthened and small transactions can be done more easily and at a lower cost, the popularity of Bitcoin will increase in the future.

People's lives have been more simpler as a result of technology taking over, yet everything you see has pros and cons, although we wouldn't say that these are the reasons we wouldn't allow technology rule the world. Scam, spam, and phishing attempt incidents were rare in the days of letter delivery, but since the advent of electronic mail, these cases have risen significantly, increasing the risk of scamming people. It appears to be quite helpful, but it also presents a significant risk to the user.


  It really not been smooth this past month with the conjestion and high fees,

Just imagine bitcoin taking over and people experiencing delays and spending high fees to carry out transactions. Banks have their own advantages too you just can’t rule them out

Bitcoin and banks runs on different system so why are we comparing these two when we both use them in our daily lives? Most of us pour investments on Bitcoin but did you know that you cannot buy a candy with Bitcoin due to the high transaction fees? We need fiat for our daily transactions and we need Bitcoin as an investment though Bitcoin is a new form of currency and can be used as a mode of payment but fees hurts us if we try to use it with smaller transactions.

While there is the comparison of how things changed from the ordinary or traditional process to the automated process and more productive procedure due to the innovation of technology. As much as I want to be optimistic about Bitcoin being the future of finance and money, we cannot stop the fact that the banks are going to stay and not all governments and people are going to adopt bitcoin when there is a vast choice of investments globally and as well as the currencies that we use. One advantage of the government is they have full control of policies and restrictions to what they think is threatening to the safety of their country and for the welfare of their citizens. I think it is better to actually see integration instead of replacement even if we are optimistic of Bitcoin's future. And it is like bank adopting bitcoin instead of pushing it away when it is being liked by many of its customers and there is the opportunity that they can capitalize too.

OP, do not compare the internet and letters with Bitcoin and Banks, it's different...

Do you know how much it costs to send money from your bank to another bank account vs using Bitcoin to send transaction to another Bitcoin wallet? I am not afraid of the truth, Banks beats bitcoin here, it's cheaper to make transactions from bank to bank, both also use the Internet too.

The profitability wise is where Bitcoin beats the banks, and also it's decentralized, which is one of my favourite Bitcoin use case, staying away from the banks and the authorities is why Bitcoin is different.

But trsanction wise, Bitcoin is more costly than using the banks, which will make millions of people to sit prefer using the banks side by side with Bitcoin and some will still choose to stay away from Bitcoin.

Bitcoin and blockchain are transforming banking like email did communication. Here's my take: its not just Bitcoin, but the underlying blockchain technology thats key. Blockchain provides security, efficiency, and transparency, which traditional banking lacks. Yes, banks dont grow as fast as Bitcoin, which raises investor diversification concerns. Blockchain may enhance banking operations, not replace them. It could simplify, reduce fraud, and boost customer satisfaction.

Regulations seem to be more about governments adjusting to new technology than banks. Control and understanding shift, not simply competition. Blockchain's banking transformation potential is huge, but its more evolution than replacement.

They want to tax it, some people use Bitcoin to hide their wealth, so it makes the government only earn less than the reality. If people use centralized exchanges, the CEX will tax your capital gains. But that's not enough since you also need to pay income tax, this is where people aren't pay their tax appropriately if they didn't report it.

If a country create their own centralized exchange, it's nothing different whether you have Bitcoin on there or fiat on banks.

That could possibly be a factor, however, the banks are not actually on their own… the government control the banks. Right? So the government is the one who want to regulate Bitcoin. And that’s the main thing they want. They want to be able to control the Bitcoin system but that is so ironic because why do you want to centralize a decentralized system (I know why though). But Bitcoin indeed has taken a lot of money off the bank. Take a look at the volume of transactions… that’s money that could have been in the bank. If not all, at least half of it.

That is a good analogy, but it will still be a long way to reach that point, not to mention that government will trying their best to prevent that situation to happen. Email can do that to post office because it's not decentralized, mostly it's not encrypted, same with the Post, Email are still controllable by government, that's why all government need to do was regulate and cooperating with email provider.

Bitcoin is different, it is encrypted, pseudonymous, except the user reveal their own identity, it's almost impossible for government to know their identity. Government also cannot demand any entity to let them intervene with Bitcoin because there is no central entity If government can't control it, they won't like it, they will do whatever they can't to prevent it to replace Bank and Fiat.

This is the reason the banks are against Bitcoin, the banks can't compete with Bitcoin. It's also among the reasons why the government are against Bitcoin. The government uses the banks as their institutions to control people through their money so if that privileges get taken aways from the banks, the government becomes powerless. But instead of the banks fighting Bitcoin they would have been looking forward ways to still be a part of the new revolution which is Bitcoin.

Centralized means of operation is something we can't just stop so if the banks were a little bit wiser and not hostile they should be building platforms to operate Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency transaction through creating  exchanging services or other service like wallets and payment processor, that's a way the banks would have been part of the new industry but instead of that, they're busy fighting the industry thinking they can subdue it.


It's inevitable that Bitcoin will make the banks absolute and the only thing the banks can do is to look for a way they can benefits too from Bitcoin dominance. Bitcoin was created as an alternative and if the banks play their cards right they can keep it that way instead of allowing Bitcoin take over all payments system

I do not always understand it when people compares bitcoin to bank. There is no direct comparison between bitcoin and bank rather the comparison is between bank and exchanges. Then, bitcoin and fiat. Talking about bitcoin and fiat, there is never a time that bitcoin will overthrow fiat, is because every country has their own fiat which is their national identity. So, bitcoin can never at a time overtake all the fiats of different countries. Besides, the mindset or the goal of Satoshi Nakamato was not that bitcoin should overthrow or fight with fiat, but rather for bitcoin to provide an alternative means of payment. So, it is likely that both bitcoin and fiat will co-exist only if the government will allow.

There is no doubt that the world is advancing technological, and I am very much optimistic that the best use of bitcoin is yet to be uncovered or discovered. Bitcoin is still an unharnessed young invention.

They won't disappear, but what they have understood by now is that they can't thrive fighting against Bitcoin, but instead the better strategy for them would be to embrace it into their operative strategy and earn money with it in many ways. Offering it as an investment product, offering custody services, but also offering trading or partnering up with exchanges. There are actually quite a lot of ways to earn money with Bitcoin for them, but the problem is that it all aims at centralizing the decentralized network by anchoring in crucial infrastructure nodes that a lot of people will use. Though ultimately it has no impact on Bitcoin as a whole as people are still free to decide whether they want to own an asset of a decentralized network while storing it with centralized entities. If they do, they essentially give up all of the benefits this network offers them. But if they think they only want to jump onto the bandwagon of this movement while still risking to lose it because centralized organizations mess up, that is their own choice. For those who truly want to use Bitcoin and benefit from it, the good news is that they can.

Yes it could be so because bitcoin has pose a lot of threat to the banking sector globally. In as much many Bitcoin enthusiast will want to stop using the bank and be their own bank with bitcoin, we cannot deny the fact of the benefits we get by using the banks that bitcoin can’t offer us e.g taking of loans. If the government are still standing firm not to allow the legalisation of bitcoin, there’s no way it can replace the banking system totally. For now, it will continue to serve as substitute to bank but can’t eliminate the use of bank.

I think it's still an apt analogy. Email didn't destroy mail. You can't send a physical package over email. Email just replaced letters, and it didn't do anything to replace a lot of what the post office is for. Likewise, Bitcoin can replace some of what banks do, while it won't touch on other stuff. Bitcoin can replace banks as a saving account and perhaps one day at least partially replace them as a checking account as well. Of course it's not gonna replace stuff like loans (at least the loan model that has been tried pretty much died off last year when the crypto loan companies all went broke).

Banks won’t go obsolete, they are smart enough to evolve with the times. I can’t envision a society without Banks. Where will private businesses and startups get money to build their businesses? The banks are more than just financial institutions where people save their money, the banking sector is crucial to the economy of any country. What you’re proposing is not realistic, there is so much that needs to be done for that to happen.

I don't still get the way op really define it looking at how important the bank had been. Even though Bitcoin is generally accepted everywhere, does not mean that individual banks would in be in existence? We need to understand the reason behind the creation of Bitcoin. Bitcoin being in existence does not mean that the local banks would not operate again. The government are majorly incahege of the bank and I don't think the government would allow banks to cease operation and Bitcoin to take over. I belief the two can work together.