Topic: [POLL] Would you open a Bitcoin account at your local bank? - page 4. (Read 5286 times)

probably I would open an account. I am not really sure because as you explain above, the system would be like we save fiat in banks, so what makes it different anyway? and what about the security? would it be save in banks hands? I am not really sure.

In my opinion the whole point of the Bitcoin system is to "be the bank of myself". This would make no sense opening a bitcoin account at a bank so no, I wouldn't do it 
Also this I also have a small number of bitcoins and thus I feel more confortable privately owning them.

yeah  dont think id do it a local bank to be honest

i think there should be some sort of anonymous bank tho, that would be sweet

No matter what ever it is .i would never ever open a bank account in bitcoins.i would not ever trust them at all .i would rather keep it in my wallet and sell it whenever it is necessary.

You're right. You won.
It was a good discussion and you've convinced me.

I understand now why the best answer is
I won't open Bitcoin account at the bank. You changed my mind.

The danger is not for you personally.  You know the difference between a Bitcoin and a Bitcoin note.  The danger is for all those people who will accept and use Bitcoin notes and believe them to be "as good as" Bitcoins or basically a safer government backed and controlled version of Bitcoins.  The danger is that, once again, the general public will fall for the same old central bank scam and Bitcoin notes become "Bitcoins" in the public mind.  Just like Federal Reserve notes have become "dollars" in the public mind.

Go ahead and put your Bitcoins in the bank for the illusions they peddle.  You are informed.  You know they are no longer yours and you are accepting the banks IOU and word they will give them back when you come to demand them back.  You are willing to take the risk.  There is nothing wrong with that.

My concern is on a larger scale.  My concern is for the concept and good name of Bitcoin.

I've read all you said, but it's too long to quote it here.

All right, but we know that fiat is flawed and it's doomed. Whatever they'll add to gold - whether it's silver, Bitcoin or seashells - to their reserve, it doesn't matter.
Meaning that if they want to do their thing with Bitcoin and they cannot, they will find a replacement (probably diamonds, platinum or palladium) and they are done.

So, back to square one:
1. Banks will play with fractional reserve with or without Bitcoin.
2. The goods used as reserve did not diminish their value because of this.
3. The goods used as reserve did not become more abundant, they became scarcer.

So from what I see the banks will not harm Bitcoin if we use Banks to deposit Bitcoin there.
The only things that may be harmed are the local currencies, but if the banks want to do that they'll do it with or without Bitcoin.

So I still don't see where I'd lose if I'd make a "Bitcoin account" there.

Edit: Aaaaaahhhh! I think that I fully understood your point after posting. We don't deposit seashells or palladium, banks use what we have deposited for their play. So if we make Bitcoin account we do harm our currency.
It's not that much, but I got it now. This also happens though if I'd deposit fiat, so Bitcoin is still odd in the equation.

That is exactly my point! 

Bitcoin is like "digital gold".  Bitcoin == gold.  Bitcoin notes == Federal Reserve Notes == "dollars".

The current fiat garbage we use was originally backed by gold/silver.  At one time one dollar was defined as equal to  exactly 1/35th of an ounce of gold.  You could go to any bank and turn in 35 "dollars" = technically "Federal Reserve Notes"  = gold notes = paper IOUs from the Federal Reserve that substitutes for something real = gold substitutes, for one ounce of real gold.  The banks had no choice.  You can see this from the original obligation printed right on the notes:


The term lawful money is very interesting, check out the history of that term some time. 

Eventually there were so many Federal Reserve Notes in circulation that the amount of actual gold held in reserve "backing" all the notes was a total joke.  At that point the we just stopped backing the FRNs and we ended up with what we have today, currency by fiat, the value of which is controlled and devalued on purpose by the Federal Reserve system.

Just look at the current obligation written on you Federal Reserve notes.  Very different from their original obligation wouldn't you agree?


It is inevitable that this will happen again as history always repeats itself until people learn from it.

Check out the deterioration of the obligation clause over time here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

While I agree with your other points, I found the main problem / difference between our logic.


It sounds familiar, but I don't think that this is possible with Bitcoin and I'll tell you why.
Bitcoin is like gold, not like fiat. While the banks have gold in their vaults (or not, who knows?), they create fiat from it, not gold.
So from Bitcoin they will be able to create, again, only cash ("out of thin air"), no "Bitcoin notes" or such (and even if they would create Bitcoin notes, they would be something totally different from Bitcoin, not interfering the valuation of one with another).
They do their schemes with fiat because the local currencies are government's/central bank's property (more or less, please allow me to not be 100% exact on this) and their valuation and inflation is agreed by the central bank and government (depending on the country/union). Bank notes (fiat) are what their name tells. Some paper (or whatever) that has a value depending on the bank.
I don't know how to explain it better. I think that the analogy with gold is the best I could give now I hope it made sense.



Thank you, this come nicely after somebody asked me last week (or so) if my account is bought or I am just a sig spammer.
(I was very wrong on a matter, but some forget that humans are allowed to also mistake).

whether you can buy and sell your bitcoin throu your bank or not, you still have to deal with them before making transactions as your btc is stored to them, that something of a compromised in a legal way.

i voted maybe because it depends!

opening a bitcoin account if it allows me to buy and sell bitcoin through my bank where my money is means i am cutting the middle mad (exchange) and potentially cutting a lot of fees (exchange trade fees and deposit/withdrawal fees) so it is saving me a lot of money.

also it depends on the rules they are going to set, like if i can withdraw any amount of bitcoin that i want, are they going to give me profit, how good is the cards they issue and so many other things.

for me it is not just black and while like others saying NO to banks and absolute YES to bitcoin.

All of what the OP is suggesting is just a way to get us to sign but the bank will run a centralized service, while the allure could be great we must resist that possible temptation and avoid using those services.

Bank will never accept bitcoin, why do banks adopt it where they can't controll it moreover it makes bitcoin being centralized, however if that would happen i personally will not open account out there, they can stole or maybe freeze my money anytime, i just don't get it why do people have to trust 3rd party for storing their money while having or controll their own money it is easy to do.

Why should I open a "Bitcoin account" with a bank? So that they could use my coins and do with it whatever they want? Do you think it is safe for you to "save" your money in the bank? The money you store with them is essentially in their control and in some cases they can even freeze your accounts and there is nothing you can do about it.

I do not ignore the fact that people can and do lend their Bitcoins to exchanges, Poloniex, strangers, friends, family, etc.  In fact I have Bitcoins on account at exchanges and do on occasion lend them out to margin traders.  You are correct that people can and do lend Bitcoins and there is actually nothing wrong with that.  My issue is with deposit accounts at Banks, specifically government/centrally controlled banks.

Might be true until the whole fiat currency house of cards begins to crumble.  Then we will see how safe your funds are from confiscation, increased fees and across the board deposit "taxes".

Sure.

Lending in and of itself is not wrong.  People need to realize that is what they are doing, that is all.  They need to know the difference between possessing Bitcoins and lending them.  Most people do not realize the difference until they loose their Bitcoins in a exchange or business collapse.  This is one of the beautiful things about Bitcoins.  It teaches very valuable lessons.

I do not think you understood what I said.  The danger here is not the lending of Bitcoins.  The danger here is the banks creating money out of thin air based on Bitcoins.  If Bitcoin deposits become common place then the next step is to create Bitcoin checks and then Bitcoin notes.  Once these Bitcoin notes are generally accepted as payment the banks are once again totally in charge, can inflate, can deflate, can control the value of these Bitcoin notes.  There can be as many Bitcoin notes as they want.  All "backed" by the pool of actual Bitcoins. The actual pool of 21 million real Bitcoins will eventually "back" a huge number of Bitcoin notes.  Once these Bitcoin notes are generally accepted as money then, for the "good of the system", the value of these Bitcoin notes will be separated from the value of the actual Bitcoins and the value of them can be controlled by a central Bitcoin Bank.

Does this sound familiar to you?

I will not call you names either.  I call the people who glibly and blindly and ignorantly say "sure, there is no harm in giving my Bitcoins to the banking system and accepting Bitcoin notes instead" sheep because that is what they are.  You obviously are a thinking person, not a signature spamming parasite on this forum.

Finally, did you miss this part of my statement:


The difference this time around is that those of us who choose not to participate in the bankers schemes will not have to participate.  Once Bitcoin substitute notes are generally accepted (basically just another form or paper currency controlled by the government, central bank, and selfish corporate interests) those of us who choose not to participate can always trade them in for real Bitcoins at whatever the Bitcoin note to real Bitcoin exchange rate happens to be.

    The banking system and the technology behind bitcoins community is the day and the night. In the first case someone gives confidence to the financial system, gives his money to a third  party (bank system). Bank is  aware of what you do, he knows your transactions he can freeze your money if you don't use it like system wants to do. Furthermore, if bank system wants they can 'haircut' your savings. Searching to find the most recent country where banks haircut the citizen savings to save the damaged banks.

On the other side blockchain technology only 9 pages of a paper https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf gives you freedom.


So The poll question could be 'Do you want to put the wolf to guard the sheeps ?'

Of course No

Creating bitcoin account on local bank = giving your bitcoin in hand of banks/governments who keep on investigating you if you store even 1 bitcoin or receive higher amount of bitcoin in your account.

And they will immediately freeze your bitcoin, so there will be no point remaining of using bitcoin wallet rather than paper money and banks.

You somehow ignore that people already do that. Poloniex and other exchanges allow you to send your Bitcoin there and lend it, hoping that you'll get your money back and some extra.
The difference would be that banks are (unfortunately) privileged by the governments and (fortunately) the chance they'll steal your money would be smaller than at other businesses (exchanges).

Then the fact somebody keeps an amount of Bitcoin at a business (in this case a bank) doesn't exclude the fact the same person keeps some in cold storage, some on local wallet, some at exchanges/trading and so on. People that want to earn money will try to make them work.

While you are right that keeping money on another businesses is wrong, you forgot that this already happens. The difference is that they are not called infamously "banks".
While you are right that working with "promise to pay", you didn't think that bigger exchanges can already do that. Do you really think that all of them are nice an keep all the money in cold storage instead of "make the money work" for them?

So I find your logic flawed. All the problems you stated, while real, already happen even without the banks getting a share of it.
But I will not call you names.

So we use exchanges to convert the bticoin into fiat and this money go to a bank account, so I think most of us will use this feature.

The reason why people convert to fiat it's because they can't spend the bitcoins where they want, like paying bills and daily things like that, the day that it change will increase the btc price for sure because none will need to convert.

I agree. If Bitcoin will be authorized by any of government then it will become centralized which give more impact on characteristics of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is P2p currency with many of features such as anonymity, decentralization  etc.

If government interfere in financial institutions with centralized parameter then it can bring down trust and security which bitcoin already have.