I am also a bit scared about the possibility of becoming excessively dependent on our computers to manage our money and whole assets.
If these days when the bitcoin is worth $900, we are permanently facing continuous menaces of hackers and scammers to take our coins, I don't know what we could expect in the hypothetic scenario when the price of bitcoin arrives to $100,000 or one million dollars.
Topic: The danger of the cyptocurrencies - page 22. (Read 45220 times)
Bitcoin has two different faces, on one is used for good buy providing a total security for users and the ability to move money on the internet freely , and on the other is being used for bad things , because of the nature of bitcoin it provides the option for hackers and drug dealers to provide their illegal services without being tracked down , and that makes people be unsure whether it is safe to use it or not and if the bitcoin keeps being used by the wrong hands it won’t have any future.
The most of those dangerous/illegal transaction is in deep web. I think no danger cryptocurrency for good pepple. Its depend on whos use it. Bitcoin is secure enough, I really sure. 
Honestly, I don't think that the banks would ever need to adopt the Bitcoin technology (i.e. the blockchain technology). I have yet to see anyone clearly and precisely explaining it to me how it can be really useful to the banks as compared with what they already have and using.
Here is one example. A lot of international interbank transfers occur on the SWIFT network. Banks need a BIC code to participate and connect to the network. It costs money for any bank to maintain a BIC, plus there is a per-message charge to send a transmission on the network. In this example a cross-border wire transfer requires an MT103 message: https://www2.swift.com/uhbonline/books/public/en_uk/al_2_1_autoc_inst_user_guide_20110520/b83.htm
The MT103 message is basically a formatted text file that is sent from the sending bank's computer to the recipient bank's computer. The cost for sending each MT103 is easily 100-1000x the cost of a typical Bitcoin transaction fee. The justification for such high fees is supposedly to guarantee message integrity and network security. Although SWIFT is backed by a consortium of banks, individual banks actually hate the monopoly that SWIFT currently has and would welcome an alternative option that they can use to send transaction messages amongst themselves (safely and securely) without paying SWIFT. This is why there is blockhain research happening on the sly.
This is just one example.
Nice, a legend dropped by to provide some input!
I don't know how slyly they're working on their blockchain research ( http://www.r3cev.com/about/ )....It may not be an open-source project, but they are pretty openly working on it....they even recruited a notorious bitcoin defector didn't they? Mike Hearn? ( http://www.coindesk.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin-post-banker-conspiracy/ ) There's some pretty big names funding the research ( http://banknxt.com/56286/42-banks-r3cev/ )....that's what I do know....We'll see soon though, I'm guessing.
In the upcoming days i think bitcoin will end the bank usage..
Do you mean that btc will kill the banking system? Well, it can be done in two ways: internal and external destruction. External if everything stays the way it is now but more and more people start using bitcoin. Internal if the banks take their risks and start accepting bitcoins. However, I think that neither will happen, actually. There will always remain many people who need some guarantees btc can not provide.If bitcoin will release a btc bank maybe we will not need those banks to deposit or withdraw our bitcoin..
Honestly, I don't think that the banks would ever need to adopt the Bitcoin technology (i.e. the blockchain technology). I have yet to see anyone clearly and precisely explaining it to me how it can be really useful to the banks as compared with what they already have and using.
Here is one example. A lot of international interbank transfers occur on the SWIFT network. Banks need a BIC code to participate and connect to the network. It costs money for any bank to maintain a BIC, plus there is a per-message charge to send a transmission on the network. In this example a cross-border wire transfer requires an MT103 message: https://www2.swift.com/uhbonline/books/public/en_uk/al_2_1_autoc_inst_user_guide_20110520/b83.htm
The MT103 message is basically a formatted text file that is sent from the sending bank's computer to the recipient bank's computer. The cost for sending each MT103 is easily 100-1000x the cost of a typical Bitcoin transaction fee. The justification for such high fees is supposedly to guarantee message integrity and network security. Although SWIFT is backed by a consortium of banks, individual banks actually hate the monopoly that SWIFT currently has and would welcome an alternative option that they can use to send transaction messages amongst themselves (safely and securely) without paying SWIFT. This is why there is blockhain research happening on the sly.
This is just one example.
Bitcoin has two different faces, on one is used for good buy providing a total security for users and the ability to move money on the internet freely , and on the other is being used for bad things , because of the nature of bitcoin it provides the option for hackers and drug dealers to provide their illegal services without being tracked down , and that makes people be unsure whether it is safe to use it or not and if the bitcoin keeps being used by the wrong hands it won’t have any future.
I don't think that bitcoin will end the banking system instead of ending it, the banks are going to adopt the usage of bitcoin because they can see the potential of crypto's or else the government will prohibit the usage of crypto's to their society because it can truly attract a lot of people to use it because of its decentralization.
But banks are a part of the centralised banking system!
Bitcoin aims to get rid of the middleman in transactions, and if you want banks to adopt the technology then whats the point? There is no point at all, because you are just supporting the centralised banking system instead of embracing bitcoin's decentralisation.
They don't need to adopt the Bitcoin technology
Banks could instead just adopt Bitcoin itself once allowed. Indeed, Bitcoin allows direct transactions across the world without involving third parties likes banks of PayPal (man in the middle). But that doesn't in the least mean that banks themselves can't use it as well. And those who are strongly opposing this idea seem to forget that such adoption should it happen could actually help Bitcoin since many ordinary people tend to trust banks and distrust Bitcoin. Or just trust banks more than Bitcoin
Just an observation.....Could banks use bitcoin in it's current form, or would they have to consider the economy of scale when determining its usefulness? I don't know if banks could adopt bitcoin on their platforms, technically, because it doesn't seem like it would scale properly....I think that if banks were to adopt the technology, they'd have to build a system that would scale to their platforms because I'm not sure that bitcoin could at this point
Honestly, I don't think that the banks would ever need to adopt the Bitcoin technology (i.e. the blockchain technology). I have yet to see anyone clearly and precisely explaining it to me how it can be really useful to the banks as compared with what they already have and using. What I heard before as an explanation was mainly empty verbiage heavily mixed with outright bullshit. In this way, they might use Bitcoin as it is, i.e. as a currency which could be borrowed from people and loaned to people, thereby earning through interest spreads. Banks are there for profits, and if Bitcoin cuts it, they will use it...
Provided they are allowed by the government in the first place, obviously
I don't think that bitcoin will end the banking system instead of ending it, the banks are going to adopt the usage of bitcoin because they can see the potential of crypto's or else the government will prohibit the usage of crypto's to their society because it can truly attract a lot of people to use it because of its decentralization.
But banks are a part of the centralised banking system!
Bitcoin aims to get rid of the middleman in transactions, and if you want banks to adopt the technology then whats the point? There is no point at all, because you are just supporting the centralised banking system instead of embracing bitcoin's decentralisation.
They don't need to adopt the Bitcoin technology
Banks could instead just adopt Bitcoin itself once allowed. Indeed, Bitcoin allows direct transactions across the world without involving third parties likes banks of PayPal (man in the middle). But that doesn't in the least mean that banks themselves can't use it as well. And those who are strongly opposing this idea seem to forget that such adoption should it happen could actually help Bitcoin since many ordinary people tend to trust banks and distrust Bitcoin. Or just trust banks more than Bitcoin
Just an observation.....Could banks use bitcoin in it's current form, or would they have to consider the economy of scale when determining its usefulness? I don't know if banks could adopt bitcoin on their platforms, technically, because it doesn't seem like it would scale properly....I think that if banks were to adopt the technology, they'd have to build a system that would scale to their platforms because I'm not sure that bitcoin could at this point.
In the upcoming days i think bitcoin will end the bank usage..
Do you mean that btc will kill the banking system? Well, it can be done in two ways: internal and external destruction. External if everything stays the way it is now but more and more people start using bitcoin. Internal if the banks take their risks and start accepting bitcoins. However, I think that neither will happen, actually. There will always remain many people who need some guarantees btc can not provide. I don't think that bitcoin will end the banking system instead of ending it, the banks are going to adopt the usage of bitcoin because they can see the potential of crypto's or else the government will prohibit the usage of crypto's to their society because it can truly attract a lot of people to use it because of its decentralization.
But banks are a part of the centralised banking system!
Bitcoin aims to get rid of the middleman in transactions, and if you want banks to adopt the technology then whats the point? There is no point at all, because you are just supporting the centralised banking system instead of embracing bitcoin's decentralisation.
They don't need to adopt the Bitcoin technology
Banks could instead just adopt Bitcoin itself once allowed. Indeed, Bitcoin allows direct transactions across the world without involving third parties likes banks of PayPal (man in the middle). But that doesn't in the least mean that banks themselves can't use it as well. And those who are strongly opposing this idea seem to forget that such adoption should it happen could actually help Bitcoin since many ordinary people tend to trust banks and distrust Bitcoin. Or just trust banks more than Bitcoin
You are probably aware of the recent news about removing the fiat money for good and building up the cashless world.
Have you thought that bitcoin maybe the first step of this utopia? What if CIA behind this project? Would you still keep your money as bitcoins? Would you trust them? Do we know who the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto? I suure don't.
There is one big danger ahead. If the paper money gets removed, you will have no choice but to accept to get paid in crypto currencies. And to the big point:
If you keep your money in a goddamn computer, the government can rip you off instantly if they wanted it. I am not saying they aren't doing that already as most of us are keeping *our wealth in the banks. But cryptos will make their jobs easier. Much easier.
What if bitcoin price rises to 1.000.000$ and gold and USD become literally worthless? That's when bitcoin will be the world currency, and people gonna realise that gold is just a stone, USD is just a toilet paper.
Your won't have another choice but to store your money only in crypto, because the other choices will be worthless!
I am not sure if that's a good thing. Being dependent so much on computers just scares me.
Have you thought that bitcoin maybe the first step of this utopia? What if CIA behind this project? Would you still keep your money as bitcoins? Would you trust them? Do we know who the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto? I suure don't.
There is one big danger ahead. If the paper money gets removed, you will have no choice but to accept to get paid in crypto currencies. And to the big point:
If you keep your money in a goddamn computer, the government can rip you off instantly if they wanted it. I am not saying they aren't doing that already as most of us are keeping *our wealth in the banks. But cryptos will make their jobs easier. Much easier.
What if bitcoin price rises to 1.000.000$ and gold and USD become literally worthless? That's when bitcoin will be the world currency, and people gonna realise that gold is just a stone, USD is just a toilet paper.
Your won't have another choice but to store your money only in crypto, because the other choices will be worthless!
I am not sure if that's a good thing. Being dependent so much on computers just scares me.
So many things would have to happen before we arrive at that scenario and it will not happen in the next ten years one of the things that we need right now is fast confirmations of each transactions offline merchants will find hard to accept if it takes 5 hours for one transactions to confirm.
The most danger of bitcoins is that they can become useless very easily in a very short period of time .u can even take them as salary as their price tends to go up and down .so u just cant .and waking up in the morning u see that there is no existense of bitcoins at all .then u dont have anything to do .but to go depressed .
In some points, you are right. Since Bitcoin was created, there have been many other cryptocurrencies appear with many potentials. However, most of them collapse within a year without any noticed. People who put money into these junk coin apparently lose all of their capital since the price declined dramatically. Because they aren't a real crypto but, a little part of bitcoin with some development.
And a lot of them has made for scam.
Scam coin. It is good at first but in the end it will eventually died for a couple of months. So we should choose a right coin so that we will not be scam.
I do agree that crypto is made also of bitcoin but it is also revised for that purposes or some of the development that they wants. But only few crypto survived because it will not be famous and traders will not buy it or sell it
Well, Bitcoin is the most trusted because it was never proved to be a scam. It is the first one, it came before the others so it's like the cryptocirrencies' mother. We've seen many exit scams around us, people who stole millions from people. When a deal seems too good to be true, it usually is.
The most danger of bitcoins is that they can become useless very easily in a very short period of time .u can even take them as salary as their price tends to go up and down .so u just cant .and waking up in the morning u see that there is no existense of bitcoins at all .then u dont have anything to do .but to go depressed .
In some points, you are right. Since Bitcoin was created, there have been many other cryptocurrencies appear with many potentials. However, most of them collapse within a year without any noticed. People who put money into these junk coin apparently lose all of their capital since the price declined dramatically. Because they aren't a real crypto but, a little part of bitcoin with some development.
And a lot of them has made for scam.
Scam coin. It is good at first but in the end it will eventually died for a couple of months. So we should choose a right coin so that we will not be scam.
I do agree that crypto is made also of bitcoin but it is also revised for that purposes or some of the development that they wants. But only few crypto survived because it will not be famous and traders will not buy it or sell it
The most danger of bitcoins is that they can become useless very easily in a very short period of time .u can even take them as salary as their price tends to go up and down .so u just cant .and waking up in the morning u see that there is no existense of bitcoins at all .then u dont have anything to do .but to go depressed .
In some points, you are right. Since Bitcoin was created, there have been many other cryptocurrencies appear with many potentials. However, most of them collapse within a year without any noticed. People who put money into these junk coin apparently lose all of their capital since the price declined dramatically. Because they aren't a real crypto but, a little part of bitcoin with some development.
And a lot of them has made for scam.
In the upcoming days i think bitcoin will end the bank usage..
Yup, i agree with you but depend on the developers and comunity of users bitcoins them selves include the investors, because still there are weakness on bitcoin is like problem block size on bitcoin and war between segwit vs miners from China. 
I don't think that bitcoin will end the banking system instead of ending it, the banks are going to adopt the usage of bitcoin because they can see the potential of crypto's or else the government will prohibit the usage of crypto's to their society because it can truly attract a lot of people to use it because of its decentralization.
But banks are a part of the centralised banking system!
Bitcoin aims to get rid of the middleman in transactions, and if you want banks to adopt the technology then whats the point? There is no point at all, because you are just supporting the centralised banking system instead of embracing bitcoin's decentralisation.
So who do you think is more powerful, bitcoin or the government? Banks can adjust anytime they want and bitcoin isn't. I'm not supporting centralized banking system, I'm just telling the truth about it. Because even me, I want to get rid that centralized banking system but their allies and controlled by the government. But I know bitcoin or crypto's is giving threat to their system.
That is why bitcoin cannot replace fiat currency because banking has already made big roots inside the government and their influence has already spread across the world. Banks and government itself is the main threat to bitcoin, the moment they joined forces and declare a ban to bitcoin in all countries then that would be the end of bitcoin. Such as the quantum computers made by the CIA when it operates it can be used to destroy bitcoin technology and who controls the CIA it is the government of America.
In the upcoming days i think bitcoin will end the bank usage..
Yup, i agree with you but depend on the developers and comunity of users bitcoins them selves include the investors, because still there are weakness on bitcoin is like problem block size on bitcoin and war between segwit vs miners from China. I don't think that bitcoin will end the banking system instead of ending it, the banks are going to adopt the usage of bitcoin because they can see the potential of crypto's or else the government will prohibit the usage of crypto's to their society because it can truly attract a lot of people to use it because of its decentralization.
But banks are a part of the centralised banking system!
Bitcoin aims to get rid of the middleman in transactions, and if you want banks to adopt the technology then whats the point? There is no point at all, because you are just supporting the centralised banking system instead of embracing bitcoin's decentralisation.
I thought about your ideas too, OP. But if they want to scam us, they can do it no matter if it's USD, Bitcoin or any other currency. They can take us down in less than a day with a simple idea that can bring our accounts down. This is why you should split your risk into more investments. Maybe all of them fail - that's the worst scenario, but very rare to happen. Maybe some succeed while some don't, which means the lost money is just coming back to you. You might also succeed with all of them, and imagine how much money you could make. I want to save one Bitcoin up. It doesn't mean much right now, but I do have a feeling that the price will skyrocket pretty soon.
Bitcoin wont go anywhere as long we the community keep trading and doing business with it. Hackers are able to acess any governement place and edit or steal any fiat from banks, this woulndt be the first time those happen, bitcoin till today hasnt been hacked, the huge security around bitcoin make it safe. Even if the price drops something i doubt can get back lower the 500 dollars, it would be just bitcoin cheap, knowing its potencial.
You seem to be confusing something
Or quite a few different things, in fact. Stealing money from someone's bank account is very much alike stealing bitcoins from someone else's wallet. If you mean hacking a Central bank servers and adding a few billion dollars to circulation, you are pipe dreaming. To do that you would have to get physical access to these servers and know how the system is organized and operated internally. In any case, all your actions will be reverted as soon as they are discovered
Bitcoin can be stoled as well, but its harder to get the key and the wallet adress, besides those some wallets does have 2fa and those is something i do believe that makes bitcoin a big wall before hackers get acess. The hash is protecting bitcoin since the first day, hackers arent able to attack it because of those, instead they go to the source, they are attacking exchanges or any companie related to bitcoin.
If you have a desktop or hybrid (like Blockchain.info) wallet installed, 2FA won't help you in any possible way. A key-logger and a trojan packed together in one virus will be enough to steal your bitcoins. An average Joe usually has a whole bunch of viruses on his computer and stealing bitcoins from desktop wallets is a usual thing happening every other day. On the other hand, stealing money from a bank in a "clean" way is a feat in its own right, which usually involves a lot of social engineering...
That's why you can read about such cases in "histories"
Bitcoin wont go anywhere as long we the community keep trading and doing business with it. Hackers are able to acess any governement place and edit or steal any fiat from banks, this woulndt be the first time those happen, bitcoin till today hasnt been hacked, the huge security around bitcoin make it safe. Even if the price drops something i doubt can get back lower the 500 dollars, it would be just bitcoin cheap, knowing its potencial.
You seem to be confusing something
Or quite a few different things, in fact. Stealing money from someone's bank account is very much alike stealing bitcoins from someone else's wallet. If you mean hacking a Central bank servers and adding a few billion dollars to circulation, you are pipe dreaming. To do that you would have to get physical access to these servers and know how the system is organized and operated internally. In any case, all your actions will be reverted as soon as they are discovered
Bitcoin can be stoled as well, but its harder to get the key and the wallet adress, besides those some wallets does have 2fa and those is something i do believe that makes bitcoin a big wall before hackers get acess. The hash is protecting bitcoin since the first day, hackers arent able to attack it because of those, instead they go to the source, they are attacking exchanges or any companie related to bitcoin.
Just the opposite, governments can't wait to eliminate paper fiat. With paper money they can't control every aspect of your life. All people will need to do eventually is scan their thumb print at brick-mortar retailers or scan their fingerprint on their computer to make a purchase from their government controlled bank account. My phone already has a fingerprint reader for a password. It wouldn't be hard to make everything everywhere work that way
I don't think it is a good idea overall. I mean using thumbs to get access to your funds. You seem to have watched a little bit too many fantastic movies about a future where the government controls all aspects of an individual's life. In essence, the government already has everything they might ever want in this respect, and they don't need your thumbs at all. Ordinary payment cards seem to do everything you just enumerated (including hookers and beggars)...
And pickpockets won't have to chop off the fingers of their "clients" at that
Your fingerprint is already used in most US banks (since 1997) when non-customers cash checks. It's a small step from what they are already doing to using it as ID. Police departments all over the world already use your finger print as ID when you're arrested or detained for any reason.
Chopping off digits won't work in the very near future as devices become more sensitive. Zvetco Biometrics Is working on a reader that measures not only the persons temperature but their o2 saturation and blood flow. If they can refine the blood flow measurement readers could tell if you are under duress while scanning your print and deny access.
As devices become more sensitive, that would make even less sense. How can they possibly tell whether you are under duress while scanning, say, because you have a gun pointed to your head, or you just sweat with your heart pumping and jumping because of the process itself? I understand that fingerprints can be used to check your identity and that could potentially work better than any identity card (passport, driver license, etc). But I can't possibly fathom how it could be more useful and less clumsy overall than your typical payment card for making everyday expenses...
I'm inclined to think that the latter will be hard to beat
I'm not sure about the science behind it because I know enough about it. I just remember reading an article about it and thinking how fascinating it would be to go swimming at a hotel and order from the pool bar without even taking my pants or wallet with me.
Your right about the cards we all use right now though. I don't see them going away in my lifetime or being replaced by anything, even bitcoin.
Jump to: