Topic: Will Bankcoin be appearing any time soon? - page 2. (Read 3370 times)

Bankcoin will suffer from inflation the same as current fiat currencies do now.  Banks, the government, and fiat currencies are one in the same.  They will vote to increase the limit of bankcoin...just like they vote to increase the limit of fiat currencies now.

Not correct - the whole point of Bankcoin is to be a Bitcoin (in terms of a scare digital resource/commodity) rather than a traditional currency that will suffer from inflation (I see this topic has now been moved to the "alternate currencies"' sub-forum although I wasn't actually proposing an alt-chain but fair enough it is not Bitcoin).

Banks already have such a currency. It's called money. Right?

I am actually a big advocate of Bitcoin - but I simply think that it's naive that so many people on this forum don't realise that their utopian ideas are never going to happen (and I live in China where the ideas of Carl Marx used to matter).

I have no idea (or influence) about what will happen in the future but I think that realistically people should think more about Bankcoin that Bitcoin.

This defeats the whole purpose of bitcoin.  I don't see any advantage for a bank to use bankcoin instead of current fiat currencies.  And if the main benefit is the "hard" limit, that can easily be changed with bankcoin because there will be so fewer miners "voting."  Even if more banks tried to compete, the larger banks would just bribe the CA not to recognize them so their IPs aren't given access.  Sound familiar?

Thanks - this is exactly what I was hoping for (a well thought out response).

Why exactly would banks not agree to a "decentralized" system if it is in their own advantage (reputation per GFC in my OP)?


I understand that the whole idea of "mining' would be very new to any existing bank, however, with the idea that mining can only be done by permitted IP addresses stops the problem you are referring to - doesn't it?

It won't happen.   This isn't to say there won't be other private digital currencies in the future but it makes no sense to have a blockchain.

Blockchain (and mining and all the costs & limitations that come with it) = a workaround to achieve decentralized consensus.  Having a centralized decentralized currency makes absolutely no sense.  You get all the trust and implementation limits of centralized control combined with all the costs and attack vectors of decentralized control.

As a hypothetical lets say a one of the banks got hacked and attackers used their mining node to implement a billion dollars in double spends.  Are the banks going to let that stand?  Of course not.  They are going to reverse those transactions (roll them back).  How can they do that?  Simple it is a centralized network.  It would be no different than a PayPal reversal or credit card chargeback.  So mining doesn't secure this "bankcoin", the centralized control of the network does.  If mining has no purpose then there is no reason to waste the resources doing it.

BTW I think that "bankcoin.com" has been already taken (so I guess unless a bankster took it then this URL will not be likely to be used or someone might be lucky to be paid out for giving it up to one).

It should he a natural competition between the banks (so would be an open market if we can trust banks not to fuck it up),

how would the exchange rate of BankCoin versus other currencies be determined? An open market?

Quite true but I think the whole "trust" issues with "brand banks" after the GFC hit means that no-one would trust them to do this honestly (and the "overhead" is an insignificant investment for even fairly small banks) - by having Bankcoin actually based upon Bitcoin would (at least in theory) be able to greatly increase the trust (especially if Bankcoin was kept open source).

I don't think all that mining overhead would be necessary if it's only for certified IPs anyway.

The banks would just administer a central database together.

What is Bankcoin you ask?

It would be a very simple alt-coin whose main difference to Bitcoin would be that mining would only be permitted to occur from IP addresses that can be proven to be owned by banks (verification perhaps being perhaps via CA or something better if available).

In order for people to have faith in Bankcoin it would have a fixed coin limit and could not belong to any single bank. No coins would be pre-mined with mining beginning only after all banks that want to participate have been able to set up servers specifically for this purpose.

How would people purchase Bankcoins?

This is the part that most on this forum will hate - you will need to purchase them from your bank (so you basically end up with an extra account that holds Bankcoins).

How would banks make money?

As they always do through fees for tx's and for converting your Bankcoins to and from other currencies.

Advantages for banks?

Hugely revived reputation from being able to offer customers a truly valuable resource that can ensure that their hard-earned savings aren't going to be eroded away by inflation (and this being able to be achieved for little more than the cost of the promotional advertising).

Advantages for Governments and the Uber-Wealthy?

Governments will be able to easy trace every single tx to the account holder and the Uber-Wealthly will get to stay that way by being the "early investors" in Bankcoin.

Anyone else think that Bankcoin is a likely "government friendly" alternative to Bitcoin and a fairly cheap way to make it disappear as a (political) threat/problem?