Topic: Will the Banking Industry kill Bitcoin and keep the Blockchain? - page 4. (Read 8859 times)

it seems that apple pay, is not well seen out there, customers are not secure about it, it is following the same fate of bitcoin ironically

there are some article talking about it on the web

Not sure what in the world is telling you this. The banks haven't been particularly interested in Bitcoin since the hype fell down (alongside the value) and the public stopped caring about it at all. To be honest, they've probably re-evaluated and found it to be less of a threat than they thought it could be.


Why in the world would they bother keeping the blockchain without Bitcoin? Unless we're talking altcoins (fiat is already suitable) the blockchain by itself doesn't have really any banking relevance.

Yes Block chain will get more customers and there is no chance banking industry will kill the bitcoin as bitcoin is online crypto and has so many lovers. I Think Banking Customers will choose Block chain and Bitcoins.

i not believe that banking industry will kill bitcoin,but i agree that they will keep blockchain,because for them,blockchain is asset for future

Well some people moves their accounts online ,they dont go to the agency to moove or pay or do anything there.What im saying is the blockain from banks or they use our blockhain will bring new investors as costumers into bitcoin.

The big trillions aren't on replacing Paypal or Applepay or whatever the fuck you want to mention indeed, the jackpot is in disrupting the way things work at fundamental levels. Which means, eventually banks will be less and less relevant, and once this happens, the public will learn about Bitcoin start using it. It will be gradual. Just like fax didn't disappear with the invention of the email, they became really less relevant in the industry. That's how banks will end up. They will just do some niche stuff where they still can profit by existing.

SamsungPay exists too

Apple +Samsung = +50% from the smartphone market

Not everybody owns iPhone.

Iphone is already using ApplePay. Nobody needs BTC for online shopping.
BTC is just a niche e-currency.

Bitcoin as you stated will benefict, this interest of banks at blockhain technology,even they making their own blockhain will bring new costumers that use iphone to acess their accounts will be able one new market and well they will find bitcoin soon and faster.

I think banks will support BTC by using the BTC blockchain as a form of data-backup to demonstrate to auditors and the government that their own data records have not been hacked and tampered with. They will do this because the low cost and ease of doing so will virtually mandate it. Governments may even require it, both for banks and for their own data.  

Data-record protection by institutions and proof-of-existence documentation by individuals could easily become the dominate use of the BTC blockchain. It is so cheap as to be essentially free. There is not even a need to pay a higher fee for faster confirmations because confirmation time won't matter. The only thing that will matter is the instantaneous publication of the data as an unconfirmed transaction on the blockchain.

As for the use of BTC as currency, speaking as a former Silk Road merchant I for one can't see it except for buying and selling on the dark web. It simply isn't necessary for most commercial transactions. No, I think banks will compete with BTC at point-of-sale by offering merchants and customers proprietary-blockchain speed of confirmation in conjunction with the usual money-back protections against errors and fraud. After all, when BTC is on the rise, who will buy a cup of coffee with it? And if BTC is on the slide, who would accept it without instant conversion to fiat, which banks would have to charge for?

I think that the BTC blockchain will end up prospering under what might be called the non tragedy of the commons. Everyone will dump their data on it, increasing the demand for bitcoins themselves but not the need for faster and faster confirmation times. Eventual confirmation will be sufficient.

The bitcoin isnt centralized even with several big farmers being at there and they having the biggest hash ,but they dont control,remember one thing before bitcoin being worth 20 dollars and above it the mined coins were traded,the pizza history and other history based on the low price,soo sure there is whales on bitcoin ,they have around 70% or more of total btc,knowing that big farmers the most are just holding their coins waiting the price up.

They have the intention, but not the ability to destroy bitcoin network technically. But if they collude with government, they might succeed.

The banking industry is ancient and a crafty entity. It has been around since the jews made it to offer loans.
Don't say never because it can happen.

I do not think banks have the intention to kill Bitcoin. It would probably be a war that will wear them out, and the outcome is uncertain. Trying to do that would make attention focus on Bitcoin and have just the opposite effect they are looking for.

Having BTC, receiving a big portion of the traffic, submitting code changes, etc, everything. This does not give administrative power to any of these. It give power over their own portion of BTC, but BTC itself is controlled by the wallet. And it is enforced by the hashrate.

So if you want to bash anyone for centralizing Bitcoin, bash the Chinese for centralizing a big portion of the hashrate. ;P

Still remain decentralized.

what is your definition of decentralization then? we need something that is controlled by the all 7B people to be called decentralized?

as long they are not a single entity, there is no real owner

Yes, BTC is controlled by developers, miners and exchangers. All of them are owned by a small group of people called , "investors" .

Make a little search and you will see who "owns" Bitcoin

controlled by entities mostly unknown?

You mean: controlled by math, open source, and well known and extensively studied cryptography. That's the controlling foundation of this tech. It's not being controlled by anyone in particular.

I dont think banks are savvy enough to be even considering trying to kill bitcoin. In most cases the attempts at doing just something/anything with blockchain is to deal with the Strategic risk that virtual currencies pose.

I havent seen a use case from a bank that contributes anything and most are just playing around. I think if someone can come up with a use case for blockchain which doesnt have a token and is useful in permissioned, bounded and trusted environments then probably that would be as significant as inventing bitcoin all over again.

What I'd like to understand is why the banks dont accept btc as there in quite a strong position with there existing customer base and compliance activities ?

With the introduction of Bitlicense then its saying that cryptocurrency orgs in NY, which I guess will go on to be something of a blueprint globally, need to act like a bank to be allowed to work with btc so have aml, sanctions, kyc, SARs etc. But why dont the banks with all of that already in place offer btc services rather than trying to reinvent it ? Is there some legal restriction that applies to banks but not bitlicensees ?