Banking institutions are slowly making crypto more and more legitimate. I hope this trend continues. Disclosure: I REALLY believe in Bitcoin.
Not necessarily. Certainly not if you see theee accounts as a source of lead generation.
Scenario:
(a) Regulators approve Bitcoin for use in banking, let's say
(b) Some change is proposed to the Bitcoin protocol, improving privacy
(c) Regulated firms are not able to do proper KYC/AML stuff if the upgrade activates
(d) Firms and regulators (and maybe legislators) push back against the upgrade
Now you have core protocol changes subjected to the scrutiny of the broader political process, which would be a total nightmare and may permanently stop development of the protocol.
It could be argued this would be a good thing.
As it stands, if someone nabs your crypto you have no means of recourse, this is a bad thing.
1. Are optimistic about bitcoin.
2. Want to see it be useful for something besides speculation.
People don't speculate in physical cash. Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. It also makes things like cameras useful.
A: Regulator influence on Bitcoin would be good, as it makes theft easier to reverse.
B: But how would you do that while keeping the decentralization?
C: You can't. But no one likes to hear that if they're optimistic about Bitcoin and think it can be use outside of speculation.
Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue, with the same tradeoff against centralization. What's the difference?
I was asking how your comment was relevant to that exchange, not for a second way to restate what you already said. I was confused because your followup comment did not have any clear relationship to that exchange, about the tradeoffs between utility, reversibility, and decentralization. To quote your comment, with remarks about the relevance:
>People don't speculate in physical cash.
How is it relevant that people don't speculate in physical cash? The fact that people don't speculation in physical cash doesn't mean people only speculate in Bitcoin.[1]
>Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move.
How is it relevant that cash has this constraint? That would be a point in favor of bitcoin in the context of the above discussion, and would lower the burden for proving utility.
>It also makes things like cameras useful.
I don't see the relevance of this either.
So, again, I'm asking how your comment relates to the discussion that just happened. It seemed like you were just dropping in to make a general "why bitcoin is bad" argument, which is why I asked how the comment was relevant. I still don't see it. Can I assume there was no relationship, and you just saw it as an opportunity to say why bitcoin compares favorably to cash?
[1] The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation, which would be assuming your conclusion.
Nobody (in the general sense) actually cares about decentralization; it serves no utility in and of itself. People only care about the ability to easily transact regardless of borders.
> Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue
I'd argue this isn't entirely correct. A cash holder can insure against theft of cash kept on premises, and in transit to a deposit facility; professional services can be hired to transport cash. As far as I'm aware these protections don't exist for cryptocurrency
> The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation
At this stage it appears to me that is it's only (major?) legitimate use. Other uses probably include money laundering, and the exchange of value between parties involved in illegal activities, or for the purposes of evading regulations.
>A cash holder can insure against theft of cash kept on premises, and in transit to a deposit facility; professional services can be hired to transport cash. As far as I'm aware these protections don't exist for cryptocurrency
You're referring to an optional add-on to cash that is not inherent to it. The act of holding cash does not automatically get you the protection of someone replacing it when you're mugged, and neither does Bitcoin have automatic replacement.
There do exist services that will thusly insure cash. But there's no inherent reason why it can't be provided for bitcoin too, it's just that the market isn't bit and mature enough for people to have sought it out (though Coinbase claims to have it).
In any case, the whole issue of "insurance in transit" is kind of obviated for an electronic currency too, at least with respect to physical theft.
What evidence do you have to support this ridiculous claim? The vast amount of interest in cryptocurrencies seems to indicate otherwise, not to mention the use of all kinds of decentralized cryptographic protocols.
I'm pro-centralisation in the sense that it comes with regulatory protections that are a net good for the average person, in my opinion.
If decentralisation comes with the risks that cryptocurrencies presently present, I'm not really interested.
Reading your comment, I don't know why you would be interested in cryptocurrency at all.
I'm bullish on crypto as a global "internet dollar" but bearish that Bitcoin is the right one.
I might add that banks want in because they make money on orderflows. Bankers will trade anything (orange juice concentrate/pork belly/oil/derivatives/shares/you name it.)
Every new "coin" that comes along now just becomes a pump and dump.
Bitcoin was around before it had any value and people were just giving it to one another for fun or buying Pizzas for 20,000. It has benefited most from the "network effect" . My only major concerns about it are the environmental effects and transaction throughput.(other coins are allegedly faster for now but will probably buckle if they become as big as the above three.)
LTC is around nearly as long ,, and ETH is a whole new concept, though it has security and programming issues.
I should mention its survival doesn't mean it's value will go up.
For example a coffee machine that accept BTC, it can then pay for the water, electricity and buy more beans, milk etc from the Bitcoin it earns itself without human attention. Arguably easier to track the profitability and economics of the machine, with less effort - still needs to be cleaned and refilled (for now!).
You could take this one concept and apply them to things like self-driving cars or mobile phones.