https://www.ccn.com/crypto-startup-jp-morgan-chase-closed-ou...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/jpmorgan-chase-bank-of-ameri...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/bitcoin-f...
And countless more if you modify your Google search w/ anything previous to 12/31/19.
Plus the whole message of centralization vs decentralized of crypto.
But yeah, "appropriate regulations and risk management" for whom, YOU the customer, or THEM the Bank?
JP Morgan is not your friend if you deal in Crypto. The market tide is swinging that they have to play to compete but they are overall 100% hostile.
Same as HSBC.
Nobody is your friend if you deal in crypto. That's the whole point of crypto.
Or are we going to forget all the times that Coinbase and Bitfinex prevented customers from selling their coins as the value was falling, or when Tether promised an audit of their supposedly 1:1 USD-backed currency and then never did, or that time Mt Gox failed and took down several billion worth of coins with it, or that time Ethereum unilaterally changed the ledger because of the DAO scandal and wiped out $300 million of holdings?
The banks at least are governed by laws and regulated by governments. Many of the exchanges don't even bother to pay lip service to regulation.
>Whose to say they won't 180 their decision and all known bitcoin accounts and affiliated companies are removed from their banking services, amounts seized, etc
There are likely real risks here, and everyone wanting to go this route would be well advised to tread lightly and carefully to start...especially if they are doing something they aren't going to be willing to stand up in a court of law to defend. There are a bunch of 'know your customer' regulations that apply to banks that require them to do some amount of due diligence on why their customers are moving money. They cannot just say 'it's their money, not my problem'.
> Plus the whole message of centralization vs decentralized of crypto.
That's on the exchanges and the people that use this system.
> But yeah, "appropriate regulations and risk management" for whom, YOU the customer, or THEM the Bank?
Them, 100%, this should be no surprise. There are FDIC controls to protect customer assets up to a certain amount but that's it.
> JP Morgan is not your friend if you deal in Crypto. The market tide is swinging that they have to play to compete but they are overall 100% hostile.
None of these organizations are your friend, even the exchanges. The main conflict with incumbent banks is going to be specifically with bitcoin and other non-fiat currency. That won't go away any time soon. Blockchain and cryptocurrency (fiat-backed) on the other hand are potentially huge cost-saving measures and the banks are likely to adopt those much more quickly. Of course the concern will be that decentralized currencies like bitcoin will be relegated back to novelty class.
[0] One of many examples: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M2...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-ba...
Oh, wait --
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-usa/hsbc-draws-line-...
So it's okay for a bank to do it, but not a person? It's okay for a bank to take advantage of fraction reserve and lend out and help a criminal org launder money?
Yes, this case they the bank, was caught, but not suddenly.
https://www.ccn.com/jamie-it-aint-bitcoin-jp-morgan-involved...
--
Drug dealing is the lowest of the totem pole, there are banks out there that actively take Iran and N. Korea money and they are under sanctions.
I'm including darknet markets, ransomware, and outright exchange thefts in this.
~170 billion USD worth of BTC exists.
~9 billion USD worth of BTC has been stolen from various exchange hacks.
~140 million USD worth of BTC has been stolen through ransomware attacks.
... And as for commercial transactions:
Darknet markets make up ~40% of all non-theft, non-exchange related BTC commerce. [1]
Cash may rule the drug world in absolute numbers, but in relative numbers, the overwhelming majority of cash is used in the real economy. When nearly half the BTC that's used to transact is used for illegal purposes, it's pretty easy to see why banks aren't interested in touching it. Why risk losing your banking license, for collecting fees from such a tiny market segment?
[1] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-cryptoc...
The idea that a few of them aren't going to break some laws is kind of laughable. The only problem is whether or not they are penalized.
That ship has sailed a long time ago. Crypto is centralized. People have voted with their wallets, overwhelmingly for centralization. Possibly because the #1 demand for crypto comes from exchange speculators, who don't want to pay on-ledger transaction fees.
Agreed, this!
While positive on the face of things as it could keep Dorsey and the Winklevii content as they won't to keeping operating in obfuscated ways to conduct in the 'traditional banking system,' and lets them focus on more pertinent matters. It still doesn't solve what we were all after when we started this: we want to be unbanked by becoming the Bank ourselves.
Although I disagree with your retort: JP Morgan and Jamie can say and do whatever he wants, positive or negative; we ate his lunch a long time ago and he failed to realize how much more of it was taken since then. This doesn't seem more than a petty concession to prolong his relevance to me, they have filed more patents for 'blockchain tech' than any other corp in the US to date.
Take it form someone who on-boarded a significant amount of people into Bitcoin (that were not tech savvy at all) using Visa and MC channels only to have them taken away arbitrarily: this is not a solution, its a stall tactic. And a costly diversion at a time we should be innovating more than ever, cashless payments are the new norm now due to COVID.
We have a superior network/product, let us not be reduced to thinking or appealing to what 'traditional thinking or conventional wisdom' will yield, because if we do then we lost the vision we were after.
Not meaning to troll here, but I can't let these claims go. In what way is Bitcoin superior as a payment network to what we already have? Transaction costs are higher, the transaction throughput is (significantly) capped. Lightning Network was supposed to be the savior and has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember. There may be niche cases where censorship-resistance is worth the cost and complexity of using Bitcoin, but the vast majority of transactions do not need this.
TX costs have been less than they have for several years now; I personally just made a 3sat/byte tx and it cleared the mempool in less than a hour: I would have one lower but that was the least I could make it. And that was with a sub $1 tx I just wanted to play with to test what it was leading up the halvening. Try doing that with VISA or MC and not have to pay absurd fees for the 'privilege.'
1MB blocksize is a feature, not a bug. I won't explain why, but I'll answer any questions you may have about why that is, if you want.
LN already has use cases, but I agree it was sold as a panacea just 'around the corner,' but the truth is the mainnet network remains uncongested and operational. So it achieved its primary purpose, the rest will come in time and Lightening Labs got more funding from Dorsey so I'm confident progress remains as it has been: unannounced and to very little fanfare unless you work on it.
Lastly, let's not forget how you can literately move $Billions [1] for pennies with no middle men, or the need to have to be some high net-worth oligarch or Arab Shriek to get a bank to do so.
> ...but the vast majority of transactions do not need this.
It's almost like many of you want to be survailed with this kind of thinking, it almost makes me not want to blame the NSA for doing what they have.
I won't even attempt to change your mind about that, but let just say that good OPSEC is perhaps more valuable than it ever has been in our interconnected, digital Life and I only see it being more with time. Data has been the new currency for how long and you still can't see writing on the wall?
1: https://bitcoinnews.com/news/1-1-billion-transaction-among-t...
Is payment network downtime a real pain point of merchants? I can't remember being inconvenienced by a full payment network outage in the last decade. I've encountered issues where the connection between the merchant and payment service was unavailable, but paying with Bitcoin wouldn't alleviate those issues.
> It's almost like many of you want to be survailed with this kind of thinking, it almost makes me not want to blame the NSA for doing what they have.
Or, I think that the NSA are nearly as able to trace a US-based Bitcoin transaction if so motivated.
Very, and it shows you're not a merchant. Thus, not really my demographic so any argument I make will be seen as 'irrelevant' to you or anyone like you. Loss of business due to network failures, or outright denial of services, is a critical usecase for anyone dealing in high volume low margin transactions for goods and services. Especially for one based on e-commerce which is out-stripping brick and mortars these days in case you haven't noticed.
> Or, I think that the NSA are nearly as able to trace a US-based Bitcoin transaction if so motivated.
Blockhchain analytics has been a thing since at least 2013 during the first wave of DNM take downs, and only further substantiates my argument about having proper OPSEC.
> My debit and credit cards have worked flawlessly for my entire adult life. That’s what you’re competing against. The fees are still cheaper than handling cash for merchants.
I'm guessing you don't travel much? I've had my credit card account shut down while in Switzerland on my last days when I tried to buy an airline ticket and after several hours of trying to get a hold of them and explaining to them why my tourist Visa will likely expire before they can reactivate it, they shrugged their shoulders and basically said 'not my problem.' And had to wait for them to get back to me. Meanwhile, I literately had to ask the butcher (I was making dinner for my hosts) to hold on to my order as he was wrapping it up while I went back to go move some BTC around and come back with CHF in hand several hours later, it was rather embarrassing to say the least.
The fees are actually not cheaper for them, hence why places with low profit margins will always have an amount requirement to use Credit Card POS systems and even give discounts for cash purchases for depreciating things like gasoline: you ever wonder why they have 2 different prices? That's why, and its contrary to your argument.
> What happens if someone steals cryptocurrency from my wallet? What happens if someone hacks into my bank account and steals dollars?
The same thing that happens to cash stolen out your wallet: its gone for good. The thing is we have consumer level tech that make it nearly impossible for that to ever take place. The possibility exists, sure but the amount of effort to steal your $50 from a trezor or ledger (short of mugging you) is going to have limited appeal to any adversary.
> Cryptocurrencies don't even solve basic issues like this that actually matter. I can sign up for an Apple Card and use that immediately to seamlessly make payments (it's not the best card but just for illustration purposes) or buy services. I can't do that with any cryptocurrency.
That's a matter of opinion and not fact, given your access to the traditional Legacy system. And, sure you can, a merchant just has to accept cryptoccurency in the first place. I'll grant you they're limited numbers these days, but go ahead and buy something off newegg right now with BTC, it can be done.
Your argument is only valid when dealing with fiat facing transactions, but still that's not true because you can sign up for Square and you can get Visa credit card to load your Bitcoin to in real time once you have it, granted it will take time to verify as with any KYC/AML system but that has more to do with Visa/Fiat then Cryptocurrencies limitations.
> So far there are just too many inconveniences/risks for me to make it worthwhile.
Agreed. Trying to on-board the greatest benefactors of the Legacy system (affluent Westerners) is not a milestone we've been able to achieve yet, but that doesn't detract from the other billions on this planet, thus my arguments are valid anyway.
> Privacy issues aren't really solved en mass either, because companies like Coinbase authenticate you for tax purposes (i.e. the IRS and NSA have you).
First, I call it COiNbase for a reason, second exchanges aren't even really how this tech was supposed to be used in the first place. But I'll grant you due to convenience most will always favour it, and for good reason and that's why Fidelity got onboard when it did.
I'm not trying to even hint that I'm condoning this will evade taxes, and I will say I DISCOURAGE DOING SO (PAY YOUR TAXES!), fiat is way better for that anyway, what I'm saying is that it has valid usecases for those who have issues with the aforementioned problems it solves and have limited access to the Legacy system, which happens to be Billions of People.
I highly recommend people read up on the what is actually the 2nd largest economy in the World, its called SystemD [1]. I'd love to see a revised analysis, since 2020 was a milestone year, and so many have found themselves forced into this system due to COIVID pandemic for mere survival.
> Plus, if you pay with a credit card, you have (in the US, at least) net 30 terms and some form of cash back/reward that comes out of the merchant fees. You could argue that this is a broken, monopoly-entrenching system and I wouldn't disagree with you, but it's the reality of the status quo you're competing with.
You're telling me you'd rather keep everything in place because you get ~1% in cash back, and has a system that monitors, tracks and then sells all of your data to some 3rd party rather than have your money backed by a pseudonymous, limited and an ever appreciating currency then its clear what I'm up against is really you, not the obvious monopoly-entrenching system.
I always said Bitcoin won't hit mainstream adoption based on a monetary value alone, it will only truly achieve that when its entirely indiscernible and just as 'convenient' than the current system, and hopefully it can be iterated to have all the features I mentioned thus far built in by default: much like the Internet most people would never find value in researching, and then deploying SSL despite how much information they divulge on the Internet. The same applies to Money.
1: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/forget-china-system-d-is-...
Edit: I just had to respond to this as it was too good:
> Bitcoin routinely has >10 minute downtime, it just calls them "confirmation intervals".
Sure, if your assumption is based on thinking PoW and the whole security thing is a downtime thing, too. Think if it more like compiling code or rendering video, that's far more accurate and relevant comparison.
What happens if someone hacks into my bank account and steals dollars?
Cryptocurrencies don't even solve basic issues like this that actually matter. I can sign up for an Apple Card and use that immediately to seamlessly make payments (it's not the best card but just for illustration purposes) or buy services. I can't do that with any cryptocurrency.
So far there are just too many inconveniences/risks for me to make it worthwhile.
> Name one other Network, be it payment or otherise, that has had less downtime than Bitcoin's in the last 10 years. Just one.
??? All of them? I've never not been able to spend dollars. I've never had an issue where "all payments are down" on a network at a store or website, and if so it would have also affected any sort of cryptocurrency transaction.
> 1MB blocksize is a feature, not a bug. I won't explain why
I think this is one of the inherent issues. Why should it even need to be explained? If people don't just get it from the start, you're already at a disadvantage.
Not to mention, governments will always require cryptocurrency to be pegged to dollar amounts for tax purposes, so it doesn't really solve the main issue I have with fiat currency is that the government can screw up the currency and devalue my wealth accumulation.
Privacy issues aren't really solved en mass either, because companies like Coinbase authenticate you for tax purposes (i.e. the IRS and NSA have you).
This is a goalpost nobody cares about. I've never had a credit or debit card declined because of network downtime, and neither has anyone I know.
> TX costs have been less than they have for several years now;
And still orders of magnitude greater than credit/debit cards.
> I personally just made a 3sat/byte tx and it cleared the mempool in less than a hour: > And that was with a sub $1 tx I just wanted to play with to test what it was leading up the halvening.
Yes, let me get on buying coffee, and waiting 'less than an hour' for my transaction to clear.
> Lastly, let's not forget how you can literately move $Billions [1] for pennies with no middle men
If I needed a billion dollars moved, the banking fees I'd be paying would be a lot lower than what you'd imagine they'd be. In fact, if I needed a billion dollars moved, banks would be falling over backwards to get my business, because moving money is easy, and they can make more money from providing other services to me.
For the case where I need thousands of dollars moved, exchange rate uncertainty risk vastly exceeds whatever fees I'd be paying.
There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment; but if it turns out to be a once-in-a-generation style success then it seems to be on the right path. The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016.
Financial scams and collapses frequently go 3-5 years looking like a gravy train of wealth creation. And those are actual scams with people lying. Let alone a new phenomenon like Bitcoin where there is a plausibility to the whole thing. That is enough evidence that Bitcoin might just be a fad.
In terms of Bitcoin's actual fundamentals if you want an argument to mull over:
1) There is a slight incentive against new buyers to entering the market - they are pretending that someone who bought Bitcoin for $500 did useful work which is trivially not true. The more the Bitcoin price rises the more true that is.
2) The brand name "Bitcoin" is meaningless long term - look at how the meaning of words shift when it is convenient. Traders don't care about dictionary definitions.
At some point mining ceases and people don't trade enough to sustain the mining network. At that point, the miners all switch to some new ByteCoin. With a powerful hashing network providing a cheap alternative crypto and with incentives against new entrants into the market people stop accepting Bitcoin. The value collapses.
The basic argument is there is no technical difference between Bitcoin and any other crypto. At some point, the miners stop making money and leave; then Bitcoin gets outcompeted. The value retained by crypto tends towards the marginal cost to create new crypto which is 0. This stands in contrast to the argument that the only cryptocurrency that matters is Bitcoin - which I don't think holds true long term. I can see why sellers of Bitcoin would believe that but I don't see why the buyers will cooperate. Cryptocurrencies are completely fungible from a buyer perspective - they can't actually distinguish between them unless the words matter. Or one has a massive hashing network behind it.
Compare to gold - doesn't matter what word is used; gold is still gold. I can go to almost any major civilisation, not speak a word, but wave some gold around and they will recognise it. Words don't matter.
Hope that ramble is of interest.
Given when you entered, some did. Many spent it trying to build what we have today. The former may have given into your reasoning, the latter however did very little to change their behaviour and only their attention-seeking acts changed: look at Amir for example.
> There is still plenty of evidence that bitcoin is a bad long term investment...
Based on what, 2017's absurdly inflated ATH and the ICO scams that made no sense to anyone who actually understood this tech and instead cashed out only to buy back in? Yeah, perhaps to those not capable of seeing any of that it might be a bad position...
> The idea of it being digital gold isn't as far fetched as it was in 2016.
Gold is a relic and an arbitrary thing that has no significance when Money is not only fiat but digital, and can now be programmed to be be defacto finite. I was a PM guy before I got into BTC, and I can tell you right now had I the good sense to trust my gut to trade my metal for BTC back then I'd be in a much loftier position in Life, and yet... no regrets as it taught me many valuable lessons and have me greater insight into Life than people 2-3 times my age.
Specifically, that arguments about 'intrinsic worth' be it by Austrian economists (or there opponents) are really just rehashed fallacies and ideas only relevant to the clergy of Salamanca (who the Austrian's stole their ideas from) and their concepts of 16th Century thinking and Market dynamics.
The 21st Century requires far more nuanced thinking, tools and I just hope we have Fiat to carry us until we become multi-planetary. Modern Capitalism, which is to say State-corporate controlled, is doing away with many myths, and revealing some basic truths; not least of which that Money has and will always be an abstraction.
It's just so damn scary when you understand the implications of that statement and all that it entails when trust is lost in such a system.
For example, gold is non-corrosive and a good conductor.
It's like saying Carbon Fibre should also be a currency as it has equally limited usecases.
But none of that really changes the fact that 'intrinsic worth' is just a convenient word/argument people throw around to dismiss something they don't like or understand, failing to see that fiat has lost any of its intrinsic worth for over an entire generation (starting with the USD in 1913) and has brought about a level of prosperity never seen before in the World.
It's a trade off I'd make in a heart beat if I knew for certain that the generations to follow would have a quality and standard of Life comparable to Nobels if I were a poor peasant in 1912.
Whatever paradigm metal backed currencies had utility in has been lost and while many may opine for its return, I'm glad it happened. I don't think you could truly fund a successful Space Program or something like the Internet without (at least initial) massive fiat deficit spending; and that is something most deluded 'libertarians' find unnecessary.
Though that same property is what is supposed to be the vanguard to prevent war, yet one needs to only look back in Imperial European and Asian History (especially feudal Japan) to see just how wrong that really is.
Intrinsic worth means that an item has inherent, non-economic usefulness, i.e., you could use it even in the absence of trade of that item.
Gold has because it can be used to protect items from corrosion, to conduct electricity, etc., and these uses don't depend on it being traded.
Carbon fibre similarly has intrinsic uses, because you can do things with it even in the absence of trading it, like making cloth, parts, or vessels.
Fiat currency does not have intrinsic value. It's sole value is that it is accepted by a government agency for debts owed by the government, and/or that it is the legally recognized method of non-barter exchanges of value.
Cryptocurrency has no function apart for its role in trade, which is why--like fiat currency--it has no intrinsic value. Without trade, it's useless. It's sole proposition for having value is that the other people might want it.
I feel compelled to point out gold has been outperforming Bitcoin for 2 years now and has been a performant investment to buy in to at basically any point in the last 15 years except 2012.
It what sense, because it's spot price remains at $1200, if you're talking about day-day roi then that's cherry picking at its finest as very few people who actually hold physical trade it.
The paper markets are, much like anything Wallstreet, a machination so far detached from the real thing its hardly relevant.
But, sure, lets assume the paper market has outperformed Bitcoin; lets see your numbers to validate that?
Gold went from ~$400 in 2005 to ~1,300 in 2019. That is about 3x.
S&P 500 went from ~1,100 in '05 to ~3,000 in 2019. Also about 3x.
Gold is doing fine. And turned out to be a much better bet than stocks after including 2020 :D.
And if you want to put a bitcoin price chart side by side a gold price chart over the last 2 years it sorta speaks for itself. Gold went up. Bitcoin went all over the shop, averaging flat. If you want to call 2 years cherry picking be my guest, but it hasn't been a performer recently. It isn't a point of contention that Bitcoin is up infinitely from 2005.
$20,000 before it crashes? Sounds like he was right tbh