Quote from: Febo on October 18, 2015, 01:08:05 PM

Quote from: n2004al on October 16, 2015, 01:36:49 PM

Quote from: Febo on October 16, 2015, 01:15:54 PM

Quote from: n2004al on October 16, 2015, 11:56:12 AM

I read at various posts here at forum that the banks hate bitcoin. In the most of posts is not specified that with the term "bank" is meaning the Central Banks or the commercial banks. I think that they mainly or almost totally mean the seconds.

If is this the meaning that they give to this term (bank) used by them in these posts I don't understand WHY those must hate bitcoin as a currency. Bitcoin is a currency which can be used only in internet. So cannot compete with the other fiat currencies. They have totally other main field of use. Much more profitable than the field in which act bitcoin. Then, the only thing when fiat money and bitcoin can compete are because both can be substituted with the debit/credit cards. But even here there is not competition. If bitcoin will be accepted by the banks they will have more customers and more money. Will have even the customers of bitcoin. In other words will have they which use the fiat money plus they which use bitcoin. More customers mean more profit. There will be more credit/debit card in use for such bank.

Even there must be transfer of customers from fiat money to bitcoin it will be the same for the such banks. They don't lose nothing. Will have the same that customer which will not use credit/debit card with fiat money but with bitcoin. As about the fees they are in the "hands" of the banks and they can decide what fees fit to those.

There is nothing to do here the fact that bitcoin is a decentralized currency and the fiat money is a centralized one. This have nothing to do with the activity of the commercial bank. They work of the money. Whatever money it is and whatever it is the owner or if have no owner. For they is important that is MONEY. And bitcoin is.

So, who can explain me why the commercial banks must hate, don't use and even fight bitcoin as a currency, as I read in numerous posts here in bitcointalk?

It is ment central banks.
Basicly could also be commercial banks since wil loss some fees we pay to get our money moved. But Commercial banks will just use blockchain to cheaper move money and they will actually gain more then they do right now since number of transactions will increase even faster as till now.

Sorry but you cannot know what is in the mind of ALL they which has named banks on its posts. I can tell for sure that most of them don't know what is a Central Bank and what is a commercial bank. With bank (according to me) mostly they mean the bank near their home in which they do the normal things which needed to do from one bank. And this kind of bank is the commercial bank.

I don't understand what does it mean your sentence in bold. As for the other sentence I think you are wrong. The blockchain is good (according to me) because will increase the safety of the transactions and first of all will reduce the costs because blockchain use the peer to peer technology. This technology (if you know it) is disruptive because have one of the best characteristics of it the reduction of costs in every action made by something which use it.

As for the increase of transactions (will have more the transactions; those with bitcoin) I think that it will be not so big seeing the number of people who know it and use it. Anyhow this is a fact which is in favor of the not hating of bitcoin an not the hate of bitcoins from the banks.

Thanks for comment.

I dont understand how you not agree with me and then just repeat what i posted. Commercial banks will use blockchain to send transactions cheaper then they do right now!

in bold, i ment that right now commercial banks have sort of monopoly ( well there are many so not really, but with blockchain everyone will be able to use it) in making money transfers. So they will on first sight lose that, but since number of transactions will raise, they will not lose anything. Ofcourse those that will not act fast will lose.

I do more explanation about my previous explanation. Your "cheap" in that sentence is followed by the reasons of this "cheap" given in continuation. Those reasons (according to me) are wrong. My explanations have to do with the reasons of the "cheap" and not with the "cheap". So according to my explanations, the "cheap" have not the reason given by you but have totally others. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Everyone can take what fit with its pleasure.

The second part of your answer in the last post for me is again not fully clear but for that which I understand, why the banks will lose "the sort of monopoly" in the transactions? Will be the bank which will do the transactions of the bitcoins that will be deposited to the bank by the its customers. As for the other transactions which will be made out of the commercial bank, those will have nothing to do with the bank. So even with aim of this thread.

Bank will have more transactions if will accept bitcoin because will do even the transactions with bitcoin. Will earn even from those. So more transactions and more profit. No reason to hate or to not accept bitcoin. The other transactions with bitcoin out of banks have no reason to be treated here. Are out of banks. We are talking about the bitcoin within the bank not for those out of it.

To not forget that mainly, those kind of banks, have profits from the credits and not from the fees of transactions.