Quote from: HI-TEC99 on Today at 04:09:05 AM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 04:02:45 AM

Quote from: HI-TEC99 on Today at 03:48:01 AM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 02:56:50 AM

Quote from: Torque on Today at 01:39:47 AM

The King Daddy still remains, and is still thriving. 🕶

yes, true, but, be honest, where is the "alternative financial system" based on bitcoin?
It's possible that just sending coins from point A to point B would suffice (and being a putative 'store of value'), but Satoshi envisioned bitcoin banks, if I recall correctly.

...

Can you post a link to it?

All I could find was this post by hal.

Quote from: Hal on December 30, 2010, 01:38:40 AM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

You are right, Hal Finney said that, it was not directly attributed to Satoshi.
I sometimes rightly or wrongly think that he is "the one".

Satoshi seemed pretty anti banks judging by these quotes.

Quote

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Quote

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

I don't see those two positions as being necessarily mutually exclusive.
A big lightning hub could be thought of like a 'bank" in hal's description, sans issuing "their own digital cash", which or may not be problematic.