Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 31/05/2025, 01:47:56 UTC
Obviously you are not aware of banking-related officials who have repeatedly tried to tarnish Bitcoin's name between its inception and today. Obviously you are also unaware that ownership is power, and that the more Bitcoin you own, the more power you have over its market (especially in the context of large institutions who own 5%+ of the supply).
Nice try. Control of the market price of Bitcoin, does not give you any power over Bitcoin.These are dangers of centralized ownership of the supply.
What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.
Sure and I agree partially, but there is a but. We can't properly calculate the total value of crypto that was scammed or stolen from individual users. But if we could, it is very probably that the amount stolen from individuals outweighs the amount stolen from large platforms or custodians in recent time. Right? There was a report just recently about a potential $300 million hack which was converted to XMR. You are underestimating the risks of asking people to be their own bank, people who own many number of devices, but do not know how to use them. The elderly people do not know how to use them, the young people do not know either. If they did, these things would not be happening. What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.
Custodians are inevitable in such a large asset class that requires both knowledge and expertise, no amount of whining or complaining will stop custodians from appearing and keeping the majority of the ownership. That said, the bigger the custodian the more extreme security measures do I expect. They have no reason to touch wallets or move large amounts basically ever. They know what they are doing,
Original archived Re: Will banks go on extinction if they do not adopt cryptocurrencies?
Scraped on 31/05/2025, 01:42:57 UTC
Obviously you are not aware of banking-related officials who have repeatedly tried to tarnish Bitcoin's name between its inception and today. Obviously you are also unaware that ownership is power, and that the more Bitcoin you own, the more power you have over its market (especially in the context of large institutions who own 5%+ of the supply).
Nice try. Control of the market price of Bitcoin, does not give you any power over Bitcoin.These are dangers of centralized ownership of the supply.
What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.
Sure and I agree partially, but there is a but. We can't properly calculate the total value of crypto that was scammed or stolen from individual users. But if we could, it is very probably that the amount stolen from individuals outweighs the amount stolen from large platforms or custodians in recent time. Right? There was a report just recently about a potential $300 million hack which was converted to XMR. You are underestimating the risks of asking people to be their own bank, people who own many number of devices, but do not know how to use them. The elderly people do not know how to use them, the young people do not know either. If they did, these things would not be happening. What you are not properly taking into account is that while these institutions hold Bitcoin for other people, it is still a single entity holding all of the Bitcoin, thus they are a point of failure whether it be by their intention to be bad actors (wouldn't put it past BlackRock, how do you think they became the largest MNC in the world? By being honest and by the book?) or because of a circumstance out of their control, such as a hack or social engineering like we're seeing with Coinbase...or, like a technical event like a hard fork and Blackrock choosing the fork over the original Bitcoin.
Custodians are inevitable in such a large asset class that requires both knowledge and expertise, no amount of whining or complaining will stop custodians from appearing and keeping the majority of the ownership. That said, the bigger the custodian the more extreme security measures do I expect. They have no reason to touch wallets or move large amounts basically ever, where you can trick many users with a simple enter your seed phrase to claim the biggest ever space jackpot.