Advertised sites are not endorsed by the bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Legendary Online
Activity: 1148
It doesn’t sound good because it is against the core values of bitcoin. bitcoin is a decentralised crypto currency which should remain free from any third party interference. Sender and receiver should be whole and sole authorities to involve in the transaction. I am not against bank or some institutions wishing to provide services against deposited funds but it should not be the main wallet to hold bitcoins
I tend to disagree with your position
In this case (i.e. in the case of bitcoin banks) there is no third party whatsoever. When you buy things or pay for services with bitcoins, would you consider the seller as a third party? Obviously, not. But it is basically the same with a bitcoin bank. You don’t use it to transfer the money (since you can transfer bitcoin directly), you use the bank as an end-point of sorts. It is not an intermediary. You offer them bitcoins while they offer you percentage on your coins, as simple as it gets. Where is a third party here?
I respect everyone’s opinion. The bank would not keep our funds with them (nothing wrong here) as they are supposed to pay interest to the fund depositors.
They will lend our funds to someone else (currently web wallet service providers are not doing this) so my funds will be in the hands of someone else so instead of trusting some single entity (like blockchain.info) I have to trust multiple people (borrowers of banks whom I don’t even know). Bank would be third party in this case
As to me, this doesn’t change anything in the end
They wouldn’t be a third party in respect to you by any definition. Basically, they are one part or side (aka counterparty) in the contract between you, on the one side, and them, on the other. There is no third party in this case (apart from the bitcoin blockchain itself). It doesn’t matter what they do with your bitcoins later (if they do anything at all) and to whom they lend your money (if ever), this is irrelevant and inconsequential to the issue in question. Here’s an example to better understand the matter. When you open a deposit account in a regular bank, the bank will obviously be your counterparty in the deposit agreement between you and them (I guess that should go without saying), but government which prints the money which you put in the bank will be a third party in this case since they can devalue the money at any moment (hence comes the idea of a third party risk)
Exactly,
Government = Me = Banks Me = Banks = Bank’s Borrowers
* It is a chain system whereas when I deposit money with web wallet service provider, it will be
Me (Depositor) = Web Wallet Service Provider (Holder) = Me (Controller)
In first the case wallet service provider won’t have any additional rights to control the funds (lend it to others) whereas, in bank’s case, we are authorising banks to bring additional contractees in the contract
I’m really fascinated how people are sometimes desperately trying to defend a losing point instead of just accepting being wrong
You are not authorizing (or disauthorizing, for that matter) banks to lend your money to anyone. There are no such provisions in deposit contracts. Banks are free to do with your money anything they may want to do as long as they fulfill their obligations to return you your deposit at the end of the deposit term and pay interest monthly. It is the same with web wallets essentially, they promise you to return the money on your first call, but apart from that, they can do anything they may ever please to do with your coins. In neither of these cases, banks and web wallets are third parties. If you wish to continue claiming to the contrary, you may go on as long as feel inclined to, I don’t mind
It doesn’t sound good because it is against the core values of bitcoin. bitcoin is a decentralised crypto currency which should remain free from any third party interference. Sender and receiver should be whole and sole authorities to involve in the transaction. I am not against bank or some institutions wishing to provide services against deposited funds but it should not be the main wallet to hold bitcoins
I tend to disagree with your position
In this case (i.e. in the case of bitcoin banks) there is no third party whatsoever. When you buy things or pay for services with bitcoins, would you consider the seller as a third party? Obviously, not. But it is basically the same with a bitcoin bank. You don’t use it to transfer the money (since you can transfer bitcoin directly), you use the bank as an end-point of sorts. It is not an intermediary. You offer them bitcoins while they offer you percentage on your coins, as simple as it gets. Where is a third party here?
I respect everyone’s opinion. The bank would not keep our funds with them (nothing wrong here) as they are supposed to pay interest to the fund depositors.
They will lend our funds to someone else (currently web wallet service providers are not doing this) so my funds will be in the hands of someone else so instead of trusting some single entity (like blockchain.info) I have to trust multiple people (borrowers of banks whom I don’t even know). Bank would be third party in this case
As to me, this doesn’t change anything in the end
They wouldn’t be a third party in respect to you by any definition. Basically, they are one part or side (aka counterparty) in the contract between you, on the one side, and them, on the other. There is no third party in this case (apart from the bitcoin blockchain itself). It doesn’t matter what they do with your bitcoins later (if they do anything at all) and to whom they lend your money (if ever), this is irrelevant and inconsequential to the issue in question. Here’s an example to better understand the matter. When you open a deposit account in a regular bank, the bank will obviously be your counterparty in the deposit agreement between you and them (I guess that should go without saying), but government which prints the money which you put in the bank will be a third party in this case since they can devalue the money at any moment (hence comes the idea of a third party risk)
Exactly,
Government = Me = Banks Me = Banks = Bank’s Borrowers
* It is a chain system whereas when I deposit money with web wallet service provider, it will be
Me (Depositor) = Web Wallet Service Provider (Holder) = Me (Controller)
In first the case wallet service provider won’t have any additional rights to control the funds (lend it to others) whereas, in bank’s case, we are authorising banks to bring additional contractees in the contract
I’m really fascinated how people are sometimes desperately trying to defend a losing point instead of just accepting being wrong
You are not authorizing (or disauthorizing, for that matter) banks to lend your money to anyone. There are no such provisions in deposit contracts. Banks are free to do with your money anything they may want to do as long as they fulfill their obligations to return you your deposit at the end of the deposit term and pay interest monthly. It is the same with web wallets essentially, they promise you to return the money on your first call, but apart from that, they can do anything they may ever please to do with your coins. In neither of these cases, banks and web wallets are third parties. If you wish to continue claiming to the contrary, you may go on as long as feel inclined to, I don’t mind
You are a Legendary member and thus you have way more experience and knowledge than me. I have no hesitation in accepting your seniority. However, I am not convinced for what you are trying to convey. This is a vast topic and I think we need expert’s opinion and references to discuss and analyse this topic.
Newbie Offline
Activity: 25
That’s a good question. Due to the design of bitcoin, it is a bit difficult to “loan” them (remember that banking is effectively a loan where the bank pays you interest).
Bitcoins are not fiat, and therefore, can not be continuously printed. Because of this, no one can guarantee to indefinitely keep paying out interest on loaned coins. A horribly exaggerated example, just to make a point, is that if I somehow had 20,000,000 bitcoins in a bank, they could never pay me more than 1,000,000 total in interest just because of the limited supply.
Now, that’s more on the theoretical side of things. In practice, a major problem with loans in bitcoin are the volatile price. If the price rises suddenly, it could become more difficult to pay back interest; or alternatively if the price takes a heavy drop, the investor may lose money as what he is paid is less valuable now than it was at initial investment.
What a nice question.Saving bitcoin are good thing that you can because bitcoin has a different value so that the value of bitcoin will increase or decrease.Saving bitcoin in bank is not a good idea because if you have a more bitcoin the bank can’t handle it.If you have more bitcoin and your try to save it to bank there will complain because they can’t handle it and it will result a high interest.
Jr. Member Online
Activity: 43
bitcoin is hardly to be saved in a bank accept it is exchanged in a local currency of the land. This means that you must exchange bitcoin to the value of the local currency before you can make a deposit in the bank. i think bitcoin is mainly installed in the bitcoin wallet.
Legendary Online
Activity: 1148
Government = Me = Banks Me = Banks = Bank’s Borrowers
* It is a chain system whereas when I deposit money with web wallet service provider, it will be
Me (Depositor) = Web Wallet Service Provider (Holder) = Me (Controller)
In first the case wallet service provider won’t have any additional rights to control the funds (lend it to others) whereas, in bank’s case, we are authorising banks to bring additional contractees in the contract
I’m really fascinated how people are sometimes desperately trying to defend a losing point instead of just accepting being wrong
You are not authorizing (or disauthorizing, for that matter) banks to lend your money to anyone. There are no such provisions in deposit contracts. Banks are free to do with your money anything they may want to do as long as they fulfill their obligations to return you your deposit at the end of the deposit term and pay interest monthly. It is the same with web wallets essentially, they promise you to return the money on your first call, but apart from that, they can do anything they may ever please to do with your coins. In neither of these cases, banks and web wallets are third parties. If you wish to continue claiming to the contrary, you may go on as long as feel inclined to, I don’t mind
You are a Legendary member and thus you have way more experience and knowledge than me. I have no hesitation in accepting your seniority. However, I am not convinced for what you are trying to convey. This is a vast topic and I think we need expert’s opinion and references to discuss and analyse this topic
I guess you should just read what party actually means
As per dictionary, it is “someone who may be indirectly involved but is not a principal party to an arrangement, contract, deal, lawsuit, or transaction”. Note the emphasized distinction between a third party and a principal party which is made in this definition. That’s basically what I’m trying to point out. If you put your money in a web wallet or in a bank account (bitcoins or whatever), they (a bank or a wallet) cannot be a third party. Regarding Legendary status or seniority or anything to that tune, if someone talks bullshit it will remain bullshit no matter what his rank or IQ might be. That’s another distinction worth mentioning
If I decided to save bitcoins in bank, how will deposit rate be changed compared to dollar or other currencies? Will it have much lower percent?
Its sad to say but there are no bitcoin banks existing online. If you want to earn then just hold your bitcoins in your wallet and wait for an inflation. That way you will get more profit out of your investment. The only way to save in banks is to convert your bitcoin into fiat currency and then deposit it on banks. But holding bitcoin is much profitable than savings on bank.
Correct. So, if you want to invest your bitcoin OP, the only option that you have is to invest it on the gambling sites or to those HYIPs out there, but it is not really that recommended because most of them always turned out to be a scam in the end, so, if I were you, I will look for another way to multiply your bitcoins while you are saving it, because just Holding your current amount of bitcoin right now will be boring if you are not going to do anything, but to wait for the right time to convert your coin.
Like for example, why don’t you try to do Signature Campaign or other ways to earn bitcoin in a legit way every week or in every month, never try gambling though, because I am telling you that it is not a really good idea.
Crypto New Media Major Crypto Drop Again as bitcoin Loses 3%: Market Down $6 Billion Twitter Facebook LinkedIn CCN is expanding. Are you our next full-time journalist from the West Coast USA? Send us your […]
Re: Primedice | Most Popular & Trusted | Huge Community | Free BTC Advertised sites are not endorsed by the bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here. eaLiTy […]
Blockchain Training in Minneapolis for Beginners-bitcoin training-introduction to cryptocurrency-ico-ethereum-hyperledger-smart contracts training Schedule This course comprises of 5 sessions of 2 hours each. All sessions will follow the schedule below: July 7, 2018 from 9 AM […]
