/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>897514
>The Commonwealth Bank has joined with eight other banks to embrace bitcoin.

No, they're as you say yourself, embraced 'blockchain'.

What Bitcoiners I believe often misunderstand about this is that they think 'blockchain' refers to the Bitcoin blockchain. They either think the people who use the term 'blockchain' thus must be stupid (since you can't separate Bitcoin the currency from Bitcoin the blockchain), or that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public by discouraging them from buying Bitcoin whilst getting in on the act themselves.

Rather, what is meant by the term 'blockchain' is not the Bitcoin blockchain, but the underlying technology. They want to run their *own* blockchains, and presumably use this for things like 'smart contracts', which may have a utility value but not a currency value.

Mind you, I doubt there's any serious interest in it, and it sounds like an empty idea to me.

An empty idea because the existing modus operandi is already quite reliable. Keep in mind that we're not talking about removing 'corruption' here. Do you think banks want more government or public oversight/exposure? Don't kid yourself. And more importantly, what would it be used for? Surely not for the general public, as it's unnecessary. From what I've heard about it, I gather they're talking about making the process *within* banks more efficient and reliable. Again, I don't really see why a bank should distrust one of it's own departments, and require something like a 'smart contract'. Perhaps it would be useful for an automated and accurate form of record keeping.

I say I doubt there's any serious interest in it, because all of these ideas are still largely abstractions, and certainly untested. These banks are probably just sending out 'feelers', which is nothing special.

But if you don't believe any of the above, then let me ask you this: If banks and da jewz are trying to get in on Bitcoin, why is the price falling?

You know what I think to myself when Bitcoiners go on about VC funding? If these wankers actually believed in Bitcoin, then they would not be thrilled with this glut of VC funding, but find it deeply concerning. After all, wasn't Bitcoin designed to be a self-sufficient system that did not necessitate and could not be undermined by 3rd parties? Why then all this VC funding; why does Bitcoin have a need for any of it?

Don't you see? Bitcoin was designed to rid us of this supposed oligarchical system, and now it is being co-opted by this supposed oligarchy, with Bitcoiners cheering it on.

So when Bitcoiners rave on about how great it is that some guy from Morgan Stanley or whatever says he supports and wants to adopt Bitcoin, whether in the form of just the 'blockchain technology' or not, it makes me think of the opposite of a positive development.

What I've noticed is that many Bitcoiners are confused by this - that is, of these 'evil banksters' voicing their support for or even funding Bitcoin-related startups - and they tend to either conclude that they must be gullible/stupid and hastening their own demise, or that they have 'seen the light' and are desperately trying to scramble for a small piece of the future lest they be left entirely in the dust. Bitcoiners simply cannot square the fact that Bitcoin is not a threat to the established system.