Because you still insist on the idea that archaic fiat and archaic central banks must exist
-
-
Holding Bitcoin takes an insane amount of responsibility. Most people would rather a bank manage that. Only crazy assholes like us want to hold our own keys.
-
Yes but holding Bitcoin at a bank is still holding Bitcoin. This guy was proposing we hold state fiat that’s pegged to bitcoin instead
-
Also, once bitcoin stops deflating so rapidly, people will want a way to loan out their bits for an interest rate. I don't wanna search for/screen debtors and then try to collect when they dont pay. Banks are already set up to manage that. Custodian accounts have many benefits.
-
I think some Banks will survive + have new Bitcoin banks. Argument was whether we need “Central” banks
-
World has existed without central banks before, so that seems like a possible scenario. If they choose to adapt with a peg, they would have to do a series of major devaluations. There will always be people who want to sidestep the banks completely. But not everyone.
-
Obviously if they no longer have a monopoly on money their role changes. What my contention is, is that central banks, facing a hyperbitcoinization crisis, can choose to value stabilize in unison versus bitcoin, curbing its deflationary properties to what is handable.
-
Sure. Personally I think transacting directly with btc is superior, provided it can handle the throughput, but not everyone will want to take that responsibility/burden. The ? is what % uses BTC directly and what % uses fiat peg. 80/20 perhaps? (Fiat/BTC)
-
why have Fiat peg if we can have Lightning or even centralized solutions built on top of BTC like Square Cash etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.