The Banks Continue To Work Against Bitcoin Instead of With it.

I did not write this article.I translated it using google translate, and made changes, so it made more sense. The article was published by borsen.dk

When the Silk Road was taken down, the volume in Bitcoin fell "only" by 3-5 percent. Thus, it is not the black-and-white trade and money laundering, the currency to a large extent is used at as indicated. It would also be stupid because transactions are super transparent compared to bank transfers. In addition, it is thoughtful that fingers are pointed when the bank itself is in a throat case.

But the FSA also point fingers at bitcoin with another explanation: Bitcoin is dangerous because there is no dear mother if you lose money. Uh, now I'm scared. What about Roskilde Bank. Amager Bank (two banks that went bankrupt, causing many thousand people huge economic trouble). Where was dear mom there?

In order to go even deeper into the banks point of view - where our country is in debt and where I do not think it's totally wrong to assume that the numbers the bank is spending on, what's borrowed compared to what people are standing on account does not match what they actually have in there if everyone wants their money out asap.

Rather self-control than bank

If that is hacking Mr. FSA suggests - yes yes. Of course, he is right that there is a risk. Bitcoin's motto is: Be your own bank. And if you want to be your own bank, then, of course, your own responsibility comes with it. For example, you must stand for security and transfer to the correct addresses when transferring money. There is no department or director to call if it goes wrong, but again - the price of autonomy is many that are prepared to pay. And besides, there is also the danger of being hacked in all possible other ways in the bank.

And then, in the cryptosphere, you have the wonderful opportunity to take your crypto money from the big dangerous internet and down on a hardware wallet from which they do not disappear unless you throw the USB stick in the toilet and flush it. Almost like keeping cash in the pocket, which we no longer use in most cases.

Concerned resistance to development

If the banks do not collaborate and partly investigate, takes this seriously AND review their own vulnerable situation and work on their future eligibility (not by overtaking their monopoly but by listening to what the customers want) when the cryptospace grow with millions of customers on a weekly basis - so it's deeply worrying. What should not be those with that attitude?

It's on the verge of the time when it was said that the internet was something that would go away again, that Facebook was a stage and at least as stupid as when they shut down Uber instead of finding out a way to work with them, instead of against them.

This is where it becomes interesting

75 percent of the world's population does not have a permanent physical address. Most of these can't get a bank account. The US has 60 million. people who do not have access to one. You do not even think about it, since it's an in-country. And then we have Africa, where cryptovaluta has really gained traction.

In Zimbabwe, the price of Bitcoin is up 50 percent higher than elsewhere because the state has given up its own currency due to inflation, and Bitcoin works well as an alternative there.

To use crypto currency, this huge proportion of people do not need an address or bank. They can manage themselves.

The crypto space, which has now hit a market cap of over 400 billion. dollars, not will just "go away again" and that the bank does not win this one. Just wonder that Bitcoin is a currency you can not even use so many places yet, but as you start using more and more places. So we are only in the beginning; This corresponds to the Internet in 1991, where it took 3 hours to send an email. As a product, the crypto currencies, like the net, have not yet been "finished" because we just do not know how much we will be able to use them.

Bubble, bubble, bubble

Do I need anything? Reach bubbles. They cheer up that Bitcoin is a bubble. But and what if, if it is? When the bubble was bursted, it was not because we went back to using the letters again. And sorry - but what the hell is not a bubble today?

And who cares?

If yes - at least, nothing will happen soon. For now - you can not really care if banks and the others will "accept" Bitcoin gains. There are several providers of debit cards that are linked directly to one's crypto accounts. And in 2-3 years, Bitcoin can handle the same number of transactions per second as Visa is the maximum tested.

Yes, the question may not be - if the banks want Bitcoin. But if Bitcoin even need the banks?

Do not tension the development

Listen to the people. Listen to the customers. Tackle the challenge. And try to understand the psychology behind what the people want instead of opposing it.

Bitcoin was made out of 2008 crash to give power back to the people from banks, politicians and big businesses.

Listen to the show that lies in the support given by these democratically-considered decentralized currencies.

Invite blockchain and crypto-savers into and work for a solution. Do not worry about the development. There is a reason we drive by car and not to horse, although it certainly gave the horse dealers a huge challenge.

The situation is getting interesting in Denmark, but just like the article say. Does it even matter? The banks can't take down or control bitcoin. it's like the dragon in your head if you don't acknowledge it's there it will grow and grow and grow until you, in the end, have to surrender. Work with it, play with it, get to know it, don't resist it. It will never die.

What are your thoughts on the banks resistance to bitcoin, crypto in general, and what effect do you think it can have?

Image sources: 1, 2, 3