Is It Right That Banks Now Accept Bitcoin?

[HONDACD125]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

What does banks accepting Bitcoin to be stored in users' accounts have to do with Bitcoin's general use cases or purpose of creation? Just because banks are now ready to allow their customers to keep their Bitcoin with them, it doesn't mean that Bitcoin is suddenly becoming centralized, because a bank will only have access to the assets that people will keep with them, and that isn't how centralization or decentralization of a whole system works. Assets or coins kept in a custodial wallet are accessible by the person who has control over the wallet network and everything, but that doesn't give them any access to the network of the coin itself, which is Bitcoin in this case.

So, even if banks and all other institutions that are centralized start accepting Bitcoin, that wouldn't affect Bitcoin's motive of providing people with a decentralized payment method, because everything will still be the same, and you can still use Bitcoin the same way, it's just that there will be both centralized and decentralized channels for making transactions, and it will be up to the people for what they will choose.

[Z-tight]

Banks aren’t embracing Bitcoin to be edgy, they’re chasing profits. It makes crypto more usable, but kills the “no middlemen” ideal.

It is the same thing with centralized exchanges, they are the middlemen when you use their service. And centralized exchanges are even more popular than p2p services. Centralized exchanges also do not care about BTC, but they are all about their profit.

My point is that most people in the industry use centralized exchanges because of supposed 'convenience', so they would not mind using banks for the same reason. It also does not 'kill' anything, because there are services that offer p2p services and people can choose them.

[ZAINmalik75]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Yeah, it does feel strange because banks were supposed to be against Bitcoin, but now they are ready to accept it, and that's probably because they have understood that people aren't going to back off, so they will have to provide them with everything they want so that they don't leave using their services.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

How is this going to be a slow takeover over the decentralization of Bitcoin? Bitcoin isn't going centralized, but banks are accepting Bitcoin, and that shouldn't in any way have anything to do with its decentralization.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

It's obvious, they are doing it for both profits and so that their customers don't start converting their fiat to Bitcoin and then keep them elsewhere, so they are going to provide them with the opportunity to also keep their Bitcoin with them, so that they can still have their customers and have complete access to their finances.

[Fiatless]

It is the same thing with centralized exchanges, they are the middlemen when you use their service. And centralized exchanges are even more popular than p2p services. Centralized exchanges also do not care about BTC, but they are all about their profit.

My point is that most people in the industry use centralized exchanges because of supposed 'convenience', so they would not mind using banks for the same reason. It also does not 'kill' anything, because there are services that offer p2p services and people can choose them.

There are people who would never have gotten involved in Bitcoin without there centralised platforms. Bitcoin is neutral and can be used by different institutions for diverse reasons. Complaining about centralised platforms getting involved in Bitcoin is a waste of time because you can do nothing about it. Everyone has the right to buy or sell Bitcoin.

Regardless of how popular these platfroms are, there will always be Bitcoiners who will not patronise them regarless of how convenint their services might be.

[EFS]

I haven't heard of banks holding Bitcoin. Maybe that's the case in your country? If so, it's not as bad as it might seem.
For us, it's "not your keys, not your coins" but there's also an older generation that wants to invest in Bitcoin yet finds self-custody too complicated. For them, banks accepting Bitcoin deposits is actually a good thing. The bank probably charges a yearly maintenance fee, just like with regular accounts, while offering security in return. Especially for people who aren't tech-savvy, trusting a bank helps avoid risks like losing or having their private keys stolen.

[GeorgeJohn]

Bitcoin is a decentralized currency why banks operates with a centralized currency, if banks began to accept Bitcoin that  doesn't that bitcoin is out of decentralized form, the thing is that banks embrace bitcoin in order for they to trade on it and make out profit from the process..Bitcoin is a currency of its own that's independent, why banks works with traditional currency and also looking for a means to accumulate a traditional currency they bank with through a Bitcoin.

[freedomgo]

This a good deal for the centralized banks, but a bad deal for us who want to maximize privacy and freedom. But since this is also one of the keys to achieve faster global adoption, therefore the government is slowly granting it now. However, in all honesty, I never imagined that banks would be more soft and open like this to bitcoin, but we all know this comes with a great purpose for their own personal desire and satisfaction, while leaving bitcoin remains the culprit.

[Zoomic]

If the banks are offering actual bitcoin that you can withdraw to your personal wallet, I don't see why not. Even if it's like ETFs for example where the client don't actually have access to the bitcoin then that's still fine... It's not something I would recommend obviously as it goes against what bitcoin stands for, but if there is demand for it, then so be it. Some people just prefer it this way and rather deal with banks and asset managers then an exchange.

What you have written here, has always been my stand. We don't actually need to detect how bitcoin evolves. I cannot give my BTC to anyone to manage for me, but that does not make it bad if Mr. Bob does. We were skeptical about ETFs, but today we are living with it.

Some years ago, we prayed that the government, the banks and other institutions should adopt bitcoin, and today they are here and we are threatened. Let's just follow bitcoin and enjoy the liberty bitcoin brought to us

[Questat]

I can still say that this is a progress for bitcoin, however the advantage is given more to the banks rather to bitcoin and its people. Why? This is a clear dominance of authority and power from the banks and government to let them control bitcoin despite of its decentralized nature. And worst thing is, we don't have control over this, yet the best thing we can do is just to avoid banks for our bitcoin, to get rid of banks by not trusting them with our bitcoin. With that, they can't control our bitcoins that aren't deposited on them, only those who uncautiously trusted banks for their bitcoin.

[serjent05]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

Does a bank accepting  Bitcoin remove the feature of Bitcoin of P2P trading or transactions?  Obviously no.  So bank accepting Bitcoin does not disrupt Bitcoin's core operation.  Bank accepting Bitcoin is simply the traditional financial system swallowing its pride for profit. Banking system is created to profit so it is not surprising that they will integrate Bitcoin acceptance into their service.

It is a positive sign for Bitcoin since before that, many thinks Bitcoin is used for criminal transactions but look at what is happening now, the bank accepting Bitcoin simply shows that the earlier negative assumption about Bitcoin are all wrong, so why think negatively about bank accepting Bitcoin when it is a proof of Bitcoin that Bitcoin is for good transactions.

Anyway,  the bank has nothing else to go after Bitcoin but to take advantage of its profitability.

[Natalim]

As part of global adoption, I believe it's the right thing to do. We waited for this for years, and now it's already happening in front of us. Sadly, it turns out we are being taken advantage by these centralized institutions, and in less time, they will gain the control and access over our hard-earned bitcoins. Now, if we will bite their offer, they will succeed over our bitcoins, while leaving us losing the freedom over our bitcoin ownership.

This is right for banks, but this is slowly taking away our full access and privacy over our precious bitcoins.

[Marvell1]

Banks have to accept Bitcoin when they see that many people are migrating from banks to Bitcoin blockchain. With Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin non custodial wallets, people can have their own banks and it's a very big risk against traditional banks.

Hence, to survive, traditional banks must change themselves and open their bank gates for Bitcoin users. They do it as one of changes for adapting well enough to Bitcoin era as Bitcoin will continue its thrive without banks while banks know that they only get more benefit by providing Bitcoin-related products for people.

Years since 2009 Bitcoin Genesis Block, there is Bitcoin snowball effects so that banks can not stay against Bitcoin forever.

Have you seen any banks closing or going bankrupt in your country because of the growth of bitcoin?

Although many people are starting to use Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, they are only using them as an investment tool, not many are using them to store their assets. At the end of the day, many of us will also convert our bitcoins to fiat once we reach our profit goals. Not to mention, has anyone become a bitcoin user and then deleted their bank account? I guess no one would dare do that.


So for me, banks accept bitcoin because they see the returns it can bring, not because they are afraid. The world still needs banks more than bitcoin, that's the truth.

[Bobrox]

I can still say that this is a progress for bitcoin, however the advantage is given more to the banks rather to bitcoin and its people. Why? This is a clear dominance of authority and power from the banks and government to let them control bitcoin despite of its decentralized nature. And worst thing is, we don't have control over this, yet the best thing we can do is just to avoid banks for our bitcoin, to get rid of banks by not trusting them with our bitcoin. With that, they can't control our bitcoins that aren't deposited on them, only those who uncautiously trusted banks for their bitcoin.

If have progress Bank want to accept bitcoin likely good news but for the future we can't predictable how avoid our bitcoin assets not controlling by government and Bank, right now easily for government controlling how much assets we have in the bank because have full power asking all Bank user data to know how much money we are saving in the bank. I know many people excited if Bank accepted bitcoin for deposit or saving but have bad side for us how government will know with how many bitcoin having in the wallet or bank.

As good quote not your key is not your coins its the same when saving or deposit bitcoin in the bank have third party are controlling with our bitcoin assets, better make more privacy how many bitcoin in our wallet without any one else or government know with our bitcoin assets. I scare in my country Bank very transparent with government explore the user saving assets in the Bank.

[Rustam Meraj]

It is strange that banks that Bitcoin was made to replace are accepting it, which shows contradiction between making it easy to use and decentralizing it. This is both good and bad change it is good that using banks makes Bitcoin real and easy to buy, but it is bad because many people are worried that it will put control back in hands of the middlemen, and they will make banks make money again when they should be worried by them. So this is hard move that helps growth of Bitcoin yet is move in wrong direction of pure decentralization, and problem is currently to keep main technology of Bitcoin strong and without control.

[GreatArkansas]

(....)
So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

"If you can't beat them, join them"

For me, the real "banking without bank" is owning real Bitcoin within your wallet! Not owning Bitcoin ETFs from these banks. So for me, it's still different. "Not your keys, not your coins"
Another thing is, these banks needs to make money and since Bitcoin is popular these days, they can use this opportunity.

[uchegod-21]

Banks accepting bitcoin is not something we should be excited about. These banks and even the government are trying hard to bend everyone towards centralization so they'll still be in charge as usual.

I do not welcome the idea of banks accepting bitcoin, bank's involvement contradicts one of the aims of bitcoin which is for bitcoiners to be their own bank. If banks are allowed now, with time, they will introduce strict rules. The banks cannot be lenient with their rules.

[laspol65]

enience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

You can easily transact Bitcoin from anywhere, and Bitcoin is suitable for international transactions. But whenever you are associated with banks, the government has the power to control, and this creates opportunities for more money launderers in corrupt countries. Where there are regulators, those who are ready to launder money quickly, as a result, countries will quickly move towards bankruptcy. That is why it is quite reasonable to centralize the banking sector,

[Swordsoffreedom]

It is strange that banks that Bitcoin was made to replace are accepting it, which shows contradiction between making it easy to use and decentralizing it.

This would never happen if bitcoin were used for its original purpose as a currency. But unfortunately, bitcoin is only considered a speculative asset so it is no surprise that banks are slowly accepting bitcoin and encouraging people to invest in it through them.

This is both good and bad change it is good that using banks makes Bitcoin real and easy to buy, but it is bad because many people are worried that it will put control back in hands of the middlemen, and they will make banks make money again when they should be worried by them. So this is hard move that helps growth of Bitcoin yet is move in wrong direction of pure decentralization, and problem is currently to keep main technology of Bitcoin strong and without control.

Once bitcoin was just considered as an asset, a commodity, and everyone's goal was to make as much money as possible. This is a good thing because it will help bitcoin become popular and the demand will increase significantly.


Banks accepting bitcoin will only be seen as a bad thing and a step backwards if people care about privacy, freedom and want to have their own banks. But look, how many people care about that?

[Mighty97]

It is progress and irony. On one side, banks adopting Bitcoin will bring legitimacy, accessibility, and even smoother integration with the international system of finance,  a thing to help Bitcoin reach out to more people. On the other hand, it chips out at the original spirit of decentralization. As soon as banks begin holding, regulations and gaining from Bitcoin, they reintroduce the same dynamic of middleman it was created to eliminate. So it is progress for adoption, but a hindrance for independence.

[fuguebtc]

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

There are two sides to every coin.


Likewise, whether banks accepting bitcoin is progress or a step backwards depends on your perspective and your intended use of bitcoin. We cannot demand absolute perfection, it is impossible.

But to me, I find this regressive and unnecessary. Because Satoshi's original purpose in creating Bitcoin was to reduce dependence on third parties like banks or governments. But with their increasing intervention in the Bitcoin ecosystem, that’s a clear step backward.
But what is more important is that whether we like it or not, whether we object or not, there is no way to stop their interference.