Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sh4rk 2684 days ago
Good question. Definitely yes. Why would I pay middlemen (banks) when there is no need to? Also why would I trust them, when there is no need to?
3 comments

> Why would I pay middlemen (banks) when there is no need to? Also why would I trust them, when there is no need to?

Payments are only relative small function of financial sector. Much more important is to act in credit markets, i.e take deposits and issue loans. How did you think that crypto removes need for fees (interest rate) and trust in those applications?

I see this as a disadvantage of using banks. They act as if you can freely access your money in your account, but actually you can't. That money is loaned out for the most part, and it's a trick that keeps the current system going. But once you have a bank run, reality will kick in on how banks really work. At least the cryptocurrency that you own is really yours today. The numbers on your bank account are yours some day.
Most people I've spoken with about crypto prefer the way banks work. The idea that losing your keys means losing your money, with no recourse, terrifies them.
> no recourse

Recourses:

- Backed up dat file - Backed up wallet password - Recovery phrase

There, now you have 3 separate ways to not lose your btc!

you also have 3 ways for someone to steal it !
> The idea that losing your keys means losing your money, with no recourse, terrifies them.

All the more incentive to not lose them!

So, how would you then like to arrange your mortgage if banks are not allowed as intermediaries managing the credit risk between depositors and yourself?
Banks could still lend out cryptocurrency, but in that case you know it is lended out (because you don't have it).

In other words, banks multiply money right now, but you cannot multiply cryptocurrency.

It's much more honest and clear.

But I would still as a depositor have the promise from the bank that the bank will give me back my cryptocurrency when I want?

If I do, there is practically zero difference how banks would work with crypto and fiat. And that promise can be used as money just like it can now with fiat. Thus banks would be able to monetarily multiply crypto at will as well.

If not, well, how exactly are you planning to stop me and my bank making such a contract? You know, the bank can pay me some interest on my savings is I let them lend the money forward, so both banks amd my incentive is to allow the lending of my deposit.

In practice, there would be 1 big difference: payments are made in cryptocurrency, not in bank credits. And this difference has an impact on all the rest.

We use bank money now because it's more convenient than paying with gold. But imagine that paying with gold was more convenient and preferred. In that case, we would see money in the bank as an investment, not as a wallet.

Your employer does not wire transfers money to your bank, but to your wallet. He pays you "in gold" so to speak. Same when you go shopping etc. There is no bank involved in transferring money anymore.

If you put money on the bank, you cannot use those credits to pay other people, as you are able to do now. Because people expect "gold", not bank credits.

You are correct that in a cryptocurrency world, banks could still have fractional reserves. But the main difference is that there will be a clear distinction between "real money", which is cryptocurrency, and "bank notes", which are a promise of the bank to pay you cryptocurrency. Right now, you cannot make the distinction between the two.

This is also the reason why they were able to let the gold standard disappear, because nobody would notice. If everyone trades in gold, the gold standard cannot just be abolished.

Basically a cryptocurrency world is a gold standard, where gold is the preferred way of paying.

This would also mean that banks will go back to how they operated when there was no central bank. And even further back than that, because payments are more conveniently made with "gold".

Cryptocurrencies are not a replacement for banks; they are a replacement for gold.

If cryptocurrencies ever become mainstream, banking services will be built on top of them, just as they were originally built on top of gold.

The only thing I can think of that cryptos let you do cheaper than banks is rapid, relatively frictionless funds transfer, so I’ll admit their utility there. But other than that, what banking services do cryptos give you?

Loans, money transfer, storing your money are all things that can be replaced. Seems like a decent chunk.
Loans no, not at all. Money transfer for coin is extremely inefficient. Volatility makes crypto a terrible place to keep money.

Besides, you're paying for the legal and institutional protection anyway. If crypto made money transfer more efficient, they'd use it and still have the value add of a large institution backing transactions.

I thought we were talking about the hypothetical situation where crypto becomes amazing and not at the current state? Of course, crypto can't replace banks as it is now…
> Loans no, not at all.

https://makerdao.com/dai/

$80M DAI issued so far...

That's only useful as a hedge for ETH. A mortgage where you have to put down 373% of the value of the house in liquid currency as collateral is not competitive in the slightest.

https://mkr.tools/

Sure, but I'm responding to the disingenuity or possibly the ignorance of saying "no loans, at all."
absolute control over your money
Again, nothing stops you from keeping gold under your bed. The reason people don’t do this is because most people don’t actually need, want, or care about having absolute control over their money. And the probability of your home being robbed is much higher than that of your bank (and the FDIC) becoming insolvent.
A government can steal your gold an outlaw it, as the US government did in 1933.

They can also try to outlaw bitcoin, but they have a bit more trouble stealing it.

> Again, nothing stops you from keeping gold under your bed.

Can I transmit my gold in any quantity that I want to anyone in the world with an Internet connection for a few dollars in fees?

> Also why would I trust them, when there is no need to?

Because your alternative is to trust the crypto infrastructure, which is far less trustworthy.

what do you mean by crypto infrastructure? you mean the code or the miners?

actually banks have failed in the past, this infrastructure not yet

>actually banks have failed in the past, this infrastructure not yet

Man, what are you talking about? There's a new "$100 million in coins go missing" story every 6 months.

Crypto 101: never let anyone have your private key. No-one who religiously followed that rule has ever had their crypto stolen.

Coins go missing from exchanges, which break the basic private key rule. People use exchanges for convenience because as clever as cryptocurrency is, it has no answer to the exchange problem.

> never let anyone have your private key. No-one who religiously followed that rule has ever had their crypto stolen.

Bullshit. No "religious" following of rules can protect you against a zero day exploit somewhere in your system.

I didn't say it always will, just that it has so far.
>it has no answer to the exchange problem

Actually, there are smart contracts which act as exchanges. Not for all currency pairs yet, but it's on the way.

Crypto 102: regular people will never use cryptocurrencies if they have to guard their private keys without a fallback in place.
The infrastructure of both payments for goods and services, and for storing your assets.

As of now, paying for goods and services with cryptocurrencies is relatively risky; it's hard to get recourse if you're scammed; and the standard credit card infrastructure with chargebacks and fraud protection is comparably more trustworthy.

As of now, storing cryptorcurrencies is risky. And I'm not even talking about the shady brokers/exchanges that can steal or lose their customer's money. You can store it yourself as well as you can - but, as it turns out, most people aren't that good at storing it securely, so all kinds of risks and breaches (e.g. hacking your devices to get access to your secrets) are more common than for bank accounts but, also, the consequences are more severe - if your bank account gets drained in an identity theft attack, very often these funds are recovered or compensated, not so with crypto. So again, the existing financial infrastructure with regulation, FDIC or similar insurance in case of fraud or insolvency, mandated consumer protection in case of scammed credentials - it's more trustworthy than the commonly used processes&procedures&infrastructure of crypto storage.

I don't understand you are talking about theft? like what happens to banks and jewelry stores? like what was happening every day with dollars on far west? and somehow this invalidated the cryptocurrency narrative? how?
I mean all of it in aggregate, and it has failed many, many times.
I believe they were talking about the Bitcoin network and protocol, not an exchange that someone built.
But muh decentralization! /s

In reality most of the exchanges and sites dealing with crypto were (and probably still are) built by absolute amateurs with no checks and balances on their apps from a security perspective. Its scary as hell that people trust those sites with their actual money.

The recent QuadrigaCX fiasco shows this very clearly. The entire exchange (one of the biggest in Canada) was somehow just running on the encrypted laptop of this one guy, and after he suddenly died in December, there is 250 million Canadian Dollars owed to 100k+ customers that nobody can recover, because the guy with the password is dead.
Minor correction: the exchange wasn’t running on a laptop. It was run on systems you’d expect it to run on.

What was stored on the encrypted laptop was all of the cold storage wallets containing the majority of the digital assets.

No less idiotic, but an important factual distinction.

Aha, this makes sense. (Wikipedia states that the exchange was running on his laptop, which I did indeed find curious/impressive.)