[amalcon]

> still waiting.

My answer is still "no (but many banks don't either)", as I said in my previous reply. Unless you mean digitally, but that's just "having accounts". If you mean digitally, then my answer is "obviously yes".

> Well, for one, it's only an address. Not a ledger.

What? The entire mechanical basis of Bitcoin (the blockchain) is a ledger (big database of timestamped transactions) with a somewhat unusual timestamping and tamper proofing mechanism. Each transaction has a set of associated addresses. I was going to say that this is not meaningfully different from individual account ledgers, but actually, this is literally how transaction history would be stored in an RDBMS. It's not different at all.

The existence of this (public) ledger is what creates the demand for things like Tornado Cash in the first place.

> Bitcoin transactions point money at one or more address.

Banks can facilitate transactions between arbitrary whole numbers of accounts also (off the top of my head: 1- paying interest; 2- payment; 3+- escrow)

> bitcoin is just a collection of those transactions & relevant/necessary data to support them them, compiled & validated using a variety of mathematic calculations.

Yes. Functionally, that results in a (limited) bank. Or at least, it's closer to that than it is to cash.

[mr_spothawk]

> Unless you mean digitally, but that's just "having accounts".

But you must open an account with a bank, and deposit money before they can process transactions for you.

There's no way to deposit money *into* bitcoin. Bitcoin is money.

> Each transaction has a set of associated addresses.

Yes, and you suggested addresses are the equivalent of accounts. They are not.

> Banks can facilitate transactions between arbitrary whole numbers of accounts also (off the top of my head: 1- paying interest; 2- payment; 3+- escrow)

Accounts, which hold money, are a tool of banks[0]. Bitcoin doesn't have accounts. Bitcoin is not a (limited) bank. It is a distributed digital cash system.

"Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of bitcoins is carried out collectively by the network."[1]

0 - https://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/banks.html 1 - https://bitcoin.org/en/

[amalcon]

> There's no way to deposit money *into* bitcoin.

I have not deposited money into my bank account in many years. I have, instead, had money transferred to my account from other accounts. This is not only possible in Bitcoin; without it, Bitcoin would be useless. It's quite possible to open an account at a traditional bank with a transfer from another account; for online and investment banks, this is usually the only way to do it.

> Yes, and you suggested addresses are the equivalent of accounts. They are not.

Still waiting for you to tell me how they are not. It seems obvious to me that they are functionally equivalent, and I have made a case for why. An address is an identifier associated with a transaction history and access control. An account number is an identifier associated with a transaction history and access control.

You have made no corresponding case for why they are not, apart from citing your belief and citing PR from bitcoin.org. The former is convincing of what you believe, but it is not convincing with respect to the functioning of Bitcoin or banks. The latter is convincing of what bitcoin.org wants me to believe, but it is not convincing with respect to the functioning of Bitcoin or banks.