There is potential for a diverse set of institutions to take the lead in the cryptocurrency industry, but only for the largest or most dominant players. The platform has paid extraordinary attention to detail while designing its user interface. Start your trading journey with confidence by using a trusted website like cryptosoft.

However, the current financial landscape may be ripe with opportunities for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that have emerged since 2008 to disrupt the finance and technology industries as we know them. It is why analysis of these two systems is essential in understanding how they compare to each other.

Bitcoin: Open-Source Ubiquitous Currency

Traditional banks: Limited Linked Transactions between, say, nation-states, often with direct relationships between each bank.

The fundamental difference here is that banks offer centralized services such as loans while bitcoin offers a decentralized service through its blockchain architecture. In addition, no bank officer is in charge of the currency, so there is no possibility of fraud. However, the limited number of bitcoins that can ever be mined means that there will likely be a deflationary period in the future.

It may seem like it is potentially harmful to traditional banks, as bankers are paid to borrow money and don’t want to see their revenue stream shrinking. However, this could be a good thing for bitcoin, as its value would likely increase if it were based on a deflationary currency.

Bitcoin: P2P Currency with Decentralized Storage of Transactions

Traditional banks: Centralized Trusted Third Party

The key difference here is that bitcoin transactions are not tied to third-party banks that can manipulate the system. For example, suppose households have their wages paid into their bank account with a direct transfer from an employer. In that case, they can spend those funds however they wish without going through the laborious process of transferring money through a bank. It would allow for faster transactions and greater security, as users wouldn’t need to wait around for weeks while waiting for their money to be transferred across borders.

Bitcoin: Theoretical Deflationary Currency (as only 21 million can be mined)

Traditional banks: Centralized Depreciating Currency (central banks such as the Federal Reserve control the supply and demand of money)

Theoretically, bitcoin would have a deflationary period if it were to be based on gold, where time and demand for resources would mean its value would increase over time. However, bitcoin is a commodity that is not tied to any physical assets. Furthermore, the “stock” of bitcoins will max at 21 million, so it could suffer from potentially severe deflation based on supply.

For example, if no new bitcoins are mined, no new supply enters the market. Therefore, it could cause a deflationary period in the future, which would not be ideal for bitcoin. On the other hand, deflation may also be suitable for bitcoin if it is based on actual economic growth, meaning fewer bitcoins are being printed.

On the other hand, traditional banks depreciate their currency due to central banking tactics. It could potentially lead to future inflation, hurting consumers because prices would rise drastically. However, these central banks are also actively printing cash to stimulate economic growth during recession periods and to help support large economies during international transactions. It means that traditional banks are prone to market fluctuation and will not be able to maintain the value of fiat currency.

Bitcoin: Blank Slate (no physical representation)

Traditional banks: Physical representations of currency (paper or coin form) in Vaults, Banks, etc.

The blank slate is an essential distinction between bitcoins and other currencies. There are no physical representations of bitcoins, and they don’t have a physical form. While this may be a distinction that makes it more convenient for some people, it also makes it extremely difficult to track them down if criminals were using them or if there had been a potential security breach on the bitcoin network itself.

It is different from other currencies because physical representations of these currencies can be tracked down and seized in an emergency. Also, unlike bitcoins, those physical representations don’t have the same inherent value that bitcoins represent. In the case of bitcoins, they are just lines of code on a network, so there isn’t anything inherent about them other than their potential value.

Despite the massive amounts of data we generate daily (and the negative impact this may have on our privacy), there are also many security benefits to using bitcoin over paper money. As long as individuals maintain control over their private keys and passwords, they can have complete control over their finances and transactions with no third-party interference.

Also, due to the inherent anonymity that bitcoin offers, a third party can’t track down those possessing bitcoins. It means that individuals can avoid issues such as identity theft, which plague banks and have been a severe problem in recent years.

Traditional banks use physical assets such as paper money and gold bars as assets that a vault or bank secures. However, if an emergency, such as a terrorist attack on the bank’s facilities, most of these assets could be lost by people. Many countries already have deposit insurance that covers up to USD 100k in case of bank failure, e.g., Canada’s CMHC (Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation).

Previous articleHow will Web 3.0 and blockchain disrupt the entire internet?
Next articleCapturing Details of Simple Transaction: Conventional vs Blockchain Systems