
JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer - ph0rque
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-killer/
======
nh
The author's entire premise is off. The recent filing is a continuation of an
application filed on Feb 3, 2000 (see patent 6,609,113). So, Chase wasnt
taking a "swipe" at Bitcoin because the original application was filed 13
years ago. (Hmmm, is Chase...Satoshi?)

------
Thiz
Yes, there is a need for a better bitcoin alternative (even centralized).

No, what they propose is not a new paradigm.

I believe people will support an electronic payment system backed by financial
giants but only if it is based on a limited supply of money like bitcoin.

We are not sick of all the wonderful services the banks provide. We are sick
of the fed and banks inflating money. Period.

If JPChase created their own alt, JPCoin, with a trillion coins fixed, no fine
print, insured, protected, with a check card, a mobile app, available 24/7
from around the world, that and only that may compete with bitcoin.

People do not support bitcoin because it is geeky or nerdy, they support it
because it protects them from government confiscation and inflation. They have
to offer both protections, or at least one, in order to excite us to take a
look at their offer.

Bitcoin is doing fine, thanks. They have to make it better.

~~~
chad_oliver
> We are sick of the fed and banks inflating money.

Actually, I quite like it. It has advantages like stabilising the economy and
encouraging investment. I've never heard a serious economist suggest that
moderate inflation is anything but good for the economy, and I've heard plenty
tell me why deflation is dangerous.

Inflation is important because economics is all about creating incentives. We
have property rights because it gives people an incentive to work hard and
takes risks. We have patents because they give people an incentive to explain
how their invention works. We have a market economy because it means that if a
company wants to gain market share, it has to create value for the consumer.
In the same way, central banks try to maintain low levels of inflation (~3%)
because it encourages people to invest their money in profitable ventures,
rather than just leaving it under the mattress. Investment is the way wealth
is created, so it should be pretty obvious that deflation is bad for the
economy.

Notice that I'm talking about the economic health of the country, not the
individual citizen. If you're only concerned about immediate short term
benefits, you should push for zero taxes, high deflation, and the gold
standard. But that's penny wise and pound foolish. You're shooting yourself in
the foot. Better by far is to support actions which improve the economy,
because a rising tide lifts all boats.

~~~
ekianjo
> In the same way, central banks try to maintain low levels of inflation (~3%)

You must be joking. The way the inflation is officially calculated is totally
biased (they don't even take in account energy costs properly) and 3% is
basically the best number they can get by tweaking it like crazy. The actual
inflation is way higher.

~~~
necubi
Energy is so volatile that it makes little sense to count it in measures of
inflation. When oil prices double in a year, is that really because USD became
less valuable?

There are certainly a number of methodologies for calculating inflation, but
this idea that inflation is 10+% seems to be something of an Austrian fantasy.

The consensus that moderate inflation is good for the economy is about as
uncontroversial as you get in economics, and is generally agreed upon by
economists across the political spectrum.

~~~
ekianjo
The fact is that oil prices affect significantly your purchasing power across
every product you buy. There is no reason why you should remove energy costs
since there are a significant cost in most of what we buy. And the price of
oil does not double every year, it's been rather stable most of the time.

Again, if moderate inflation is that good for the economy, why do they need to
tweak the numbers? (rhetorical question, the answer is obvious).

------
marshray
Such a patent application is not evidence of JPMorgan _building_ anything,
only that they feel that the ability to _stop_ someone else from building it
could be worth a few bucks.

Thus is the patent.

~~~
colinbartlett
Just another bullshit linkbait headline.

There's nothing being built here and nothing different from a dozen existing
electronic peer to peer payment networks. (Venmo, PayPal, Dwolla, Square
Cash).

------
letstryagain
This is more of a Visa / Mastercard competitor than a 'Bitcoin Killer'

It's centralised, it's bank-controlled, it's USD denominated. Also this is
just a patent, we don't even know that they're actually building it at all.

------
moocowduckquack
If bitcoin is successful, I think existing national currencies will eventually
roll their own and it will be absorbed in the same way as promissory notes
were.

Bitcoin is a revolutionary way to run a currency, but it is still a currency
and national banks have already successfully absorbed several monetary
revolutions. If anything, they are getting rather good at it.

------
tlrobinson
_" For a currency that has been lauded for its frictionless characteristics,
Bitcoin sure has been causing a lot a friction over at the legacy banking
institutions."_

Um, isn't it the other way around? Legacy banking institutions have been
causing a lot of friction for Bitcoin by refusing to do business with Bitcoin
businesses.

~~~
wmf
You're not using Bitcoin fanboy thinking, where banks are so threatened by
Bitcoin that they sent AML/KYC laws back in time specifically to kill it.

------
acchow
Link bait. This is about as much a Bitcoin competitor as Paypal is.

------
obilgic
Governments will eventually implement virtual versions of their currencies!!!

