Interesting how you think I don't know what a bank is, or what Bitcoin is. I know what Bitcoin is; I have read both the whitepaper and (more importantly) most of the code (at the time). I do concede that I have an incomplete understanding of what a bank is, since banks do a lot of different things. Adjusting the money supply and intermediating/securing transactions are both among the things that banks do. Those are the only things Bitcoin does, which is why I think Bitcoin more resembles a bank. Bitcoin can't facilitate offline transactions, which is the main thing cash does that banks don't.
I've tried to look into Fedimint, just because I thought it would help me understand your misconceptions about banks. I will admit to not fully understanding what they are up to, but assuming my scam radar had a false positive it seems to be a privacy-oriented sidechain service. That... doesn't seem particularly relevant here?
> Banks store money, right? Does bitcoin store money?
You mean physically? Plenty of banks (especially online banks and investment banks) don't physically store any more cash than something like a jewelry store. Physical storage is hardly a core characteristic of banking; I've never been to a branch of any of my current banks. If you don't mean physically, I can't see how this is different than "have accounts"...
> Banks have accounts, right? Does bitcoin have accounts?
An account is just a ledger of credits and debits coupled with some form of access control. How is a bitcoin address meaningfully different from an account? Keep in mind that not all accounts are interest bearing, and it's very possible (even common) for one individual to have multiple accounts.
> How is a bitcoin address meaningfully different from an account?
Well, for one, it's only an address. Not a ledger.
Bitcoin transactions point money at one or more address. Transactions, you might argue, are one-off ledgers. But then bitcoin is just a collection of those transactions & relevant/necessary data to support them them, compiled & validated using a variety of mathematic calculations.
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.
> 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]
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.
This is likely because you don't understand what a bank is, or that you don't understand what bitcoin is, or a combination.
If you're interested in bank-like things that use bitcoin, you could learn more about fedimint.
If you're interested in what bitcoin is, you could just read the white paper[0].
0 - https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper