> And of course, it's virtually impossible for BTC banks to operate because they can't provide interest (BTC is designed to be anti-inflationary, and therefore

> And of course, it's virtually impossible for BTC banks to operate because they can't provide interest (BTC is designed to be anti-inflationary, and therefore by definition the concept of interest is hard to fit into the scheme of things) Here is how a bank operates: take deposits, promise withdrawals, send some fraction of the deposits to a third party to spend, charge him interest, give depositors a cut. Track him down if he won't pay, or absorb the losses, and if there are too many, fail (and all the depositors lose money). Likewise if there's a crisis of confidence and everyone rushes to withdraw all their money. Here is how a Bitcoin bank would operate: take deposits, promise withdrawls, send some fraction of the actual cryptocurrency tokens to a third party to spend, charge him interest, give depositors a cut. Track him down if he won't pay, or absorb the losses, and if there are too many, fail (and all the depositors lose Bitcoin). Likewise if there's a crisis of confidence and everyone rushes to withdraw all their Bitcoin. Either way, there's more money around than there used to be. Oh, there are the same number of crypto-tokens, but there's more money: money is money because people believe it is money, and you believe there's money in the bank. You could go so far as to say that all lending is, by its nature, a double-spend attack (with a promise to set things right in the future). But since essentially no earns Bitcoin for a living, the foreign-exchange risk on a BTC-denominated loan is insane. A loan that'll cost $500 to pay back one day and $1000 a few weeks later? They'll sell like hotcakes!