The cryptocurrency community is filled with people that image what the world would be like without the traditional banking system, replacing it with something new.

However, Craig Wright has a different idea, even though he is a proponent of this crypto asset. The nChain Chief Scientist recently published a blog post that said that the use of Bitcoin as a primary form of payment “doesn’t stop banking.”

Though Wright has been relatively busy working on legal notices to anyone that doesn’t agree that he’s Satoshi Nakamoto, he also had time to write a post called “Bitcoin is not against banks.” Specifically, the post is about Bitcoin SV, not the original cryptocurrency.

The post begins by a comparison regarding “bitcoin held with Coinbase and the modern banking system.” The whole point of creating this type of “invincible bank” is to allow for a system that would run on a “single ledger” for the blockchain. There would be no way for banks, corporations, or governments to tamper with the information, though Wright’s idea would also eliminate full private keys.

Instead, users will have access to a “partial seed system,” so funds would not be in harm’s way during any hacking, based on a lack of “seed parts.” However, the whole project will be centered around e-wallets, rather than using bank accounts to hold funds. These e-wallets would improve efficiency for codes and would be more user-friendly than the alternative.

Wright believes that the current banking system has much to hide to ensure that they maintain security of the funds. With this type of system, having “assurances” is not enough. The post adds that the fees charged to consumers are calculated with each transaction. However, “the specific instance’s variables and bit-count so that every fee is exact, instead of relying on categories and tiers for fees.”

Voluntary fees are intended to be implemented in the form of “tips.” At this time, both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have chosen to take the opposition against the charging of ridiculous fees.

Another important aspect to this potential system would be user authentication. Wright’s post said that the transactions that take place must “be signed by the user.” However, both the operator and the user will split up the “signature.”

Decentralized control would be seemingly nullified, the post states. Wright adds that, without both signatures, the mnemonic seeds become “useless.” Wright finished the blog by praising a potential future for the world with a “regulated economy,” requiring regulators to be held “accountable” as they “compete.”

Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Ripple (XRP)