4 ms·

Visa runs a network that today can support 15,000-45,000 times as many transactions per second as Bitcoin. So the first answer would be a network that can hand

Visa runs a network that today can support 15,000-45,000 times as many transactions per second as Bitcoin. So the first answer would be a network that can handle success. Secondly they do the fraud management and detection. It doesn't matter since even arb bots require the movement of non-Bitcoin resources. Going from cash in hand to cash in hand with Bitcoin is almost never cheaper than traditional remittance today anyhow. We have lots of Bitcoin merchants now and except for the ones supporting the carding industry like fold and purse almost one offer discounts for using Bitcoin.

aianus 11y ago
> Visa runs a network that today can support 15,000-45,000 times as many transactions per second as Bitcoin. Visa says it's capable of 24,000 tps. I could write a centralized system to handle that by myself in a couple of days; it's not impressive and certainly not a $10B/year value. I don't know if Bitcoin itself will ever scale that high but it's irrelevant because I'm not advocating anyone buy their morning Starbucks or related penny-ante stuff on the blockchain. > even arb bots require the movement of non-Bitcoin resources Yes, and Goldman can do it $10m at a time for peanuts. Hell, any VC-funded startup with just a few tens of millions could do it too. > almost no-one offer discounts for using Bitcoin. That's true today, but no reason that can't or won't change in the future.
- sanswork 11y ago
  Search for visa stress test they can handle over 56,000 tps. You could write a centralized system that interfaces with millions of partners handles tens of thousands of transactions per second and does fraud detection? Do it. You sound like the basecamp is a weekend project people. You aren't? But you just said its good for shopping because of discounts so now it's not good for shopping because it won't scale? Bitcoin couldn't even handle worldwide remittance volume at the moment. And the only scaling solutions that make sense involve not using Bitcoin. And so can remittance companies now. Moving money isn't the expensive part of remittance it's the last mile. Even one of the former directors of rebit.ph posted a large article on why Bitcoin doesn't make remittance cheaper. Some edge cases sure but only if they remain unpopular. You talk about avoiding forex but all you're doing is adding another one. This is what people have been saying for years though. If you're depending on merchants investing in the cost of supporting your new currency you can't also expect them to hand all the savings over. They do it for the savings not to lower prices.

aianus 11y ago

> Visa runs a network that today can support 15,000-45,000 times as many transactions per second as Bitcoin. Visa says it's capable of 24,000 tps. I could write a centralized system to handle that by myself in a couple of days; it's not impressive and certainly not a $10B/year value. I don't know if Bitcoin itself will ever scale that high but it's irrelevant because I'm not advocating anyone buy their morning Starbucks or related penny-ante stuff on the blockchain. > even arb bots require the movement of non-Bitcoin resources Yes, and Goldman can do it $10m at a time for peanuts. Hell, any VC-funded startup with just a few tens of millions could do it too. > almost no-one offer discounts for using Bitcoin. That's true today, but no reason that can't or won't change in the future.

sanswork 11y ago
Search for visa stress test they can handle over 56,000 tps. You could write a centralized system that interfaces with millions of partners handles tens of thousands of transactions per second and does fraud detection? Do it. You sound like the basecamp is a weekend project people. You aren't? But you just said its good for shopping because of discounts so now it's not good for shopping because it won't scale? Bitcoin couldn't even handle worldwide remittance volume at the moment. And the only scaling solutions that make sense involve not using Bitcoin. And so can remittance companies now. Moving money isn't the expensive part of remittance it's the last mile. Even one of the former directors of rebit.ph posted a large article on why Bitcoin doesn't make remittance cheaper. Some edge cases sure but only if they remain unpopular. You talk about avoiding forex but all you're doing is adding another one. This is what people have been saying for years though. If you're depending on merchants investing in the cost of supporting your new currency you can't also expect them to hand all the savings over. They do it for the savings not to lower prices.