3 ms·

In terms of making finance available to the impoverished, this does nothing. It's just marketing. 0) Biggest barrier is probably TX fees which range from cents

In terms of making finance available to the impoverished, this does nothing. It's just marketing. 0) Biggest barrier is probably TX fees which range from cents to $5 per transaction. (see argument down thread for arguments over how much). 1) you still need a network connection to send payments. 2) Given that connection, you can query for proofs a TX was included in a block fairly cheaply. Anyone interested in an actual payment system for developing world that works without networking should look at DigiTally [0]which has seen some real world usage, works with sim cards and feature phones, and does not require a network connection The satellite does lower the bandwidth costs of operating a node, since block distribution is literally a broadcast network. Its cool. But beyond the marketing angle, I am lost as to why Blockstream chose to do this now. [0] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~kabhb2/papers/DigiTally_SOUPS2017.pdf https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~kabhb2/papers/DigiTally_SOUPS2017.... …

sktrdie 9y ago
Honestly it's a step towards making off-chain payments work (Lightning Network) in these remote places. You can imagine a hub per small town acting sort of as a "bank" which is listening to the blockchain. You make payments with your local peers through some mesh-network, and once a week (or whenever the channels with the hub are open) they go to close the channels out at the hub. I'm more worried about how these people will acquire their first Bitcoins.
- ianmiers 9y ago
  It doesn't seem like a necessary step really. The hub still needs a network connection to open channels. With that connection it can run some kind of SPV like client. The bandwidth costs of that approach are larger, but still minimal. I suppose the one thing it does is make it easier for the hub to monitor for channel closure? But you could contract a third party service that messages you when that happens. Granted, that's a less verifiable trust assumption in a third party than they are broadcasting every block they get.

sktrdie 9y ago

Honestly it's a step towards making off-chain payments work (Lightning Network) in these remote places. You can imagine a hub per small town acting sort of as a "bank" which is listening to the blockchain. You make payments with your local peers through some mesh-network, and once a week (or whenever the channels with the hub are open) they go to close the channels out at the hub. I'm more worried about how these people will acquire their first Bitcoins.

ianmiers 9y ago
It doesn't seem like a necessary step really. The hub still needs a network connection to open channels. With that connection it can run some kind of SPV like client. The bandwidth costs of that approach are larger, but still minimal. I suppose the one thing it does is make it easier for the hub to monitor for channel closure? But you could contract a third party service that messages you when that happens. Granted, that's a less verifiable trust assumption in a third party than they are broadcasting every block they get.