4 ms·

To put some numbers to it, it cost me $0.07 to send someone >$10k worth of BTC. It cost my girlfriend $40 to send someone $400 via wire transfer through Bank of

To put some numbers to it, it cost me $0.07 to send someone >$10k worth of BTC. It cost my girlfriend $40 to send someone $400 via wire transfer through Bank of America.

simias 8y ago
For very large amount it seems rather obvious that BTC wins, the problem is that the cost of (on-chain) BTC transactions is not indexed on the amount being transfered but on the size in bytes of the transaction. So you can send $10k for $0.07 but you could also send $1 for $200 if you use many inputs or outputs. That's a problem for day-to-day purchases which tend to involve small amounts (especially if you follow the good practice to use disposable addresses for every transaction, meaning that you'll often have to combine multiple inputs to spend your money). It doesn't help that you have to wait for the transaction to be mined at least once before you can be reasonably sure that it's been validated. That's what off-chain solutions are supposed to fix, although they come with their own caveats.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  >That's what off-chain solutions are supposed to fix, although they come with their own caveats. L1-enforceable L2 bitcoin transactions have risks for the recipients. If you're the sender, you don't care.
  - eudora 8y ago
    Mind elaborating on these risks?
    - DINKDINK 8y ago
      State of the art in L2 transactions means that you can send a payment without needing to issue a L1 transaction. There's a small, defensible risk that the sending party could try to broadcast outdated state in the L2 transaction (trying to roll back the state) but the protocol is designed with counter measures to deter that. Basically if the receiver isn't online or all the miners DoS the counter measure (retribution transaction) then the receiver is at risk. It's very small but still ought to be known.
jjtheblunt 8y ago
That's because of entrenched monopolies.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  If bitcoin's only long-term effect were to be to goose legacy money into competing better, well, that's not nothing.
- badge 8y ago
  Bitcoin is owned by a tiny oligarch and operated by an ASIC monopoly in China called Bitmain. https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-wealth-distribution https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-wealth-distribution As you can see, over 95% of all bitcoins in circulation are owned by about 4% of the market. In fact, 1% of the addresses control half the entire market. There's a theory Bitfinex and Tether might have created aprox 3 billion in counterfeit USD in order to steal and launder Bitcoins and manipulate their exchange and as a result, the entire cryptocoin market. Comprehensive investigation is detailed here: https://medium.com/@bitfinexed https://medium.com/@bitfinexed
easytiger 8y ago
> It cost my girlfriend $40 to send someone $400 via wire transfer through Bank of America. Comparing wire transfer to BT transfer is a false analogy
- digianarchist 8y ago
  OP will pay more than $40 converting his Bitcoin back to fiat.
  - easytiger 8y ago
    Bank transfers are largely no fee, at least in Europe.
puranjay 8y ago
It costs me $0.07 to send anyone any amount via IMPS or UPI protocols in India. I can't see any reason why US banks don't have similar protocols. American banks are honestly much behind their counterparts even in developing countries

To put some numbers to it, it cost me $0.07 to send someone >$10k worth of BTC. It cost my girlfriend $40 to send someone $400 via wire transfer through Bank of America.

simias 8y ago

For very large amount it seems rather obvious that BTC wins, the problem is that the cost of (on-chain) BTC transactions is not indexed on the amount being transfered but on the size in bytes of the transaction. So you can send $10k for $0.07 but you could also send $1 for $200 if you use many inputs or outputs. That's a problem for day-to-day purchases which tend to involve small amounts (especially if you follow the good practice to use disposable addresses for every transaction, meaning that you'll often have to combine multiple inputs to spend your money). It doesn't help that you have to wait for the transaction to be mined at least once before you can be reasonably sure that it's been validated. That's what off-chain solutions are supposed to fix, although they come with their own caveats.

DINKDINK 8y ago
>That's what off-chain solutions are supposed to fix, although they come with their own caveats. L1-enforceable L2 bitcoin transactions have risks for the recipients. If you're the sender, you don't care.
- eudora 8y ago
  Mind elaborating on these risks?
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    State of the art in L2 transactions means that you can send a payment without needing to issue a L1 transaction. There's a small, defensible risk that the sending party could try to broadcast outdated state in the L2 transaction (trying to roll back the state) but the protocol is designed with counter measures to deter that. Basically if the receiver isn't online or all the miners DoS the counter measure (retribution transaction) then the receiver is at risk. It's very small but still ought to be known.

jjtheblunt 8y ago

That's because of entrenched monopolies.

abecedarius 8y ago
If bitcoin's only long-term effect were to be to goose legacy money into competing better, well, that's not nothing.
badge 8y ago
Bitcoin is owned by a tiny oligarch and operated by an ASIC monopoly in China called Bitmain. https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-wealth-distribution https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-wealth-distribution As you can see, over 95% of all bitcoins in circulation are owned by about 4% of the market. In fact, 1% of the addresses control half the entire market. There's a theory Bitfinex and Tether might have created aprox 3 billion in counterfeit USD in order to steal and launder Bitcoins and manipulate their exchange and as a result, the entire cryptocoin market. Comprehensive investigation is detailed here: https://medium.com/@bitfinexed https://medium.com/@bitfinexed

easytiger 8y ago

> It cost my girlfriend $40 to send someone $400 via wire transfer through Bank of America. Comparing wire transfer to BT transfer is a false analogy

digianarchist 8y ago
OP will pay more than $40 converting his Bitcoin back to fiat.
- easytiger 8y ago
  Bank transfers are largely no fee, at least in Europe.

puranjay 8y ago

It costs me $0.07 to send anyone any amount via IMPS or UPI protocols in India. I can't see any reason why US banks don't have similar protocols. American banks are honestly much behind their counterparts even in developing countries