4 ms·

The point is that even a small 1-2% of all transactions would still be a huge amount. The question that we should ask is if bitcoin serves to a market need. Fr

by belorn 8y ago

The point is that even a small 1-2% of all transactions would still be a huge amount. The question that we should ask is if bitcoin serves to a market need. From what I have seen, yes it does, though banks did react back when bitcoin started to gain traction and for example here in Sweden a free service to send and receive money instantaneously through a mobile app became extremely popular. Now the banks are trying to introduce fees into that service, and time will tell if the market will tolerate it, or if it will slowly fall in popularity until another free alternative (like bitcoin) replaces it.

Nursie 8y ago
> The point is that even a small 1-2% of all transactions would still be a huge amount. The real point is that there's no reason to think that this is achievable.
- eli 8y ago
  This is in fact a trap so common it has a name: The 1% Fallacy. https://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-fallacy/ https://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-fall...
notahacker 8y ago
Did banks introduce money sending services via mobile apps in the last decade because a handful of people acquired a speculative digital asset that isn't actually capable of free, instant transactions, or because the average person acquired a smartphone?
- belorn 8y ago
  What does "handful of people acquired a speculative digital asset" have to do with the market need of "send and receive money digitally"? There reason people want to send and receive money digitally has many sources. The cashless society change that Swedish governments and bank started a while back created a need for digital alternatives for activities that previously used physical cash. Transactions between individuals, flea markets, collections at church services, fees for clubs, sale of drinks/food at events. Credit cards are costly, includes minimum fees and use systems that tend to be slow and hard to use. A church collection does not work if a 1$ donation cost 1$ in credit card fees. Even donation services today like patreon currently looks down at such low donations as all the money get eaten by the credit card fees. The benefits that people who advocated for Bitcoin in the early days talked about was mostly those. Ease of use. Cheap. Physical cash alternative. It was a time where paypall was the only alternative to credit cards and for many places the only way to pay unless you used direct bank transfer that take a minimum of 1 weekday transaction time. Smartphone penetration is a relevant factor, but it was not the only one. The new bank service fulfilled a need which credit cards and paypall both did a poor job with. The question is if banks/government are willing to continue support what the market needs, or if systems like bitcoin will utilize the hole that remains when physical money is phased out.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Can't say I'm an expert in the Swedish situation specifically, but I'd think the fact that every other European banking system was already working on free instant bank transfers in the 2000s and smartphone penetration probably had more impact on instant krona transactions via smartphones than cryptonerds hyping their low-penetration speculative asset that doesn't actually do fee-free instant transactions as the future of money. It's not as if the average church is or was better set up to take collections in Bitcoin than credit cards anyway...

by belorn 8y ago

Nursie 8y ago

> The point is that even a small 1-2% of all transactions would still be a huge amount. The real point is that there's no reason to think that this is achievable.

eli 8y ago
This is in fact a trap so common it has a name: The 1% Fallacy. https://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-fallacy/ https://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-fall...

notahacker 8y ago

Did banks introduce money sending services via mobile apps in the last decade because a handful of people acquired a speculative digital asset that isn't actually capable of free, instant transactions, or because the average person acquired a smartphone?

belorn 8y ago
What does "handful of people acquired a speculative digital asset" have to do with the market need of "send and receive money digitally"? There reason people want to send and receive money digitally has many sources. The cashless society change that Swedish governments and bank started a while back created a need for digital alternatives for activities that previously used physical cash. Transactions between individuals, flea markets, collections at church services, fees for clubs, sale of drinks/food at events. Credit cards are costly, includes minimum fees and use systems that tend to be slow and hard to use. A church collection does not work if a 1$ donation cost 1$ in credit card fees. Even donation services today like patreon currently looks down at such low donations as all the money get eaten by the credit card fees. The benefits that people who advocated for Bitcoin in the early days talked about was mostly those. Ease of use. Cheap. Physical cash alternative. It was a time where paypall was the only alternative to credit cards and for many places the only way to pay unless you used direct bank transfer that take a minimum of 1 weekday transaction time. Smartphone penetration is a relevant factor, but it was not the only one. The new bank service fulfilled a need which credit cards and paypall both did a poor job with. The question is if banks/government are willing to continue support what the market needs, or if systems like bitcoin will utilize the hole that remains when physical money is phased out.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Can't say I'm an expert in the Swedish situation specifically, but I'd think the fact that every other European banking system was already working on free instant bank transfers in the 2000s and smartphone penetration probably had more impact on instant krona transactions via smartphones than cryptonerds hyping their low-penetration speculative asset that doesn't actually do fee-free instant transactions as the future of money. It's not as if the average church is or was better set up to take collections in Bitcoin than credit cards anyway...