3 ms·
You have lots of police and regulation in the bank transfer. Lawyers galore, and the promise of the state to back it. They are very different finance operation
by conanbatt 7y ago
You have lots of police and regulation in the bank transfer. Lawyers galore, and the promise of the state to back it.
They are very different finance operations.
- benj111 7y agoWouldn't that tend to push up the cost of the bank transfer though? With cash you wouldn't even need to do this kind of transfer anyway, partly because of all the things you mention.
- conanbatt 7y agoNot if you can offload those costs to the taxpayer. How much state money ends up as profits for the banks?
- benj111 7y agoTax payer subsidy would seem to be a feature from a consumer perspective. Surely its better for someone else to be paying the fees?
- conanbatt 7y agoThats one way to look at it. I would answer that what the tax payer pays is much higher than what the consumer gets, and both groups are large enough to not easily prioritize one over the other. Bitcoin was born on dissent on how governments bailed banks with tax-payer money.
- jraines 7y agoI'm very happy with the liberty/access aspect of it, but it's much more relevant for small transfers. People moving this amount of money already have access, unless they're a drug lord or from a sanctioned country (and ofc they have their ways, too, shoutout to HSBC, Wachovia, DB, etc)
- conanbatt 7y agoI think everyone wanted/expected bitcoin to serve for the distributed/small case, but reality has made it the other way around so far. The capacity to avoid sanctions and the enforcement of law are greatly valuable assets: anything that limits the power of the state is a step towards liberty. (Not towards crimeless-ness)
- cortesoft 7y agoIf I was moving over a billion dollars, I think I would want those police and regulations.
- conanbatt 7y agoBitcoin has created/revealed players that don't. (Binance, Bitfinex, exchanges and Tether).