4 ms·

Yes, and someone who can't get a bank account can definitely afford to acquire a fast persistent Internet connection and ever-increasing amounts of storage to d

Yes, and someone who can't get a bank account can definitely afford to acquire a fast persistent Internet connection and ever-increasing amounts of storage to download the full Bitcoin/Ethereum blockchain so they can send and receive “coins” with extremely volatile prices and huge transaction fees.

tannerwj 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need a fast persistent Internet connection or enough storage to download the full Bitcoin/Ethereum blockchain to be able to send transactions correct?
- android2222 7y ago
  I think you do since not having it means that your wallet wouldn't know if you've spent or received any coins.
  - tannerwj 7y ago
    For that you would just need some sort of Internet connection and some storage, nothing out of reach for the vast majority of people, or am I wrong again?
    - android2222 7y ago
      Yeah I mean there are many many parts of rural north america that do not have easy access to broadband. I grew up in Wisconsin - I just simply couldn't give someone coins when I'm up in the Northwoods. Here's a quick example: https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urban-rural-internet-access-major-economies https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urb... Edit: If you give someone a coin with the private key on paper, technically you can give them coin offline, but the rest of the networks have no clue this happened, and you can't spend unconfirmed monies.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
      Bitcoin's blockchain is a quarter of a terabyte in size, Ethereum's is not far behind.
raverbashing 7y ago
I share your opinion I call this type of thinking "TED talk ideas" something that looks good on paper with a lot of wishful thinking but fails to consider most of the actual problems Underbanked people use cash or some financial products targeted at them. They have more things to worry about than having to worry their bitcoins might disappear because of some shady exchange
AgentME 7y ago
You don't need to run a full node. Light clients that don't need to sync everything do exist, and I would guess that they are a more popular way of using cryptocurrencies than full nodes.
lawn 7y ago
Firstly you do not need to run a full node. Use a light wallet or even better an SPV wallet, which you can only cheat by faking POW which is very expensive. Secondly it is only Bitcoin that has huge transaction fees. For example Bitcoin Cash has a next block fee of $0.0015[0]. Thirdly, as noted in the article, 420 million do have internet access. [0]: https://bitcoinfees.cash/ https://bitcoinfees.cash/
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  Other networks not having as big fees is only because they are not used much. Eventually you either reach Bitcoin-level congestion or accumulate hard drive space so quickly as to be unaffordable to the “unbanked”.
  - lawn 7y ago
    Not true at all. Bitcoin Cash could for example process around 20x to 30x the amount of transactions as Bitcoin, with the same low fees as today. There are scaling challenges of course, but Bitcoin is not a good example of that. The technical issues come at a much higher usage. > accumulate hard drive space The unbanked, like 99% of all others, should use light wallets or SPV wallets so they don't have to store the whole blockchain.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    > Eventually you either reach Bitcoin-level congestion Bitcoin's problems are bitcoin's problems because they are intent on shooting themselves in the foot at every opportunity they can. Other networks hopefully are run by less hard-headed people that know a bit more about incentives and the importance of liquidity. Dash and BCH are better in this sense.

tannerwj 7y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need a fast persistent Internet connection or enough storage to download the full Bitcoin/Ethereum blockchain to be able to send transactions correct?

android2222 7y ago
I think you do since not having it means that your wallet wouldn't know if you've spent or received any coins.
- tannerwj 7y ago
  For that you would just need some sort of Internet connection and some storage, nothing out of reach for the vast majority of people, or am I wrong again?
  - android2222 7y ago
    Yeah I mean there are many many parts of rural north america that do not have easy access to broadband. I grew up in Wisconsin - I just simply couldn't give someone coins when I'm up in the Northwoods. Here's a quick example: https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urban-rural-internet-access-major-economies https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urb... Edit: If you give someone a coin with the private key on paper, technically you can give them coin offline, but the rest of the networks have no clue this happened, and you can't spend unconfirmed monies.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    Bitcoin's blockchain is a quarter of a terabyte in size, Ethereum's is not far behind.

raverbashing 7y ago

I share your opinion I call this type of thinking "TED talk ideas" something that looks good on paper with a lot of wishful thinking but fails to consider most of the actual problems Underbanked people use cash or some financial products targeted at them. They have more things to worry about than having to worry their bitcoins might disappear because of some shady exchange

AgentME 7y ago

You don't need to run a full node. Light clients that don't need to sync everything do exist, and I would guess that they are a more popular way of using cryptocurrencies than full nodes.

lawn 7y ago

Firstly you do not need to run a full node. Use a light wallet or even better an SPV wallet, which you can only cheat by faking POW which is very expensive. Secondly it is only Bitcoin that has huge transaction fees. For example Bitcoin Cash has a next block fee of $0.0015[0]. Thirdly, as noted in the article, 420 million do have internet access. [0]: https://bitcoinfees.cash/ https://bitcoinfees.cash/

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Other networks not having as big fees is only because they are not used much. Eventually you either reach Bitcoin-level congestion or accumulate hard drive space so quickly as to be unaffordable to the “unbanked”.
- lawn 7y ago
  Not true at all. Bitcoin Cash could for example process around 20x to 30x the amount of transactions as Bitcoin, with the same low fees as today. There are scaling challenges of course, but Bitcoin is not a good example of that. The technical issues come at a much higher usage. > accumulate hard drive space The unbanked, like 99% of all others, should use light wallets or SPV wallets so they don't have to store the whole blockchain.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  > Eventually you either reach Bitcoin-level congestion Bitcoin's problems are bitcoin's problems because they are intent on shooting themselves in the foot at every opportunity they can. Other networks hopefully are run by less hard-headed people that know a bit more about incentives and the importance of liquidity. Dash and BCH are better in this sense.