5 ms·

Excluding the transaction fees problem you mentioned (which cryptocurrencies also have -- while it might not be 4% it's definitely not 0%), all of the uses you

by cyphar 7y ago

Excluding the transaction fees problem you mentioned (which cryptocurrencies also have -- while it might not be 4% it's definitely not 0%), all of the uses you listed are really just one use-case -- uncensorable transactions. Don't get me wrong, that's a very good feature of cryptocurrencies (assuming that you have the ability to transform crypto back to real money on the other end), but you should be aware that your list of use-cases is only one element long. I also want to point out that the use-case of "get your money out of the country" is not exactly perfect for Bitcoin because of how volatile it is (imagine if someone had to get their money out during December 2017).

lawn 7y ago
Good point. I'd say anonymous payments is a little different from being uncensorable though. You'll stay anonymous even after the payment has gone through. As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0] Getting money out of the country is always relative. Even with Bitcoin's volatility it's much preferred to losing all your money. Either you cannot bring it with you through the border, or Venezuela's hyperinflation will eat it up in a flash. [0]: https://whycryptocurrencies.com/cheaper_faster.html https://whycryptocurrencies.com/cheaper_faster.html
- mamon 7y ago
  >> As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0] That's probably because their popularity among users is also negligible. Problem with cryptocurrencess is that they don't scale well, with increased transaction volumes the fees and processing times also tend to rise until network's hashing power catches up.
  - lawn 7y ago
    Not exactly. Fees are high in Bitcoin because they want it to be. Bitcoin Cash could for example handle at least 20x of transaction throughput, with the same low fees. Of course scaling is difficult. But Bitcoin isn't a good example of that.
dunkelheit 7y ago
I'm struggling to understand if uncensorable transactions are a good thing (note: struggling not in a sense of "I actually think it is evil but let's hear your bullshit arguments so that I can easily debunk them", but in a sense of really being undecided). I am not a libertarian so I don't think that laws are just a useless form of violence. So how can uncensorable transactions be useful for a law-abiding citizen? One thing I can think of is when a transaction is in the gray area - you do it without asking anyone and then can argue that it is legitimate from a relative position of power, similar to asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Another thing is that existence of uncensorable money can push nation-states to adopt more equitable and just laws. But of course there are downsides in enabling crime and so on. So is uncensorable money a good thing in aggregate? I don't know.
- jotakami 7y ago
  Thank you for substantially raising the mean thoughtfulness of the comments in this thread.
- cyphar 7y ago
  The most obvious example I can think of is when WikiLeaks (or pick your own politically-unfriendly charitable cause) had their PayPal and bank accounts frozen -- people donated using Bitcoin because the transactions couldn't be blocked by private companies. There are also several other examples of completely legal but unfriendly-to-large-corporations transactions -- in the several US states where marijuana has been legalised it is still difficult to conduct non-cash transactions with the proceeds because most payment processors are under federal jurisdiction thus making it possible for your (completely legal) funds to be seized.
  - asdff 7y ago
    You are always at the mercy of your platform. But wikileaks could have continued accepting cash in the mail instead of being sidelined by a third party service. And at least with legal pot the tide is quickly shifting to make traditional banking easier; there was talk in LA about opening a municipal bank kinda for this purpose. For most people, the utility of sticking your money into a volatile and slow system with no recourses is just never going to be there. A municipal credit union would be more useful and offer an out from private for-profit banking for most people.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by cyphar 7y ago

lawn 7y ago

Good point. I'd say anonymous payments is a little different from being uncensorable though. You'll stay anonymous even after the payment has gone through. As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0] Getting money out of the country is always relative. Even with Bitcoin's volatility it's much preferred to losing all your money. Either you cannot bring it with you through the border, or Venezuela's hyperinflation will eat it up in a flash. [0]: https://whycryptocurrencies.com/cheaper_faster.html https://whycryptocurrencies.com/cheaper_faster.html

mamon 7y ago
>> As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0] That's probably because their popularity among users is also negligible. Problem with cryptocurrencess is that they don't scale well, with increased transaction volumes the fees and processing times also tend to rise until network's hashing power catches up.
- lawn 7y ago
  Not exactly. Fees are high in Bitcoin because they want it to be. Bitcoin Cash could for example handle at least 20x of transaction throughput, with the same low fees. Of course scaling is difficult. But Bitcoin isn't a good example of that.

dunkelheit 7y ago

I'm struggling to understand if uncensorable transactions are a good thing (note: struggling not in a sense of "I actually think it is evil but let's hear your bullshit arguments so that I can easily debunk them", but in a sense of really being undecided). I am not a libertarian so I don't think that laws are just a useless form of violence. So how can uncensorable transactions be useful for a law-abiding citizen? One thing I can think of is when a transaction is in the gray area - you do it without asking anyone and then can argue that it is legitimate from a relative position of power, similar to asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Another thing is that existence of uncensorable money can push nation-states to adopt more equitable and just laws. But of course there are downsides in enabling crime and so on. So is uncensorable money a good thing in aggregate? I don't know.

jotakami 7y ago
Thank you for substantially raising the mean thoughtfulness of the comments in this thread.
cyphar 7y ago
The most obvious example I can think of is when WikiLeaks (or pick your own politically-unfriendly charitable cause) had their PayPal and bank accounts frozen -- people donated using Bitcoin because the transactions couldn't be blocked by private companies. There are also several other examples of completely legal but unfriendly-to-large-corporations transactions -- in the several US states where marijuana has been legalised it is still difficult to conduct non-cash transactions with the proceeds because most payment processors are under federal jurisdiction thus making it possible for your (completely legal) funds to be seized.
- asdff 7y ago
  You are always at the mercy of your platform. But wikileaks could have continued accepting cash in the mail instead of being sidelined by a third party service. And at least with legal pot the tide is quickly shifting to make traditional banking easier; there was talk in LA about opening a municipal bank kinda for this purpose. For most people, the utility of sticking your money into a volatile and slow system with no recourses is just never going to be there. A municipal credit union would be more useful and offer an out from private for-profit banking for most people.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]