3 ms·

The point of the OP was that he believes electronic money cannot benefit the unbanked. It's wrong. The exact details of bitcoin aren't the right thing for it,

by jki275 7y ago

The point of the OP was that he believes electronic money cannot benefit the unbanked. It's wrong. The exact details of bitcoin aren't the right thing for it, but there are many cryptocurrencies that are more like m-pesa in their use requiremnts than they are bitcoin.

notahacker 7y ago
No, my point is that unlike M-Pesa, cryptocurrencies do not have a trained, regulated agent in every village who will reliably exchange them for local cash at a fixed rate. The centralisation is fundamental to its success - probably only the mobile providers or maybe a money transfer network like Western Union could have pulled it off. M-Pesa would not have succeeded in helping the unbanked if people living in remote villages needed to set up a mining rig or navigate to Coinbase.com and enter debit card details to obtain it. There'd be no reliable way for most unbanked people to get it or get rid of it. And since the unbanked world needs the network of regulated agents offering cash conversion and really can't afford for their assets to be backed by speculator optimism rather than legal tender in a trusted party's bank account or vault, there's really not much advantage in building that trusted centralised entity's database in something as computationally expensive as a blockchain. Certainly it's not lack of blockchain technology that's been the obstacle to people from creating more electronic money transfer service for the unbanked.
Nursie 7y ago
> The point of the OP was that he believes electronic money cannot benefit the unbanked. Not really, if you read what you replied to it says that none of the unbanked have cards to buy it with, and that they don't need to be risking what little they have on "unregulated, complicated and easily stolen intangible financial assets which wealthy foreigners invented to print themselves money." That doesn't describe M-Pesa, but it does describe cryptocurrency.

by jki275 7y ago

notahacker 7y ago

No, my point is that unlike M-Pesa, cryptocurrencies do not have a trained, regulated agent in every village who will reliably exchange them for local cash at a fixed rate. The centralisation is fundamental to its success - probably only the mobile providers or maybe a money transfer network like Western Union could have pulled it off. M-Pesa would not have succeeded in helping the unbanked if people living in remote villages needed to set up a mining rig or navigate to Coinbase.com and enter debit card details to obtain it. There'd be no reliable way for most unbanked people to get it or get rid of it. And since the unbanked world needs the network of regulated agents offering cash conversion and really can't afford for their assets to be backed by speculator optimism rather than legal tender in a trusted party's bank account or vault, there's really not much advantage in building that trusted centralised entity's database in something as computationally expensive as a blockchain. Certainly it's not lack of blockchain technology that's been the obstacle to people from creating more electronic money transfer service for the unbanked.

Nursie 7y ago

> The point of the OP was that he believes electronic money cannot benefit the unbanked. Not really, if you read what you replied to it says that none of the unbanked have cards to buy it with, and that they don't need to be risking what little they have on "unregulated, complicated and easily stolen intangible financial assets which wealthy foreigners invented to print themselves money." That doesn't describe M-Pesa, but it does describe cryptocurrency.