4 ms·

I have used Bitcoin to send money internationally. I did not spend any money on turning my dollars into bitcoin, because I already had bitcoin. I did not pay $9

I have used Bitcoin to send money internationally. I did not spend any money on turning my dollars into bitcoin, because I already had bitcoin. I did not pay $90 in electricity costs, it seems a little silly to bring the block reward up. You already have a good argument for what you're trying to say, you don't need to pretend that a cost others pay is a cost the transaction sender pays. As far as I know the recipients of my transactions did not pay any fees to convert the bitcoin back into their local currencies, because they were fine with holding on to it as Bitcoin. I am not trying to say that Bitcoin solves every problem. I agree with you that there are many problems it does not solve. The $399 number is disingenuous though, you're ignoring that there are situations where bitcoin really does have lower fees than the alternatives.

arcticbull 6y ago
Ill grant you socialized cost of block reward is contentious and probably a distraction, though I personally stand by it. I’d argue your friends have simply deferred the conversion fee back to fiat, but I digress. There may be times when it’s less expensive, although it is also riskier, just ask the dude who lost $400K to the Quadriaga collapse.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  Anyone who loses their money when an exchange collapses has not lost bitcoin, they already spent that bitcoin on a bitcoin-denominated-receivable and then lost that receivable.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Yeah and anybody who loses their money on the stock exchange, already spent that money on a security and then the security lost value. What's the difference?
    - brian_cloutier 6y ago
      The GP seems to be implying that using bitcoin is risky, which is true, but as evidence cites someone who lost money while not holding bitcoin. I'm sure people also lost CAD they had been storing in Quadriga; when you put money into an uninsured bank/exchange you might lose it, losing it is not evidence that bitcoin itself is risky.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        You can’t spend Bitcoin anywhere which means you need to rely on these exchanges to get something you can exchange for goods and services. This makes them a mandatory part of the exchange transaction and ecosystem as such their risk must be factored in. You can’t pretend the platonic ideal exists for crypto when comparing it to real world pricing and risk for existing solutions. That’s disingenuous at best.
      - CJefferson 6y ago
        With bitcoin the choices seems equivalent to unsecured banks (trust someone else), or gold bars under the mattress (hope they don't get stolen, you don't get incapacitated and they get forgotten about, etc). I wouldn't want to store a significant chunk of my savings in either of those situations.
        brian_cloutier 6y ago
        current state of the art is not very good, storing large amounts of cryptocurrencies is not as convenient as large amounts of fiat and it may never be as convenient, but usability is slowly improving. Hardware wallets and safe deposit boxes and multisig let you build a system which is far better than storing your money in an unsecured bank and far less vulnerable to theft/loss than the mattress strategy.

arcticbull 6y ago

Ill grant you socialized cost of block reward is contentious and probably a distraction, though I personally stand by it. I’d argue your friends have simply deferred the conversion fee back to fiat, but I digress. There may be times when it’s less expensive, although it is also riskier, just ask the dude who lost $400K to the Quadriaga collapse.

brian_cloutier 6y ago
Anyone who loses their money when an exchange collapses has not lost bitcoin, they already spent that bitcoin on a bitcoin-denominated-receivable and then lost that receivable.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Yeah and anybody who loses their money on the stock exchange, already spent that money on a security and then the security lost value. What's the difference?
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    The GP seems to be implying that using bitcoin is risky, which is true, but as evidence cites someone who lost money while not holding bitcoin. I'm sure people also lost CAD they had been storing in Quadriga; when you put money into an uninsured bank/exchange you might lose it, losing it is not evidence that bitcoin itself is risky.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      You can’t spend Bitcoin anywhere which means you need to rely on these exchanges to get something you can exchange for goods and services. This makes them a mandatory part of the exchange transaction and ecosystem as such their risk must be factored in. You can’t pretend the platonic ideal exists for crypto when comparing it to real world pricing and risk for existing solutions. That’s disingenuous at best.
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      With bitcoin the choices seems equivalent to unsecured banks (trust someone else), or gold bars under the mattress (hope they don't get stolen, you don't get incapacitated and they get forgotten about, etc). I wouldn't want to store a significant chunk of my savings in either of those situations.
      - brian_cloutier 6y ago
        current state of the art is not very good, storing large amounts of cryptocurrencies is not as convenient as large amounts of fiat and it may never be as convenient, but usability is slowly improving. Hardware wallets and safe deposit boxes and multisig let you build a system which is far better than storing your money in an unsecured bank and far less vulnerable to theft/loss than the mattress strategy.