4 ms·

>Its main utility is ability to transfer it between parties securely and quickly But that's not utility. That's just another form of currency and there are alr

>Its main utility is ability to transfer it between parties securely and quickly But that's not utility. That's just another form of currency and there are already better, cheaper and more secure ways to transfer currency between two parties. There is literally nothing I can do with a bitcoin other than sell it to someone else.

me_me_me 6y ago
> and there are already better, cheaper and more secure ways to transfer currency between two parties. Like for example...? BTC is hardly a currency (it was intended purpose but it not capable in its current form), its utility is ease of transfer over to anyone. Try to transfer money from US to EU or African country. Let's see how easy that is going to be. You have to rely on third party actors and government to facilitate it (just reminding - we are not debating if that good or bad thing, just that btc is more than a worse implementation of a currency).
- jasonlaramburu 6y ago
  >Like for example...? Venmo/cashapp/paypal are great and basically free for small p2p transfers within the US. ACH transfers and Wires also work well for larger amounts and have fixed costs, not a fluctuating % of a transaction value like BTC. It's also very easy to send international wires via SWIFT to most countries (including African ones). Most of the countries where it is 'hard' to wire money are under sanctions, a problem that BTC does not solve. >You have to rely on third party actors and government to facilitate it Yes, 3rd parties like the FDIC who insure your money for free. You also have to rely on (potentially multiple) 3rd parties if you actually want to spend your BTC on anything. You also have the added complication of price slippage. If BTC were really better at sending money than fiat-based solutions wouldn't more people use it for that purpose by now?
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    > Venmo/cashapp/paypal... ugh, yeah sure. Via magical thinking maybe. Not to mention you have to pay bank to have an account in the first place. You are shifting goalpost of this discussion every post, its pointless to keep on pointing out holes in you 'arguments'. Btc has a utility therefore your original argument is invalid.
    - jasonlaramburu 6y ago
      I’m just saying BTC is not useful for anything today. I’ve not changed my argument or goal post. I think it’s a cool tech and accept that it may one day be useful, but today it doesn’t make anyone’s life easier. If I want to send a friend money (via BTC) I have to wire fiat from my bank to an exchange, buy BTC, send it to his address and pay a fee. Then he has to do the same in reverse and pay a fee to convert to fiat.
      - me_me_me 6y ago
        Yes you did and you are doing it again. Claiming bitcoin is a problem polluter as it is useless, no utility, no function. A thing people waste energy on without getting anything back. Now you claim btc is useless since there are 'better' ways. Well public transport is better way to move people around cities. So why cars and causing huge traffic jams? Why buy lambo when Fiat will save you more money etc etc. Also saying 'btc is waste of energy it does nothing but pollute', and 'it might be useful in future' is contradictory. You either want to kill it or develop it.

me_me_me 6y ago

> and there are already better, cheaper and more secure ways to transfer currency between two parties. Like for example...? BTC is hardly a currency (it was intended purpose but it not capable in its current form), its utility is ease of transfer over to anyone. Try to transfer money from US to EU or African country. Let's see how easy that is going to be. You have to rely on third party actors and government to facilitate it (just reminding - we are not debating if that good or bad thing, just that btc is more than a worse implementation of a currency).

jasonlaramburu 6y ago
>Like for example...? Venmo/cashapp/paypal are great and basically free for small p2p transfers within the US. ACH transfers and Wires also work well for larger amounts and have fixed costs, not a fluctuating % of a transaction value like BTC. It's also very easy to send international wires via SWIFT to most countries (including African ones). Most of the countries where it is 'hard' to wire money are under sanctions, a problem that BTC does not solve. >You have to rely on third party actors and government to facilitate it Yes, 3rd parties like the FDIC who insure your money for free. You also have to rely on (potentially multiple) 3rd parties if you actually want to spend your BTC on anything. You also have the added complication of price slippage. If BTC were really better at sending money than fiat-based solutions wouldn't more people use it for that purpose by now?
- me_me_me 6y ago
  > Venmo/cashapp/paypal... ugh, yeah sure. Via magical thinking maybe. Not to mention you have to pay bank to have an account in the first place. You are shifting goalpost of this discussion every post, its pointless to keep on pointing out holes in you 'arguments'. Btc has a utility therefore your original argument is invalid.
  - jasonlaramburu 6y ago
    I’m just saying BTC is not useful for anything today. I’ve not changed my argument or goal post. I think it’s a cool tech and accept that it may one day be useful, but today it doesn’t make anyone’s life easier. If I want to send a friend money (via BTC) I have to wire fiat from my bank to an exchange, buy BTC, send it to his address and pay a fee. Then he has to do the same in reverse and pay a fee to convert to fiat.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      Yes you did and you are doing it again. Claiming bitcoin is a problem polluter as it is useless, no utility, no function. A thing people waste energy on without getting anything back. Now you claim btc is useless since there are 'better' ways. Well public transport is better way to move people around cities. So why cars and causing huge traffic jams? Why buy lambo when Fiat will save you more money etc etc. Also saying 'btc is waste of energy it does nothing but pollute', and 'it might be useful in future' is contradictory. You either want to kill it or develop it.