5 ms·
> They will literally have more money in their pockets. That's a big if. Bitcoin transfer fees might be cheaper, but you need to add the cost of converting do
by gjulianm 5y ago
> They will literally have more money in their pockets.
That's a big if. Bitcoin transfer fees might be cheaper, but you need to add the cost of converting dollars to bitcoin, plus the volatility of the coin, plus any fees from intermediaries and Lightning nodes.
> Good things happen when people have more money in their pockets
High amount of remittances are not a cause, but a symptom of underlying problems. Would you be as cavalier about the effects of this on ES economy if it was, say, Western Union saying they'd reduce 10% their transfer fees?
It's always the same thing with Bitcoin, apparently it's such a great technology that it can change anything despite the fact that the only "new" thing it can do is to be decentralized. Somehow the argument always ends up being that decreased transfer fees will revolutionize everything (despite the fact that transfer fees might not be lower, and that we've had continuously decreasing transfer fees for years and yet that didn't seem to bring any revolution).
- dadoge 5y agoSooo… do you think it’s better to have higher transfer fees? Seems like a no-brainer win though? Even if it doesn’t revolutionize the country
- TomSwirly 5y ago> Sooo... do you think it’s better to have higher transfer fees? So many conversations with Bitcoin advocates involve them putting ridiculous statements into the mouths of others. No one said that or anything like it.
- gjulianm 5y agoObviously I prefer lower fees. But integrating Bitcoin is not a guarantee that actual, practical fees will be lower. Given the risks of adopting Bitcoin (volatility, fixed economic policy, complexity, difficulty of use), I think potential benefits must be higher than “we maybe get lower transfer fees, or not”.
- danso 5y agoYour original comment claimed that El Salvador spends 22% of its GDP on transfer fees. You've since corrected it to say that the 22% estimate is for the remittances themselves. So why are you acting as if "higher transfer fees" is an accepted premise?