11 ms·

I understand the money transfer problem. Cryptocurrency seems like a good idea in that case. I question though why choose Bitcoin? I guess a lot of people su

by esens 5y ago

I understand the money transfer problem. Cryptocurrency seems like a good idea in that case. I question though why choose Bitcoin? I guess a lot of people support it. But it is far from stable, so no one in the right mind, especially poor people should hold significant Bitcoins because it is speculative rather than stable. I guess stable coins do not have the wide acceptance that bitcoin has? Why not USDC or similar to solve the money transfer problem? Your respond suggest that Bitcoin is going to the moon, but that suggests you want it to stay the speculative instrument it is now. But if it is going to work in El Salvador you want it to be stable no?

sadness3 5y ago
Network effects. No better option which is universally agreed as the _next_ best option. It will get easier and faster to send. Email used to need a C compiler and 2 days to send.
x4e 5y ago
Bitcoin is more just used to refer to cryptocurrency in general. I think most people seriously using cryptocurrency these days do not use bitcoin.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  No it isn't. When I'm sending money to Colombia and WorldRemit app takes 10% of my money, it means 10% less food to cook for my girlfriend and her family. She can't get a job since the pandemic, and I have other friends in Colombia with the same problem, they are desperate... some times I just send $40, and they say that it saves their life, it's so bad there right now.
  - haskellandchill 5y ago
    Money is a just a row in an SQL table. We can update it for less than a cent. Everything else is a social problem, Bitcoin does nothing to help here. Exchanges over Bitcoin are no better or worse in principle than existing financial infrastructure. The reason for high fees are the risk in sending the money across borders. Due to fraud there are risks. Bitcoin does nothing to fix this and seems to even enable more scams.
    - lowkey 5y ago
      > Exchanges over Bitcoin are no better or worse in principle than existing financial infrastructure. In principal maybe not but in reality, Bitcoin for international exchanges is a game-changer especially if you can keep the money in Bitcoin and spend it as the recipient. Fees on remittances to El Salvador were up to 50% in some cases. With Bitcoin they are effectively zero. Bitcoin fixes this.
    - lowkey 5y ago
      > The reason for high fees are the risk in sending the money across borders. Due to fraud there are risks. Bitcoin does nothing to fix this and seems to even enable more scams. Bitcoin eliminates counter party risk and international transfer risk. Lightning eliminates cost, latency and transaction volume limits. In every way that matters, Bitcoin via Lightning eliminates high fees and addresses all your concerns. As for the idea that Bitcoin enables more scams, please provide citations. I am not aware of any scams introduced by Bitcoin or Lightning.
      - haskellandchill 5y ago
        > Bitcoin eliminates counter party risk and international transfer risk citations are a two way street buddy
        lowkey 5y ago
        Fair enough .. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network that does not rely on any third party to function - hence no counter-party risk. Bitcoin operates based on rules, but has no rulers, only participants of various flavors. Bitcoin doesn’t understand or recognize borders. There is no country-code input field in a bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin doesn’t care if you are sending Bitcoin to your friend across the street or North Korea, Iran, <insert scary nation here> - international transfer risk is non-existent for Bitcoin as Bitcoin does not recognize political borders. Any human anywhere with a computing device and internet connectivity can create an address and transact with anyone else in the network. Bitcoin is a censorship resistant monetary network open to all 7.5 Billion humans. No bank can compete with Bitcoin on this dimension.
  - x4e 5y ago
    If you are sending 40$ over Bitcoin the fees will Be far more than 10% (4$). Checkout Nano or Stellar Lumens if you want to send small amounts of money without fees.
xiphias2 5y ago
USDC is controlled by US, which has been playing geopolitical games with El Salvador (and other countries) already. People El Salvador didn't get the $1200 checks that US citizens got from printing more USD, even though they both use USD in theory. The president tried to get a deal with the IMF, but they couldn't agree on the terms, so he decided to give a choice to the people between a safe but inflating currency and a volatile / experimental but deflating currency. Luckily there are enough market makers in both countries that transferring USD and recieving USD through the Bitcoin / Lightning network is cheaper and faster than using the traditional banking infrastructure. I have a girlfriend in Colombia, and in addition to the 10% remittance fee she always has to go to the city from her village (1 hour bus ride) just to get money. I wish I could just send her money through Lightning network (she has internet + iPhone, so installing an app is not a problem).
- esens 5y ago
  The rest of your comment makes sense, but this sentence is disconnected from reality: "People El Salvador didn't get the $1200 checks that US citizens got from printing more USD, even though they both use USD in theory." Are you seriously saying that 5% inflation a year, maybe a bit more worse case, is bad compared to Bitcoin just lost 40% of its value in the last 2 months? Oh no, better not use USD then and switch to Bitcoin! Maybe we need a stable coin that is a mix of the major currencies if you are against USD in particular? It could be pegged to some ratio of Chinese, US, Euro (and UK or Japanese?) dollars? This would be quite nice and stable.
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    5% inflation a year (which is closer to 20% for people who want to own their own house) is devastating long term. People in the US can just buy S&P stock in their 401K to defend against it, but most people in the world don't have that privilege. I agree that volatility of bitcoin is really hard to stomach (I have been through 85% downturns and it sucked, and people have made fun of me many times, I just got used to it). But there are enough people who have so bad pension systems in the world, that they see the huge volatility of bitcoin as a better option than trusting their government.

by esens 5y ago

sadness3 5y ago

Network effects. No better option which is universally agreed as the _next_ best option. It will get easier and faster to send. Email used to need a C compiler and 2 days to send.

x4e 5y ago

Bitcoin is more just used to refer to cryptocurrency in general. I think most people seriously using cryptocurrency these days do not use bitcoin.

xiphias2 5y ago
No it isn't. When I'm sending money to Colombia and WorldRemit app takes 10% of my money, it means 10% less food to cook for my girlfriend and her family. She can't get a job since the pandemic, and I have other friends in Colombia with the same problem, they are desperate... some times I just send $40, and they say that it saves their life, it's so bad there right now.
- haskellandchill 5y ago
  Money is a just a row in an SQL table. We can update it for less than a cent. Everything else is a social problem, Bitcoin does nothing to help here. Exchanges over Bitcoin are no better or worse in principle than existing financial infrastructure. The reason for high fees are the risk in sending the money across borders. Due to fraud there are risks. Bitcoin does nothing to fix this and seems to even enable more scams.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    > Exchanges over Bitcoin are no better or worse in principle than existing financial infrastructure. In principal maybe not but in reality, Bitcoin for international exchanges is a game-changer especially if you can keep the money in Bitcoin and spend it as the recipient. Fees on remittances to El Salvador were up to 50% in some cases. With Bitcoin they are effectively zero. Bitcoin fixes this.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    > The reason for high fees are the risk in sending the money across borders. Due to fraud there are risks. Bitcoin does nothing to fix this and seems to even enable more scams. Bitcoin eliminates counter party risk and international transfer risk. Lightning eliminates cost, latency and transaction volume limits. In every way that matters, Bitcoin via Lightning eliminates high fees and addresses all your concerns. As for the idea that Bitcoin enables more scams, please provide citations. I am not aware of any scams introduced by Bitcoin or Lightning.
    - haskellandchill 5y ago
      > Bitcoin eliminates counter party risk and international transfer risk citations are a two way street buddy
      - lowkey 5y ago
        Fair enough .. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network that does not rely on any third party to function - hence no counter-party risk. Bitcoin operates based on rules, but has no rulers, only participants of various flavors. Bitcoin doesn’t understand or recognize borders. There is no country-code input field in a bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin doesn’t care if you are sending Bitcoin to your friend across the street or North Korea, Iran, <insert scary nation here> - international transfer risk is non-existent for Bitcoin as Bitcoin does not recognize political borders. Any human anywhere with a computing device and internet connectivity can create an address and transact with anyone else in the network. Bitcoin is a censorship resistant monetary network open to all 7.5 Billion humans. No bank can compete with Bitcoin on this dimension.
- x4e 5y ago
  If you are sending 40$ over Bitcoin the fees will Be far more than 10% (4$). Checkout Nano or Stellar Lumens if you want to send small amounts of money without fees.

xiphias2 5y ago

USDC is controlled by US, which has been playing geopolitical games with El Salvador (and other countries) already. People El Salvador didn't get the $1200 checks that US citizens got from printing more USD, even though they both use USD in theory. The president tried to get a deal with the IMF, but they couldn't agree on the terms, so he decided to give a choice to the people between a safe but inflating currency and a volatile / experimental but deflating currency. Luckily there are enough market makers in both countries that transferring USD and recieving USD through the Bitcoin / Lightning network is cheaper and faster than using the traditional banking infrastructure. I have a girlfriend in Colombia, and in addition to the 10% remittance fee she always has to go to the city from her village (1 hour bus ride) just to get money. I wish I could just send her money through Lightning network (she has internet + iPhone, so installing an app is not a problem).

esens 5y ago
The rest of your comment makes sense, but this sentence is disconnected from reality: "People El Salvador didn't get the $1200 checks that US citizens got from printing more USD, even though they both use USD in theory." Are you seriously saying that 5% inflation a year, maybe a bit more worse case, is bad compared to Bitcoin just lost 40% of its value in the last 2 months? Oh no, better not use USD then and switch to Bitcoin! Maybe we need a stable coin that is a mix of the major currencies if you are against USD in particular? It could be pegged to some ratio of Chinese, US, Euro (and UK or Japanese?) dollars? This would be quite nice and stable.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  5% inflation a year (which is closer to 20% for people who want to own their own house) is devastating long term. People in the US can just buy S&P stock in their 401K to defend against it, but most people in the world don't have that privilege. I agree that volatility of bitcoin is really hard to stomach (I have been through 85% downturns and it sucked, and people have made fun of me many times, I just got used to it). But there are enough people who have so bad pension systems in the world, that they see the huge volatility of bitcoin as a better option than trusting their government.