133 ms·

Even in the early days of computing, there were obvious benefits to networking computers. The work wasn't done for no reason, there was clear value in coming up

by pg_bot 5y ago

Even in the early days of computing, there were obvious benefits to networking computers. The work wasn't done for no reason, there was clear value in coming up with all of these protocols. The main reason it took so long for general adoption was the fact that computers were not in most family homes until the 1990s. The barrier to adopting the internet wasn't the inherent value of the protocols it was the cost of the machine to the average consumer. I'm confident in saying this because we are further along in the computing adoption cycle and we haven't really come up with anything useful. Your point about transferring something to someone else without a third party ignores transaction costs. Who cares if you need a third party if you are purchasing something legally and the cost to transact is low?

saurik 5y ago
I mean, if I want to send you some money, and let's say you are just in Canada (I am in the United States), my options are limited and many are super expensive... and almost all of them take forever. The only cheap, easy, and fast way is PayPal (or their subsidiary Venmo), which I don't think anyone truly likes (evidence for which is easy: find literally any thread on Hacker News about them that isn't using their existence to defend why cryptocurrencies are unnecessary). Other than PayPal, Bitcoin (or Ethereum and Avalanche or what have you) is much easier than all of these systems, and while it currently may or may not be as cheap, it was frankly a "first draft": the subsequent protocols the community is using are all (incrementally) cheaper and the ecosystem has even been succeeding at improving the overall scalability. If you tell me your Bitcoin address--no matter where you are in this increasingly global world--I can reliably send you money.
- pg_bot 5y ago
  The best case scenario I can see is that cryptocurrencies push the US banking system to adopt something like the British "Faster Payment Services". If anyone begins to gain adoption they will be outcompeted by incumbent banks. It has never been the case that banking has been limited by technology for quicker and cheaper transactions in the US.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by pg_bot 5y ago

saurik 5y ago

I mean, if I want to send you some money, and let's say you are just in Canada (I am in the United States), my options are limited and many are super expensive... and almost all of them take forever. The only cheap, easy, and fast way is PayPal (or their subsidiary Venmo), which I don't think anyone truly likes (evidence for which is easy: find literally any thread on Hacker News about them that isn't using their existence to defend why cryptocurrencies are unnecessary). Other than PayPal, Bitcoin (or Ethereum and Avalanche or what have you) is much easier than all of these systems, and while it currently may or may not be as cheap, it was frankly a "first draft": the subsequent protocols the community is using are all (incrementally) cheaper and the ecosystem has even been succeeding at improving the overall scalability. If you tell me your Bitcoin address--no matter where you are in this increasingly global world--I can reliably send you money.

pg_bot 5y ago
The best case scenario I can see is that cryptocurrencies push the US banking system to adopt something like the British "Faster Payment Services". If anyone begins to gain adoption they will be outcompeted by incumbent banks. It has never been the case that banking has been limited by technology for quicker and cheaper transactions in the US.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]