5 ms·

~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being

~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so. Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kragen 5y ago
  I know a lot of "those people" who are using Bitcoin already, but I would never refer to unbanked people as "those people," being for all practical purposes one of them. We mostly aren't using it safely (a lot of us don't know the difference between Binance and Bitcoin) but we are using it. The last transaction fee I paid was 33¢, and the average transaction in the last Bitcoin block was 913 bytes, so your internet access speed isn't an obstacle to sending a transaction as long as it's above about 20 bits per second; if you want to run a full node you need at least 17000 bits per second of internet access unless you're using the Blockstream satellite. Typically I pay US$5 a month for cellphone internet access when I have it, but more commonly I use Wi-Fi in various places.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    How long before there's safe tech for relaying your transactions via other people's connections, as a cooperative distributed mesh, to improve confirmation and delivery speed of your own packets?
    - kragen 5y ago
      That's been part of Bitcoin since it was invented in 02008.
- justinpowers 5y ago
  The fit of alternatives was not the focus of the comment I was replying to. The fact is that many people hold their wealth in cash, and many of the same people are part of vulnerable populations. One shouldn’t remove another’s alternatives simply because it’s assumed that the other lacks access or sophistication. Even if true, both potential deficiencies are fully reparable and do not permanently negate the benefits of uncensorable money.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  I hate to see this repeated argument, because it seems to indicate an unimaginative, or perhaps altruistic?, perspective regarding the future of tech's role in society. Centralized internet is not long for this world. The Internet is being fractured, both ideologically and physically, right now, by world war. This only gets worse before it gets better, which probably means mesh networks will be adopted soon enough. Anyway, This is why adopting distribution of responsibilities is so important in projects like Ethereum — your offline handhelds will be able to make provable transactions without having immediate communication with every star in the constellation, so to speak.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kragen 5y ago
I know a lot of "those people" who are using Bitcoin already, but I would never refer to unbanked people as "those people," being for all practical purposes one of them. We mostly aren't using it safely (a lot of us don't know the difference between Binance and Bitcoin) but we are using it. The last transaction fee I paid was 33¢, and the average transaction in the last Bitcoin block was 913 bytes, so your internet access speed isn't an obstacle to sending a transaction as long as it's above about 20 bits per second; if you want to run a full node you need at least 17000 bits per second of internet access unless you're using the Blockstream satellite. Typically I pay US$5 a month for cellphone internet access when I have it, but more commonly I use Wi-Fi in various places.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  How long before there's safe tech for relaying your transactions via other people's connections, as a cooperative distributed mesh, to improve confirmation and delivery speed of your own packets?
  - kragen 5y ago
    That's been part of Bitcoin since it was invented in 02008.
justinpowers 5y ago
The fit of alternatives was not the focus of the comment I was replying to. The fact is that many people hold their wealth in cash, and many of the same people are part of vulnerable populations. One shouldn’t remove another’s alternatives simply because it’s assumed that the other lacks access or sophistication. Even if true, both potential deficiencies are fully reparable and do not permanently negate the benefits of uncensorable money.
aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
I hate to see this repeated argument, because it seems to indicate an unimaginative, or perhaps altruistic?, perspective regarding the future of tech's role in society. Centralized internet is not long for this world. The Internet is being fractured, both ideologically and physically, right now, by world war. This only gets worse before it gets better, which probably means mesh networks will be adopted soon enough. Anyway, This is why adopting distribution of responsibilities is so important in projects like Ethereum — your offline handhelds will be able to make provable transactions without having immediate communication with every star in the constellation, so to speak.