4 ms·

And what about the first kind of failure I mentioned, that we see pretty regularly in the news? That the banks are usually pretty good at reconstructing your ba

And what about the first kind of failure I mentioned, that we see pretty regularly in the news? That the banks are usually pretty good at reconstructing your balance from secondary sources, does not cover for the fact that they can still lose your balance in the first place. >Having an outage is not the same as forgetting your bank balance I wouldn't class a high fee as an outage. If your transaction was important enough that it warranted being settled immediately and at a higher priority than every other transaction during peak rush, then a higher fee might be a pretty good trade-off. Keep in mind that the banks do not offer this feature, so in their case your transaction would simply not go through giving you no choice in the matter.

knorker 5y ago
For a $10 purchase a $62 fee is in my opinion certainly an outage. But also there have been hours-long transaction times. I wouldn't say that banks "lose your balance" at all. It's a failure in availability. If the bank fails or does the extremely common cryptocurrency thing of "rugpull" then you still have your money because FDIC. You say "immediately", but i regularly do inter-bank transfers that go through faster than any Bitcoin transaction can go through, no matter what transaction fee offered. And that's not even talking about CC payments, which are done in milliseconds.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  Those transactions that appear to go through "immediately", are not settled for many days or weeks. That third parties are willing to take on the settlement risk is beside the point as the same could be offered by third parties working on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.
  - knorker 5y ago
    > Those transactions that appear to go through "immediately", are not settled for many days or weeks. The thing about that is that end users don't care, not even a little bit. It's about as interesting as whether the banks runs Linux, BSD, or OS/400. The service provided is immediate. I don't care if the two banks need to ship physical checks around on the backend. > the same could be offered by third parties working on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. But that defeats the whole point of the bitcoin blockchain. It does not defeat the point of traditional banking.

knorker 5y ago

For a $10 purchase a $62 fee is in my opinion certainly an outage. But also there have been hours-long transaction times. I wouldn't say that banks "lose your balance" at all. It's a failure in availability. If the bank fails or does the extremely common cryptocurrency thing of "rugpull" then you still have your money because FDIC. You say "immediately", but i regularly do inter-bank transfers that go through faster than any Bitcoin transaction can go through, no matter what transaction fee offered. And that's not even talking about CC payments, which are done in milliseconds.

jimmydorry 5y ago
Those transactions that appear to go through "immediately", are not settled for many days or weeks. That third parties are willing to take on the settlement risk is beside the point as the same could be offered by third parties working on top of the Bitcoin blockchain.
- knorker 5y ago
  > Those transactions that appear to go through "immediately", are not settled for many days or weeks. The thing about that is that end users don't care, not even a little bit. It's about as interesting as whether the banks runs Linux, BSD, or OS/400. The service provided is immediate. I don't care if the two banks need to ship physical checks around on the backend. > the same could be offered by third parties working on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. But that defeats the whole point of the bitcoin blockchain. It does not defeat the point of traditional banking.