5 ms·

Even if they do, why would the best way to allow efficient international transfers be to invent a whole new financial system? If the money is coming from tradi

Even if they do, why would the best way to allow efficient international transfers be to invent a whole new financial system? If the money is coming from traditional money (as the workers are basically always paid in traditional money) and will be exchanged into traditional money (as the recipients of the remittances will exchange to to be able to use it) why would we want to add an intermediate crypto step (which is also quite volatile)?

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
It’s the best way because those in power in the centralized institutions embedded along the existing financial system don’t want to service these “fringe” use cases that to them are too volatile. - that’s one potential answer at least.
sshine 4y ago
> why would the best way to allow efficient international transfers be to invent a whole new financial system? The risk of running a traditional currency exchange in places where people really need money is high. Some places simply don’t have a money service for this reason. If you can cut the middle man and transfer money discretely, you may actually be able to send money, as opposed to not. tl;dr: If the average risk is high enough, the volatility of Bitcoin and risk of getting scammed may actually be lower.
- SahAssar 4y ago
  But you still need to have a bitcoin exchange accessible, both to the sender and to the receiver, right? And in the cases of unbanked areas that exchange needs to be physical and able to give out physical cash. It doesn't need to be the same exchange, but both those exchanges would still have the same issues as a traditional exchange, right? Walk me through a transaction that is better with bitcoin and would not be easier by modifying the current system.
  - kragen 4y ago
    If you postulate modifying the current system, of course you can postulate modifying it to be better than Bitcoin. But Bitcoin isn't hypothetical.
    - SahAssar 4y ago
      I postulate that modifying the current system is easier than integrating bitcoin/crypto in ways that are actually good, and easier still than replaceing the current system wholesale with crypto.
      - sshine 4y ago
        > modifying the current system is easier than integrating bitcoin/crypto in ways that are actually good This is true for societies that have good money systems.
        SahAssar 4y ago
        And you think that replacing the financial systems of those other societies with a system that no one (especially not the societies themselves) has any control over will be easier than improving their current systems?
  - sshine 4y ago
    > you still need to have a bitcoin exchange accessible, both to the sender and to the receiver, right? No, you only need an exchange accessible to the sender. The receiver can receive Bitcoins; they don't even need to be online while receiving them, because they can agree on a fixed address. > in the cases of unbanked areas that exchange needs to be physical and able to give out physical cash That is the case for traditional currency exchanges. It is not the case for Bitcoin. The missing part that you might object to is of course: If the receiver eventually wants to convert their Bitcoins into some other currency (USD, or some local, not hyper-inflated currency), they do need some kind of exchange. But they can choose to wait until they have access, they can send Bitcoins themselves, and they can meet with people to exchange Bitcoins with the risk that involves. None of these scenarios requires a traditional currency exchange to be available in their area. Running such a currency exchange is presumably too risky / not worth it. But being an individual Bitcoin trader might, because individuals are exposed to and assess different risks.
RestlessMind 4y ago
A colleague who sends money to his family in a third world country with unstable currency explained to me why he uses crypto to do so. Even if he uses dollars to initiate the transfer here in the US, his family is going to receive it in the local currency. But that would incur losses as the official exchange rate is held artificially low. Also that currency is losing value very fast due to high inflation (much higher than the US in fact). So it is much better for his family to have their savings in Bitcoin. If there was a way to transmit gold easily avoiding government rules, he could have done that too but sending gold to his country is impossible. This gets to the heart of another common refrain on HN that Bitcoin is great to facilitate illegal transactions. Well guess what, if a shitty government in some corner of the world is going to make it difficult for its citizens to live a normal peaceful life by devaluing currency and imposing artificial barriers to save meaningfully, then I am rooting for Bitcoin to help people evade that tyranny.
- democracy 4y ago
  What country is that?

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago

It’s the best way because those in power in the centralized institutions embedded along the existing financial system don’t want to service these “fringe” use cases that to them are too volatile. - that’s one potential answer at least.

sshine 4y ago

> why would the best way to allow efficient international transfers be to invent a whole new financial system? The risk of running a traditional currency exchange in places where people really need money is high. Some places simply don’t have a money service for this reason. If you can cut the middle man and transfer money discretely, you may actually be able to send money, as opposed to not. tl;dr: If the average risk is high enough, the volatility of Bitcoin and risk of getting scammed may actually be lower.

SahAssar 4y ago
But you still need to have a bitcoin exchange accessible, both to the sender and to the receiver, right? And in the cases of unbanked areas that exchange needs to be physical and able to give out physical cash. It doesn't need to be the same exchange, but both those exchanges would still have the same issues as a traditional exchange, right? Walk me through a transaction that is better with bitcoin and would not be easier by modifying the current system.
- kragen 4y ago
  If you postulate modifying the current system, of course you can postulate modifying it to be better than Bitcoin. But Bitcoin isn't hypothetical.
  - SahAssar 4y ago
    I postulate that modifying the current system is easier than integrating bitcoin/crypto in ways that are actually good, and easier still than replaceing the current system wholesale with crypto.
    - sshine 4y ago
      > modifying the current system is easier than integrating bitcoin/crypto in ways that are actually good This is true for societies that have good money systems.
      - SahAssar 4y ago
        And you think that replacing the financial systems of those other societies with a system that no one (especially not the societies themselves) has any control over will be easier than improving their current systems?
- sshine 4y ago
  > you still need to have a bitcoin exchange accessible, both to the sender and to the receiver, right? No, you only need an exchange accessible to the sender. The receiver can receive Bitcoins; they don't even need to be online while receiving them, because they can agree on a fixed address. > in the cases of unbanked areas that exchange needs to be physical and able to give out physical cash That is the case for traditional currency exchanges. It is not the case for Bitcoin. The missing part that you might object to is of course: If the receiver eventually wants to convert their Bitcoins into some other currency (USD, or some local, not hyper-inflated currency), they do need some kind of exchange. But they can choose to wait until they have access, they can send Bitcoins themselves, and they can meet with people to exchange Bitcoins with the risk that involves. None of these scenarios requires a traditional currency exchange to be available in their area. Running such a currency exchange is presumably too risky / not worth it. But being an individual Bitcoin trader might, because individuals are exposed to and assess different risks.

RestlessMind 4y ago

A colleague who sends money to his family in a third world country with unstable currency explained to me why he uses crypto to do so. Even if he uses dollars to initiate the transfer here in the US, his family is going to receive it in the local currency. But that would incur losses as the official exchange rate is held artificially low. Also that currency is losing value very fast due to high inflation (much higher than the US in fact). So it is much better for his family to have their savings in Bitcoin. If there was a way to transmit gold easily avoiding government rules, he could have done that too but sending gold to his country is impossible. This gets to the heart of another common refrain on HN that Bitcoin is great to facilitate illegal transactions. Well guess what, if a shitty government in some corner of the world is going to make it difficult for its citizens to live a normal peaceful life by devaluing currency and imposing artificial barriers to save meaningfully, then I am rooting for Bitcoin to help people evade that tyranny.

democracy 4y ago
What country is that?