3 ms·

> The fiction holds up only if you are a "casual" user of the system, transacting in small amounts of money in non-complicated transactions. The costs even of t

> The fiction holds up only if you are a "casual" user of the system, transacting in small amounts of money in non-complicated transactions. The costs even of this fictitious speed are high, but they are hidden from casual users. To be clear, what sort of transactions are you referring to here? If you mean things like buying a bagel, or clothes, or groceries — the vast majority of transactions, for which the system should be optimized — then the existing centralized system is extremely successful.

wyager 4y ago
Yes, no argument from me that the fiat system is adequate for buying a bagel. If all you're ever doing is engaging in small-scale consumption, there's not a ton of reason you personally would care about or even notice a transition away from fiat payment systems. Realistically, the UX of payments and money management will not change for 90% of people (who aren't doing anything interesting with money and don't have a lot of it). This is fine; we're talking about swapping out the back-end for people who actually have to deal with it.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  The issue, with regard to people who have a lot of money or want to do “interesting” things with it, is that many of us do not trust those people. So when you say “hey, everything will be the same for you, but it’ll make things easier for those people”, I instantly become suspicious of the change you’re trying to effect. Because, when those people try to get cute with the economy, the upside for “casual users” (aka most people) is low to nonexistent — and the potential downside is very high.
  - jboy55 4y ago
    We're giving the keys to our financial system to crypto-bros who we're supposed to 'trust' because they claim to 'understand' how crypto works. Yet their investment advice is to buy and hold, while they pump and dump their ICOs in order to afford their lambos.

wyager 4y ago

Yes, no argument from me that the fiat system is adequate for buying a bagel. If all you're ever doing is engaging in small-scale consumption, there's not a ton of reason you personally would care about or even notice a transition away from fiat payment systems. Realistically, the UX of payments and money management will not change for 90% of people (who aren't doing anything interesting with money and don't have a lot of it). This is fine; we're talking about swapping out the back-end for people who actually have to deal with it.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
The issue, with regard to people who have a lot of money or want to do “interesting” things with it, is that many of us do not trust those people. So when you say “hey, everything will be the same for you, but it’ll make things easier for those people”, I instantly become suspicious of the change you’re trying to effect. Because, when those people try to get cute with the economy, the upside for “casual users” (aka most people) is low to nonexistent — and the potential downside is very high.
- jboy55 4y ago
  We're giving the keys to our financial system to crypto-bros who we're supposed to 'trust' because they claim to 'understand' how crypto works. Yet their investment advice is to buy and hold, while they pump and dump their ICOs in order to afford their lambos.