7 ms·

Let's say the top 100 coins by market cap. What's the lawful utility of their existence?

olalonde 3y ago
For Bitcoin: > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
- TillE 3y ago
  Bitcoin specifically is notoriously awful for this purpose, and has been for many years, because of slow transactions with high fees. But even setting those aside, what's the actual point? Why does a normal person care about making online payments without involving a bank?
  - olalonde 3y ago
    For one, there is no electronic alternative for 69% of the global population. That's how many people are unbanked and/or do not have access to a financial institution.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - telepathy 3y ago
      That's because it's either illegal or legally too expensive to give them banking services. You're not describing a tech problem. Banking tech exists. You don't get to decide what random countries want to do with their monetary policy or financial service regulations.
      - olalonde 3y ago
        Unbanked people who use Bitcoin do not care whether it's a tech or policy problem. They just care that it solves their problem. Here's your lawful utility.
        telepathy 3y ago
        The law doesn't care whether it solves their problem. It doesn't make it lawful to circumvent banking regulations. Governments have bills to pay and it's illegal to disobey.
        olalonde 3y ago
        Using Bitcoin is not equivalent to circumventing banking regulations. Banking regulations concern money transmitters and banks. Since Bitcoin involves neither, those regulations do not apply, at least not for regular payments between individuals or businesses. It is therefore perfectly lawful for unbanked people to use Bitcoin, at least in most countries.
        telepathy 3y ago
        Yeah it's also not circumventing banking regulations to mail a beanie baby. What's your point?
        olalonde 3y ago
        I agree with that. Neither mailing beanie babies nor sending Bitcoin is "circumventing banking regulations". That was pretty much my point. What's yours?
        telepathy 3y ago
        That bitcoin and mailing beanie babies have no meaningful and lawful utility. By utility I mean benefit. It will be a dead giveaway that you're biased and intellectually dishonest if you ask for the definition of utility.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    Re. "notoriously awful," I also think people underestimate how useful it is to go through a financial institution for any legal transactions thanks to the protection that those institutions (generally) offer. If you accidentally run your credit card through a skimmer at the gas station, and the skimmer's owner tries to rack up a bunch of expenses with that card, you can dispute the charges. If your BTC wallet accidentally gets compromised... that's it. No recourse.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    Look into Bitcoin's Lightning Network. It's much faster much less expensive than traditional Bitcoin transactions.
    - telepathy 3y ago
      Is this still a talking point? This was a buzz word like half a decade ago
      - dang 3y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- telepathy 3y ago
  A "financial institution" is just an entity that is legally allowed to engage in sending money from one party to another. So the vision is just "let's make something illegal"?
  - olalonde 3y ago
    No, it's not. Bitcoin payments are legal in most jurisdictions.
    - telepathy 3y ago
      Bitcoin isn't money, and adoption by merchants has never been lower. I was talking about the original vision.
      - olalonde 3y ago
        That's historically wrong. When Bitcoin was initially launched, it took a long time before it started being used in economic transactions (see the famous 10,000 BTC pizza). It took an even longer time for some merchants to start accepting it directly or through a payment processor. Adoption by merchants was close to zero for a very long time. Today, you can not only easily trade BTC against other currencies but also spend them at many merchants. There's even a country (El Salvador) that has adopted it as legal tender. These days, the daily transaction volume is in the multibillion dollar range (and that's just counting transactions that are settled "on-chain"). Is your objection that since it is less commonly adopted than USD, it therefore has lower utility than USD? Or that its utility was higher in the past? I am not quite sure I understand your question or argument.
        telepathy 3y ago
        Everyone seems to hate bitcoin in el salvador: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bitcoin+el+salvador https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bitcoin+el+salv... Billions per day is basically wash trading by quants. What % of that is actual merchant transactions for goods or services?? Almost 0%
RestlessMind 3y ago
replied in detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38154422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38154422

For Bitcoin: > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

TillE 3y ago
Bitcoin specifically is notoriously awful for this purpose, and has been for many years, because of slow transactions with high fees. But even setting those aside, what's the actual point? Why does a normal person care about making online payments without involving a bank?
- olalonde 3y ago
  For one, there is no electronic alternative for 69% of the global population. That's how many people are unbanked and/or do not have access to a financial institution.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - telepathy 3y ago
    That's because it's either illegal or legally too expensive to give them banking services. You're not describing a tech problem. Banking tech exists. You don't get to decide what random countries want to do with their monetary policy or financial service regulations.
    - olalonde 3y ago
      Unbanked people who use Bitcoin do not care whether it's a tech or policy problem. They just care that it solves their problem. Here's your lawful utility.
      - telepathy 3y ago
        The law doesn't care whether it solves their problem. It doesn't make it lawful to circumvent banking regulations. Governments have bills to pay and it's illegal to disobey.
        olalonde 3y ago
        Using Bitcoin is not equivalent to circumventing banking regulations. Banking regulations concern money transmitters and banks. Since Bitcoin involves neither, those regulations do not apply, at least not for regular payments between individuals or businesses. It is therefore perfectly lawful for unbanked people to use Bitcoin, at least in most countries.
        telepathy 3y ago
        Yeah it's also not circumventing banking regulations to mail a beanie baby. What's your point?
        olalonde 3y ago
        I agree with that. Neither mailing beanie babies nor sending Bitcoin is "circumventing banking regulations". That was pretty much my point. What's yours?
        telepathy 3y ago
        That bitcoin and mailing beanie babies have no meaningful and lawful utility. By utility I mean benefit. It will be a dead giveaway that you're biased and intellectually dishonest if you ask for the definition of utility.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Re. "notoriously awful," I also think people underestimate how useful it is to go through a financial institution for any legal transactions thanks to the protection that those institutions (generally) offer. If you accidentally run your credit card through a skimmer at the gas station, and the skimmer's owner tries to rack up a bunch of expenses with that card, you can dispute the charges. If your BTC wallet accidentally gets compromised... that's it. No recourse.
- timbit42 3y ago
  Look into Bitcoin's Lightning Network. It's much faster much less expensive than traditional Bitcoin transactions.
  - telepathy 3y ago
    Is this still a talking point? This was a buzz word like half a decade ago
    - dang 3y ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
telepathy 3y ago
A "financial institution" is just an entity that is legally allowed to engage in sending money from one party to another. So the vision is just "let's make something illegal"?
- olalonde 3y ago
  No, it's not. Bitcoin payments are legal in most jurisdictions.
  - telepathy 3y ago
    Bitcoin isn't money, and adoption by merchants has never been lower. I was talking about the original vision.
    - olalonde 3y ago
      That's historically wrong. When Bitcoin was initially launched, it took a long time before it started being used in economic transactions (see the famous 10,000 BTC pizza). It took an even longer time for some merchants to start accepting it directly or through a payment processor. Adoption by merchants was close to zero for a very long time. Today, you can not only easily trade BTC against other currencies but also spend them at many merchants. There's even a country (El Salvador) that has adopted it as legal tender. These days, the daily transaction volume is in the multibillion dollar range (and that's just counting transactions that are settled "on-chain"). Is your objection that since it is less commonly adopted than USD, it therefore has lower utility than USD? Or that its utility was higher in the past? I am not quite sure I understand your question or argument.
      - telepathy 3y ago
        Everyone seems to hate bitcoin in el salvador: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bitcoin+el+salvador https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bitcoin+el+salv... Billions per day is basically wash trading by quants. What % of that is actual merchant transactions for goods or services?? Almost 0%

RestlessMind 3y ago

replied in detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38154422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38154422