5 ms·

Every time I read an headline about "bringing bitcoin to the masses" I'm reminded of the saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Every time I read an headline about "bringing bitcoin to the masses" I'm reminded of the saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. > "We don’t think consumers should be charged for using their own money." Where I live (UK), I can't think of anything bitcoin services like Circle offer that is definitively better than my existing bank setup. I'm not charged for using my own money. I don't pay a monthly fee for my bank account. I don't pay anything to send money to other people in the UK, which covers 98% of all the people I send money to. If I do send money to people in the UK, it's usually virtually instant, because of Faster Payments. I can withdraw money from nearly all ATMs in the UK free of charge -- the only exception are rare independent ones in places like nightclubs and out-of-the-way convenience stores, and I honestly can't ever remember using one. I can check my bank balance on my phone -- by app or by SMS. In lots of outlets I can pay for small value transactions, anything up to £20, just by waving my bank card. I understand the banking system in the USA is ... different. (Some would say behind the times.) But in the UK at least, promoting a bitcoin-based service based around the concept of better retail banking is a hard sell.

bambax 12y ago
I'm French and I have the same experience as you: bank services are virtually free for individuals (although not for companies) and I don't see what Bitcoin conversion would add to the value proposition; it would add risk and uncertainty, but nothing in the way of convenience or cost.
georgemcbay 12y ago
"(Some would say behind the times.)" Joke's on you, we are ahead of the times! It used to be pretty much just like you described here in the US and then they realized they could fee the shit out of us, "optimize" our deposits and withdrawal timings to maximize the likelihood of overdraft (which they would also then apply a series of meta-fees on), drop our earned interest to essentially 0% and most people would be too lazy to do anything about it.
- pjc50 12y ago
  The UK has a bank regulator agency which isn't totally ineffective. Their main success was ending the sale of "payment protection insurance", which was overpriced and worthless in almost all cases. There's still a level of BS fees, worse for business bank accounts, but the general consumer experience is fairly good at the moment.
  - staunch 12y ago
    A wise warden keeps his prison not so unpleasant as to cause a rebellion.
- peteretep 12y ago
  Maybe this helps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23700012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23700012
torrent-of-ions 12y ago
It will ultimately come down to convenience as you say. Never mind that using the bank system is supporting literal criminal organisations like HSBC. And don't forget they can decide who you can and can't send money to (no Wikileaks). But convenience and a little bit of Someone Else's Problem is what the people want.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  The bank did not say you couldn't send money to Wikileaks. They simply would not allow the transaction to be processed via their mechanisms due to opaque clarification regarding the status of Wikileaks. If you were a shareholder in a bank you would probably vote for ending payments to Wikileaks also to ensure that your investment is sound. Employees of the bank have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to ensure that any action they take places the needs of the shareholders above the needs of the stakeholders. Unfortunate for Wikileaks but inevitable. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that corporate entities must serve their explicit wishes rather than the entities own wishes. It's ludicrous when you think about it.
staunch 12y ago
The bank you use is in actual control of your money. They let you access your money on their terms. They reserve the right to revoke access to your money in many circumstances. You don't get to opt out of having a bank account in modern society. You get to choose from multiple banks that act almost identically. All of them record every thing you pay for. All of them store your data and make it available to thousands of employees and any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security. A massive increase in personal freedom and personal privacy is all it took to convince me. I doubt it's an American thing, but maybe it's an easier sell here.
- aspidistra 12y ago
  You might get a massive increase in personal freedom and privacy from using bitcoin. But there is a difference between Pure Bitcoin, so-to-speak -- everyone is their own bank -- and a bitcoin-based service. On Circle's website, it states: "Keeping your money safe is our top priority." That suggests Circle, too, is in actual control of your money -- like the retail bank service they aim to improve. So how do you know the things you write -- recording transactions, storing your data, restricting access, hacker susceptibility -- won't apply here? My point is that faced between two choices where a consumer gives someone else control of their money, the traditional system in many places is so far ahead in terms of reach, convenience and regulation compliance that a startup has a lot of work to do.
- pjc50 12y ago
  All of them record every thing you pay for Unlike bitcoin, which records all of your transactions in a globally readable log? Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful, and if people work out your wallet address(es) then you actually lose a lot of privacy. any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. For almost everyone, the bank computer is going to be more secure than their home PC.
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. This is very important. It is nice that a purely distributed system can essentially achieve non-reversible transaction, but that's not something that most people need. Most people need reversible transactions, where the reversibility is controlled by adaptable laws and regulations that are ultimately interpreted by other people.
jvm 12y ago
I'm American and all these things are true of my bank (Ally). I don't quite understand why so many of my compatriots choose such crummy banks given the excellent alternatives available, but given that they're quite attached to brick-and-mortar big name banks that charge usurious fees, I can't imagine they'll flock to Circle.
- StavrosK 12y ago
  Would you recommend Ally? How did you get an account? Can you transfer money to foreign accounts from the Web UI?
  - jvm 12y ago
    I would absolutely recommend it, except that international transfers seem to be quite difficult. The one time I tried to receive a wire from Europe, I had a lot of trouble and ended up with Paypal. I should say though, I didn't call support so maybe there was a solution and I just didn't figure it out. Ally phone support is quite awesome and has always been able to solve my problems. But between check cashing via phone pic and being able to get reimbursed for using any ATM in the world, I couldn't be a happier customer.
    - StavrosK 12y ago
      Thanks for the information. Wells Fargo also offers reimbursement from any ATM (it's how I withdraw money, absent any reasonable way to transfer money out of it). I've heard that many banks offer check cashing by photo, but it seems that the abysmal handling of transfers is a US phenomenon. Banks in Europe provide a seamless (and cheap/free) way to send money to anyone in Europe, inside or outside the country. US banks don't even seem to provide a way to send money to friends, outside their proprietary payment services which require that the recipient sign up with them, or something.
johnyzee 12y ago
The killer application for bitcoin, IMHO, is microtransactions. For global, universal microtransactions to take off, we need exactly something like bitcoin; purely digital, both a protocol and a service and not owned by anyone. Once microtransactions take off it could turn a lot of things on their head. For example I wouldn't mind paying 0.001 cent to read an article. It just isn't possible with any current systems. There are other fields where I easily prefer bitcoin over credit cards (pretty much any online purchase under $10), but microtransactions are the big one to me.
- saurik 12y ago
  Nor is it possible with Bitcoin: the current default minimum transaction fee is 0.0001 BTC (which is ~$0.05). People often make a big deal about the transaction fee having been "lowered" (it used to be 0.0005 BTC), but as the transaction fee is measured in Bitcoin (which has highly-variable worth with respect to the things it is being used to purchase) this value must be adjusted occasionally, and Bitcoin happened to become much more valuable, requiring this fee to be lowered. At the same time, transactions less than this amount (by only about half, a 0.543 multiplier, so still larger than one cent) became "non-standard", which means that they will not be relayed; because, to quote the Bitcoin release notes, "storing them costs the network more than they are worth and spending them will usually cost their owner more in transaction fees than they are worth". The blockchain just isn't designed for this kind of use case, and the idea of "dust" (tiny transactions that overwhelm the blockchain) started becoming a serious political problem in the community due to a gambling service called Satoshi Dice that managed to become a large percentage of the total traffic on the blockchain despite moving almost no money. In reality, attempts to build microtransactions on Bitcoin are based on the same approach that people use to build microtransactions over bank accounts and credit cards: a separate currency stored with (and thereby "owned by") a single entity that can move the virtual money "effectively for free". Coinbase recently started offering these "off-blockchain microtransactions" as a service, allowing people to withdraw funds only once they accumulate 0.01 BTC (so ~$5.00).
- battani 12y ago
  What kinds of use cases can you think of for microtransactions? There's a reason entire industries are moving toward the pay-by-the-month/year model instead of pay per use (Spotify, SaaS, online edition of newspapers, etc.). > For example I wouldn't mind paying 0.001 cent to read an article. Most people would actually prefer paying a monthly price rather than pay each time they consume content. Why? Clay Shirky explained it best almost 15 years ago: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.ht... In short, consumers HATE micropayments because they want predictable and simple pricing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
noselasd 12y ago
So e.g. all the fees stated here for your neigbor country cost 0p for you ? http://www.bankofireland.com/fees-and-charges-365-online/ http://www.bankofireland.com/fees-and-charges-365-online/
- aspidistra 12y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. But almost all of the things on that page -- standing orders, direct debits, day to day banking, maintenance, transactions -- are free of charge at most UK personal current accounts. The only thing I noticed that would have a charge is sending money outside the UK, even to EU countries.
- pjc50 12y ago
  .. Yes? In fact, read that table: ROI customers get charged for almost everything unless they have €3000 in their account for a whole quarter. NI customers pay nothing but "Non-standard / unusual transactions may attract charges". UK is somewhere in between: "Customers who keep a minimum of £250 in their account in any Charging month* qualify for free banking" Unsurprisingly, different countries(+) have different bank charging regimes. UK bank accounts are traditionally free and it's hard to attract customers by putting up prices. Instead banks push "advantage" accounts where you pay $10/month and get free travel insurance and other minor financial services. (+) do not mention the Ireland Act 1948 and make this complicated

bambax 12y ago

I'm French and I have the same experience as you: bank services are virtually free for individuals (although not for companies) and I don't see what Bitcoin conversion would add to the value proposition; it would add risk and uncertainty, but nothing in the way of convenience or cost.

georgemcbay 12y ago

"(Some would say behind the times.)" Joke's on you, we are ahead of the times! It used to be pretty much just like you described here in the US and then they realized they could fee the shit out of us, "optimize" our deposits and withdrawal timings to maximize the likelihood of overdraft (which they would also then apply a series of meta-fees on), drop our earned interest to essentially 0% and most people would be too lazy to do anything about it.

pjc50 12y ago
The UK has a bank regulator agency which isn't totally ineffective. Their main success was ending the sale of "payment protection insurance", which was overpriced and worthless in almost all cases. There's still a level of BS fees, worse for business bank accounts, but the general consumer experience is fairly good at the moment.
- staunch 12y ago
  A wise warden keeps his prison not so unpleasant as to cause a rebellion.
peteretep 12y ago
Maybe this helps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23700012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23700012

torrent-of-ions 12y ago

It will ultimately come down to convenience as you say. Never mind that using the bank system is supporting literal criminal organisations like HSBC. And don't forget they can decide who you can and can't send money to (no Wikileaks). But convenience and a little bit of Someone Else's Problem is what the people want.

ZenPro 12y ago
The bank did not say you couldn't send money to Wikileaks. They simply would not allow the transaction to be processed via their mechanisms due to opaque clarification regarding the status of Wikileaks. If you were a shareholder in a bank you would probably vote for ending payments to Wikileaks also to ensure that your investment is sound. Employees of the bank have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to ensure that any action they take places the needs of the shareholders above the needs of the stakeholders. Unfortunate for Wikileaks but inevitable. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that corporate entities must serve their explicit wishes rather than the entities own wishes. It's ludicrous when you think about it.

staunch 12y ago

The bank you use is in actual control of your money. They let you access your money on their terms. They reserve the right to revoke access to your money in many circumstances. You don't get to opt out of having a bank account in modern society. You get to choose from multiple banks that act almost identically. All of them record every thing you pay for. All of them store your data and make it available to thousands of employees and any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security. A massive increase in personal freedom and personal privacy is all it took to convince me. I doubt it's an American thing, but maybe it's an easier sell here.

aspidistra 12y ago
You might get a massive increase in personal freedom and privacy from using bitcoin. But there is a difference between Pure Bitcoin, so-to-speak -- everyone is their own bank -- and a bitcoin-based service. On Circle's website, it states: "Keeping your money safe is our top priority." That suggests Circle, too, is in actual control of your money -- like the retail bank service they aim to improve. So how do you know the things you write -- recording transactions, storing your data, restricting access, hacker susceptibility -- won't apply here? My point is that faced between two choices where a consumer gives someone else control of their money, the traditional system in many places is so far ahead in terms of reach, convenience and regulation compliance that a startup has a lot of work to do.
pjc50 12y ago
All of them record every thing you pay for Unlike bitcoin, which records all of your transactions in a globally readable log? Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful, and if people work out your wallet address(es) then you actually lose a lot of privacy. any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. For almost everyone, the bank computer is going to be more secure than their home PC.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. This is very important. It is nice that a purely distributed system can essentially achieve non-reversible transaction, but that's not something that most people need. Most people need reversible transactions, where the reversibility is controlled by adaptable laws and regulations that are ultimately interpreted by other people.

jvm 12y ago

I'm American and all these things are true of my bank (Ally). I don't quite understand why so many of my compatriots choose such crummy banks given the excellent alternatives available, but given that they're quite attached to brick-and-mortar big name banks that charge usurious fees, I can't imagine they'll flock to Circle.

StavrosK 12y ago
Would you recommend Ally? How did you get an account? Can you transfer money to foreign accounts from the Web UI?
- jvm 12y ago
  I would absolutely recommend it, except that international transfers seem to be quite difficult. The one time I tried to receive a wire from Europe, I had a lot of trouble and ended up with Paypal. I should say though, I didn't call support so maybe there was a solution and I just didn't figure it out. Ally phone support is quite awesome and has always been able to solve my problems. But between check cashing via phone pic and being able to get reimbursed for using any ATM in the world, I couldn't be a happier customer.
  - StavrosK 12y ago
    Thanks for the information. Wells Fargo also offers reimbursement from any ATM (it's how I withdraw money, absent any reasonable way to transfer money out of it). I've heard that many banks offer check cashing by photo, but it seems that the abysmal handling of transfers is a US phenomenon. Banks in Europe provide a seamless (and cheap/free) way to send money to anyone in Europe, inside or outside the country. US banks don't even seem to provide a way to send money to friends, outside their proprietary payment services which require that the recipient sign up with them, or something.

johnyzee 12y ago

The killer application for bitcoin, IMHO, is microtransactions. For global, universal microtransactions to take off, we need exactly something like bitcoin; purely digital, both a protocol and a service and not owned by anyone. Once microtransactions take off it could turn a lot of things on their head. For example I wouldn't mind paying 0.001 cent to read an article. It just isn't possible with any current systems. There are other fields where I easily prefer bitcoin over credit cards (pretty much any online purchase under $10), but microtransactions are the big one to me.

saurik 12y ago
Nor is it possible with Bitcoin: the current default minimum transaction fee is 0.0001 BTC (which is ~$0.05). People often make a big deal about the transaction fee having been "lowered" (it used to be 0.0005 BTC), but as the transaction fee is measured in Bitcoin (which has highly-variable worth with respect to the things it is being used to purchase) this value must be adjusted occasionally, and Bitcoin happened to become much more valuable, requiring this fee to be lowered. At the same time, transactions less than this amount (by only about half, a 0.543 multiplier, so still larger than one cent) became "non-standard", which means that they will not be relayed; because, to quote the Bitcoin release notes, "storing them costs the network more than they are worth and spending them will usually cost their owner more in transaction fees than they are worth". The blockchain just isn't designed for this kind of use case, and the idea of "dust" (tiny transactions that overwhelm the blockchain) started becoming a serious political problem in the community due to a gambling service called Satoshi Dice that managed to become a large percentage of the total traffic on the blockchain despite moving almost no money. In reality, attempts to build microtransactions on Bitcoin are based on the same approach that people use to build microtransactions over bank accounts and credit cards: a separate currency stored with (and thereby "owned by") a single entity that can move the virtual money "effectively for free". Coinbase recently started offering these "off-blockchain microtransactions" as a service, allowing people to withdraw funds only once they accumulate 0.01 BTC (so ~$5.00).
battani 12y ago
What kinds of use cases can you think of for microtransactions? There's a reason entire industries are moving toward the pay-by-the-month/year model instead of pay per use (Spotify, SaaS, online edition of newspapers, etc.). > For example I wouldn't mind paying 0.001 cent to read an article. Most people would actually prefer paying a monthly price rather than pay each time they consume content. Why? Clay Shirky explained it best almost 15 years ago: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.ht... In short, consumers HATE micropayments because they want predictable and simple pricing.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

noselasd 12y ago

So e.g. all the fees stated here for your neigbor country cost 0p for you ? http://www.bankofireland.com/fees-and-charges-365-online/ http://www.bankofireland.com/fees-and-charges-365-online/

aspidistra 12y ago
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. But almost all of the things on that page -- standing orders, direct debits, day to day banking, maintenance, transactions -- are free of charge at most UK personal current accounts. The only thing I noticed that would have a charge is sending money outside the UK, even to EU countries.
pjc50 12y ago
.. Yes? In fact, read that table: ROI customers get charged for almost everything unless they have €3000 in their account for a whole quarter. NI customers pay nothing but "Non-standard / unusual transactions may attract charges". UK is somewhere in between: "Customers who keep a minimum of £250 in their account in any Charging month* qualify for free banking" Unsurprisingly, different countries(+) have different bank charging regimes. UK bank accounts are traditionally free and it's hard to attract customers by putting up prices. Instead banks push "advantage" accounts where you pay $10/month and get free travel insurance and other minor financial services. (+) do not mention the Ireland Act 1948 and make this complicated