6 ms·

>It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended fo

>It'd love to see BC companies do well and then die off, so that we get reforms in banking without the unnecessary cruft of an intermediate currency intended for nothing except standing in-between fiat transactions. >If I just want to transfer some cash to someone, I'd much rather go directly through my bank (quickly and without fees) than route through another currency just for the hell of it. You've made that point twice in different comments, and I feel it has to be addressed. Firstly, the inefficiencies you've alluded to here are inefficiencies of the traditional banking system. Secondly, and most important, bitcoin IS money, it does not always have to be converted to something else. Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency. For example, if a person receives bitcoin and a store they want to use accepts bitcoin, then there is no need for an additional wasteful conversion step. And what if the store's suppliers also accept bitcoin or some of their staff are paid partly in bitcoin? What if these people are in different countries? Goodbye foreign currency exchange fees, remittance fees, bank charges. This goal may be unattainable, and the current situation is certainly far from it, but each time a company like Dell or Newegg announces it accepts bitcoin payments or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I don't think being paid 100% in bitcoin will be a good idea for most people any time soon, because they would just have to convert the bulk of it back to fiat currency. However, receiving a small percentage in bitcoin is quite practical in some places. A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. For example, have a look at https://spendabit.co https://spendabit.co and try searching for random products.

nmrm 12y ago
edit: TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems, not because we agree with the dominant ideology of early adopters. Setting aside politics, if the problems Bitcoin solves are easier and cheaper to solve with a simpler solution, then we should use the simpler solution. > Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency I mean, I started my post acknowledging these claims exist. So, you can interpret my comments as "suppose that the only justification for bitcoin is its utility as a transfer medium..." and leave political discussions in other threads. edit: also, this is totally appropriate for this thread, because in most states of the US, actually paying employees in bitcoin would not be legal and employees would need to convert back to usd to pay taxes, rent, food/bar tabs in most situations, etc. So, USD -> BTC -> USD is pretty clearly the intended use case for this product... > if a person receives bitcoin and a store The problem with foreign currency conversion isn't small amounts of cash for consumer transactions, at least in my experience. I can convert currency by using an ATM without thinking about it at a reasonable exchange rate, and the fees are often lower than what I would pay in the U.S. Ditto for online services, but even more so. The problem is larger amounts of cash, or transfers to third parties you won't visit in person. Queue discussion below. > A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. > or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I'm -- and I suspect most people in the world are -- more interested in the actual underlying pain points than broad-stroke discussions which invariably ground-out in political, ideological discussions about monetary policy. Ostensibly, personal opinion on national and international monetary policy isn't the best of standards for choosing a payroll provider. edit: also, that's where companies are focusing. For the obvious reason that political selling points, aren't. And more importantly, that's not how this product sells itself. Nor should it.
- FatalLogic 12y ago
  >> or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. >I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I expect so. It's also great if you believe that the legacy financial system is inefficient and may improve if it is threatened by external competition. From your comments here, you do believe that, I think? As you've said, casting this as a discussion of politics or monetary policy distracts from the practical issues. So let's avoid that. Your comment, which I cited above, seems to be assuming that my interest in this is political or ideological. It's not. In fact, based on that comment, you appear to be assuming that anyone who 'supports' Bitcoin does so purely for political reasons. Is that really how you feel? I think that is far from the truth, anyway. To be honest, I know very little about Bitwage. I replied to you because I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat. As I have used cryptocurrencies extensively, I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    > From your comments here, you do believe that, I think? I think bitcoin-as-exchange-medium is reasonable. I think bitcoin-as-a-currency or bitcoin-as-money per se is not workable, or at the very least is a solution in search of a problem. > Is that really how you feel? If it were, I simply wouldn't read bitcoin stories. > I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat. What are the material advantages to using bitcoin for anything other than as an exchange mechanism? All of the pain points of the modern banking system you and others have proposed are mostly about currency conversion and sending money across international borders, and my original post addresses what I believe the likely outcome for this use case is (although, see the thread with baddox as well). I didn't claim you cannot use bitcoin in other capacities. I just stated the extra intermediate currency doesn't make any sense because there's no competitive advantage to existing (safer) mechanisms. Maybe I'm missing something? > I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions. What would really convince me to let go of this assumption is a compelling reason to use bitcoin as money.

nmrm 12y ago

edit: TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems, not because we agree with the dominant ideology of early adopters. Setting aside politics, if the problems Bitcoin solves are easier and cheaper to solve with a simpler solution, then we should use the simpler solution. > Bitcoin is not necessarily an 'intermediate' currency I mean, I started my post acknowledging these claims exist. So, you can interpret my comments as "suppose that the only justification for bitcoin is its utility as a transfer medium..." and leave political discussions in other threads. edit: also, this is totally appropriate for this thread, because in most states of the US, actually paying employees in bitcoin would not be legal and employees would need to convert back to usd to pay taxes, rent, food/bar tabs in most situations, etc. So, USD -> BTC -> USD is pretty clearly the intended use case for this product... > if a person receives bitcoin and a store The problem with foreign currency conversion isn't small amounts of cash for consumer transactions, at least in my experience. I can convert currency by using an ATM without thinking about it at a reasonable exchange rate, and the fees are often lower than what I would pay in the U.S. Ditto for online services, but even more so. The problem is larger amounts of cash, or transfers to third parties you won't visit in person. Queue discussion below. > A person who receives Bitcoin in the US actually already has a huge variety of products and services available, without converting to fiat. > or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I'm -- and I suspect most people in the world are -- more interested in the actual underlying pain points than broad-stroke discussions which invariably ground-out in political, ideological discussions about monetary policy. Ostensibly, personal opinion on national and international monetary policy isn't the best of standards for choosing a payroll provider. edit: also, that's where companies are focusing. For the obvious reason that political selling points, aren't. And more importantly, that's not how this product sells itself. Nor should it.

FatalLogic 12y ago
>> or a company like Bitwage builds some other part of the ecosystem, bitcoin becomes a little more useful. >I suppose this is all great if you want to use bitcoin because of your political persuasion. I expect so. It's also great if you believe that the legacy financial system is inefficient and may improve if it is threatened by external competition. From your comments here, you do believe that, I think? As you've said, casting this as a discussion of politics or monetary policy distracts from the practical issues. So let's avoid that. Your comment, which I cited above, seems to be assuming that my interest in this is political or ideological. It's not. In fact, based on that comment, you appear to be assuming that anyone who 'supports' Bitcoin does so purely for political reasons. Is that really how you feel? I think that is far from the truth, anyway. To be honest, I know very little about Bitwage. I replied to you because I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat. As I have used cryptocurrencies extensively, I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions.
- nmrm 12y ago
  > From your comments here, you do believe that, I think? I think bitcoin-as-exchange-medium is reasonable. I think bitcoin-as-a-currency or bitcoin-as-money per se is not workable, or at the very least is a solution in search of a problem. > Is that really how you feel? If it were, I simply wouldn't read bitcoin stories. > I think you've made some very broad assumptions about cryptocurrencies, which differ from reality somewhat. What are the material advantages to using bitcoin for anything other than as an exchange mechanism? All of the pain points of the modern banking system you and others have proposed are mostly about currency conversion and sending money across international borders, and my original post addresses what I believe the likely outcome for this use case is (although, see the thread with baddox as well). I didn't claim you cannot use bitcoin in other capacities. I just stated the extra intermediate currency doesn't make any sense because there's no competitive advantage to existing (safer) mechanisms. Maybe I'm missing something? > I've tried to explain how I think reality is more nuanced than these assumptions. What would really convince me to let go of this assumption is a compelling reason to use bitcoin as money.