True. Only if you can tell me in what circumstances a bitcoin transaction is better/more useful than a cash or bank transfer, you are clever.
Don't get it = not clever.
Want to use it where it has no need = also not clever.
Want to slap "blockchain" on anything that may or may not need it = clever if you dump your bags fast enough. Otherwise, not clever. In both cases, immoral.
It allows you to rely on a different set of assumptions regarding transactions. Normally I can buy or sell something if:
1. My government will allow me to transact
2. My bank will allow me to transact
Instead, with Bitcoin your assumptions become:
1. My counterparty will allow me to transact
The difference between the first set of assumptions and the second is basically regulatory arbitrage. There is meaningful value to people to do things that are not permitted by their government or bank but which they think should be. Now, some of those things are serious crimes! Like fraud or money laundering, but some of those things are more like Uber or Airbnb, where some people think they shouldn’t exist but many people like them.
>1. My government will allow me to transact 2. My bank will allow me to transact
Cryptobros keep saying this.
What kind of fantasy world do they live in where the government and banks "normally" approve or disapprove of cash transactions?
The bank from which you have withdrawn the cash does not know or care what you use it for, and the government may care but good luck it finding out.
Remember, bitcoin is DIGITAL CASH as per the first sentence of the bitcoin white paper so like for like should be compared: analog cash to digital cash.
You used the word "normally". I don't think "normally" means what you think it means.
Crypto is insane. Incomprehensible. The perfect merging of paranoiac libertarians and immoral grifters forming a feedback loop of destruction that grinds up and spits out the masses in order to enrich the few at a scale that traditional banking could only dream of. Executives at Goldman Sachs are looking at the people running off with cash at all of the cryptoscams, the margins of miners, with jealousy because "duh jackbooted gubmint" says they have to like, obey the law and stuff.
Crypto is a symptom of something being wrong with society but I don't know what.
I do know that everyone I know personally who has been into crypto has either been an immoral scammer... or an imbecile.
Fine, add “or if you have and can transport sufficient cash and can meet face to face” to the first set of assumptions which doesn’t change the point at all.
This world, the one we live in, is one where the government and your bank - even in most rich and free countries - will not let you transact in certain ways or buy certain things. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to you! That’s okay! But it is how it is.
>What kind of fantasy world do they live in where the government and banks "normally" approve or disapprove of cash transactions?
Are you a United States Citizen?
If so, try writing a check a Russian oligarch, to pay for cuban cigars, or to sell something to Iran. Every last legal money emission in the United States includes a verification against the OFAC maintained Sanctioned Individuals List. Anything trying to leave one of those accounts will be rejected.
Any type of transaction falling afoul of country embargoes will also be denied. Again, put "Cuban meal" in a meno field, and prepare to get a call or ding from your financial institution to make sure they are not facilitating economic activity with Cuba, a crime they are strictly liable for.
Or be a Canadian protestor. Then have the Federal government order financial institutions to freeze your funds.
>The bank from which you have withdrawn the cash does not know or care what you use it for, and the government may care but good luck it finding out.
Also, all financial institutions in the United States (money transmitters) by law must hold on to 7 years transaction history, and must have a dedicated process for integrating with and handling law enforcement requests. These are routine.
In short, your financial institution is an established component of law enforcement.
Keep in mind, I still think crypto is patently insane, but the cryptobros are absolutely correct in those senses.
...and Bitcoin is mot digital cash. Cash can be anonymous given sufficient effort. Bitcoin cannot.
>If so, try writing a check a Russian oligarch, to pay for cuban cigars, or to sell something to Iran.
Which of those transactions is "normal"? It should be noted that even with cryptocurrencies laws still apply. You're still seeking "permission" for your "normal" transactions.
Here's the deal. The commentator said, effectively, it is NORMAL for "duh gubmint" to control your spending.
It is not.
Normal has a well-defined and commonly-accepted meaning. You cannot call bribing a Russian oligarch "normal" unless you are a different kind of person than most. Unless you are an abnormal person doing abnormal things.
There are edge cases where the government does regulate cash transactions and whether or not those edge cases are right or required is a separate discussion I am not having right now.
Also, checks aren't cash?????
>...and Bitcoin is mot digital cash.
The title of the bitcoin white paper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Is it lying?
I specifically said you cannot (except with cash, in-person) typically transact in ways that the government disallows. This is not relevant if all your transactions are of the sort that your government permits! This only matters when you and the government have a disagreement, which may be rare or which may be quite common depending on who you are and where you live.
Your emphasis is your own and does not reflect what I said, only what you imagine I said.
The use case I've read about is where bitcoin acts as a currency to avoid government/bank issues in some countries where the country's currency has wild inflation and/or the government/bank is untrustworthy (freezes accounts, etc.) So crypto can be helpful for people to transfer money or keep it safe (relative to seized accounts or worthless currency) if they are leaving or seeking asylum elsewhere or similar scenarios.
Most affluent people (globally speaking) have many other options (USD cash, venmo/apps, ACH, wire transfers, checks, etc.) to transfer money to others.
I would like the financial elements of blockchain to be set aside and let those knowledgeable explore actual problem domains. A distributed, transparent database of entries might have some uses that can't be seen thru the fog of those that want to get rich. One problem set that seems like a good fit is for actual real estate title/deed information. Having to pay for a "title search" or "title insurance" is bonkers every time a real estate transaction occurs on the same piece of land.
> One problem set that seems like a good fit is for actual real estate title/deed information. Having to pay for a "title search" or "title insurance" is bonkers every time a real estate transaction occurs on the same piece of land.
This is a good example of why blockchains aren’t a solution for most problems.
For real estate records, the only thing which matters is what the local government will enforce - digital signatures can be interesting but the anonymity/trustless stuff is an expensive distraction. One big factor here is that you can’t rely on access to keys: someone needs to be able to override records when not uncommon things happen such as an owner dying, a messy divorce, etc.
For title insurance, what you’re paying for is, well, insurance, not a database query. The risk here is that the records don’t match reality - for example, surveying errors happen, a previous seller might not have had clear rights, etc.
Buying drugs on the internet? Need to rapidly transfer money to a country like Ukraine? (exchange desks in Kiev are still working, processing millions a day)
The vast major of the money going to Ukraine is going through normal channels, saving the extra cost and risk of using cryptocurrencies. They need to buy things which are sold in stable currencies so adding a conversion fee usually cancels out the perceived benefits.
So what? Vast majority of transactions don’t benefit from the vast speed advantages cryptocurrencies offer. Bank transfers are perfectly fine if you’re happy to wait a few days for the money to arrive.
For this to work, you still need an entity in Ukraine to accept bitcoin and owning Ukraine currency.
The same thing with 3th world countries: to be able to rescue your money, you need to find someone who wants to take that risky currency and exchange it to crypto for you and back if you need it.
But as soon as Bitcoin/crypto is so established than there is a big chance that the country/dictator steps in and forbids it.yes that is technically possible (see great Chinese firewall)
There are multiple cash desks in Kiev processing millions worth of transactions every day. You can easily send 100k from anywhere in the world and have it cashed out within the hour.
> to be able to rescue your money, you need to find someone who wants to take that risky currency and exchange it to crypto for you and back if you need it.
Ukraine runs on USD, very few “serious” transactions occur in UAH. All businesses accept USD, from kiosks to restaurants to car dealerships.
This seems reasonable to me, but does Ukraine not have banks that accept wire transfers? Can’t I just log into my US bank and do an international transfer to a recipient in Ukraine?
An international wire transfer has been instantaneous when I’ve used them in the past. I’ve never sent to Ukraine, but have to UK, Nepal, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Romania, Switzerland, Korea, and Australia. I haven’t timed it, but recipients all got the money same day.
Does it take a long time in Kiev to process transfers?
How does the recipient spend butcoin anyway? Wouldn’t they need to transfer it to a local bank before withdrawing as cash or whatnot?
The point about interest rates is broadly applicable: we saw the first mortgage bubble pumped up by large investors trying to recover from their dotcom losses, followed by waves of obviously doomed startups and non-solutions like cryptocurrency, all sharing the common desire to find higher returns than have been possible since the turn of the century. Increasing interest rates should encourage better decisions but at least in the United States there are a ton of people who are depending on being able to sell their homes at a hefty profit for retirement, so they won’t be happy to see mortgage rates anywhere near the historic levels.
Bitcoin/crypto is a detector of naivety, inexperience and arrogance.
Blockchain is simply an accounting system. It is naive to assume that "trustless" accounting can/will lead to a functional, trustless monetary system without government.
It is arrogant to assume that understanding blockchain gives one insight on finance and monetary policy and marketplace dynamics.
Scammers and con artists feed on naivety, arrogance and over confidence --- and crypto is the proof.
I think for bitcoin to have a shot at fulfilling its stated goals it needs to mostly settle. Just stop outperforming every other asset*. It should happen in a few 4-year boom-bust cycles. Every new cycle is shallower than the previous one.
Until it settles, being most attractive speculative asset overshadows any other functionality it has.
[*] Every other boring asset that people usually invest in for more than 4years.
I think the only path for bitcoin to move beyond speculation and fulfill it's stated goals is to become a real, practical currency. Absent price inflation/manipulation, there is little legal incentive to own bitcoin.
I don't think this can/will happen without government regulation. Otherwise, it will remain a playground for scammers and market makers/manipulators to enrich themselves at other's expense.
Government may be bad but the lack of it is worse. As evidenced by thousands of years of human experience.
If the price stabilizes then it will become wonderful store of value that you can move safely and privately across the borders. Which might have huge utility in the age of large migrations caused by global warming.
It doesn't look like that on a long term chart. Invention of tether is not visible on it at all.
You can't buy stuff directly for bitcoin yet, but you used to be able to. It was premature and destroyed by volatility. The volatility that goes away bit by bit with every 4 year cycle. Also even now there's really no problem to exchange bitcoin for fiat in most countries. Once you get throught the border with your savings you have whole country to cash them.
I have no idea what wise.com is and I have no idea how long they will stay around. I put nearly zero trust in any single commercial entity when it comes to my long term savings. After a glance I can see that they exist almost as long as bitcoin and they managed to support just 53 currencies so far out of 180 that exist and are most likely exchangable for bitcoin in some way.
Don't get it = not clever.
Want to use it where it has no need = also not clever.
Want to slap "blockchain" on anything that may or may not need it = clever if you dump your bags fast enough. Otherwise, not clever. In both cases, immoral.