The rebranding of MySQL as blockchain was a brilliant move for sales. Bit torrent is decentralized and it doesn't use "blockchain". "Blockchain" only works for money and nothing else
I mean, if you look at transaction cost, settle time, user friendliness, and currency risk, it doesn't even work as a medium of exchange, which is the definition of money.
More than a decade on, approximately nobody uses Bitcoin for normal transactions. Compare with Venmo or MPesa, both of which launched around the same time, to se what actual digital money looks like. Both of those do way more transactions than Bitcoin and are much more widely adopted.
For sure. And I think that speculation (with attendant market manipulation) are the main observed purpose of it these days. The total drugs market is large, but I'd be surprised to learn that even 1% passes through all the cryptocurrencies put together. Especially Bitcoin given how traceable it is.
Got it. I mean, I know people who ride unicycles. But for this I'm not interesting so much in "is it possible" as "is it effective and widely adopted".
Agree, anecdotes aren't data. But seeing non-tech-savvy people doing it definitely makes me think it's somewhat common. I posted half with the expectation that someone would chime in with some personal experience on the topic; HN has a pretty diverse group here.
I found a number of guides on the pros and cons of various international money transfers options, and BTC is often included as an option. I also found some recent (and old!) articles about its use as a remittance system in poorer areas of the world[1].
> Other emerging market central banks in Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia, where remittances make up a significant share of the economy, are in a similar bind. Bitcoin transfers surged in emerging markets last year, as the pandemic accelerated the rise of cheaper, more efficient digital remittance services.
Why does the bitcoin blockchain need to be used for normal transactions? Do you not think a neutral payment rail/unit of account between nation state level actor’s could be valuable?
_Anything_ that one could get central banks or nation states to agree to use would be valuable. The LOE the technical system (SWIFT, Bitcoin, whatever) is absolutely infinitesimal compared to negotiating a change of that magnitude.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with third parties offering services on top but you know, the whole cryptocurrency idea is that you don't need them.
The goal was "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash". That is, money.
If you are proposing a new goal, a settlement system for couple hundred named organizations with strong relationships, then a) that's not money, and b) the Bitcoin system is socially and technically wrong for that. But if we keep the goalposts in their original location, Bitcoin is clearly a failure when you look at how the competition has done.
These nation state level actors would need to convert their Bitcoin into something that they can actually spend. Governments need to pay employees, contractors, and suppliers. These people want actual currency they can spend.
The main alternative would be to issue a Bitcoin backed currency. But then you're just re-creating the gold standard, and all of the problems that go along with that.
