Interesting article. But none of the problems described are actually with fiat currency. I see criticisms of the Fed, Banks, Credit Card Companies, Credit Unions. All the problems were due to issues with exchanges and intermediaries and with handling USD. It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine.
The difference is it's perfectly possible to use Bitcoin on your own without dealing with intermediaries. But you can't send cash over the internet.
>it's perfectly possible to use Bitcoin on your own
Though not competitively, which was the point being made in the article.
But it's not really based on math. A majority of miners could decide, say after the next halvening that future block rewards should be held as is. Sure, it would split the network, but a majority of miners may decide it's in their economic interest to do so.
I guess I could have phrased it better, but the point is that the majority of the network needs to decide something and the enforcement of the decided upon rules is based on math, rather than good morals.
the future of Bitcoin/USD is decided by a shadowy cabal of bankers/miners
Interesting article. But none of the problems described are actually with bitcoin. I see criticisms of CoinBase, WB21, TradeZero, Bitpay. All the problems were due to issues with exchanges & intermediaries and with handling USD. It seems the actual bitcoin part worked fine.
1) ACH sucks - not bitcoin
2) USD to BTC can suck depending on the company (1-2%) fees
3) Yes most of these first gen companies are expensive due to lack of large volumes and high risk
I don't think USD -> Bitcoin -> USD is really the way to go on this. If you are trading in USD, why would you move it into bitcoin and back again? You already had it in USD. If you need to buy some groceries in the US, you wouldn't trade your USD for CAD (Canada money), then bring CAD to a grocery store that also accepts USD. You would only bring CAD if you already had CAD.
The point of the article is really that using bitcoin means using a lot of wildly dysfunctional intermediaries. USD to bitcoin and back again is, almost certainly, the most liquid market there is. It's a scalding indictment of bitcoin when part of the promise of bitcoin was that it would be quick, easy and cheap to perform these kind of transactions
It does in his use case, which seems to be a relatively dodgy day trading firm, they are the ones who instigate the fees not the bitcoin network. Funding this by using localbitcoins would have cut down his wait time and his fees on the buy side, however for funding his account that firm would charge those fees whether it was bitcoin or bank transfer. Sure he would have paid small transaction fees on his bitcoin transactions but they would still be a fraction of the $35 international transfer fee from the bank.
I don't think USD -> Bitcoin -> USD is really the way to go on this. If you are trading in USD, why would you move it into bitcoin and back again? You already had it in USD. If you need to buy some groceries in the US, you wouldn't trade your USD for CAD (Canada money), then bring CAD to a grocery store that also accepts USD. You would only bring CAD if you already had CAD.
The point of the article is really that using bitcoin means using a lot of wildly dysfunctional intermediaries. USD to bitcoin and back again is, almost certainly, the most liquid market there is. It's a scalding indictment of bitcoin when part of the promise of bitcoin was that it would be quick, easy and cheap to perform these kind of transactions
> It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine. I don't think Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air like flat currency routinely is. You can still argue that this is not a problem with flat currency itself, but the problem is, unlike Bitcoin, the laws regarding printing and production of flat currency are not governed by hard-to-break math.
As a consumer, I'm not sure I care.
Right, you don't care how the wings are held on the aircraft either, but you do care that it's done correctly...
Interesting article. But none of the problems described are actually with fiat currency. I see criticisms of the Fed, Banks, Credit Card Companies, Credit Unions. All the problems were due to issues with exchanges and intermediaries and with handling USD. It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine.
> It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine. I don't think Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air like flat currency routinely is. You can still argue that this is not a problem with flat currency itself, but the problem is, unlike Bitcoin, the laws regarding printing and production of flat currency are not governed by hard-to-break math.
Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air. It's just an arbitrary amount created every day. The creation rate was just picked by whoever created it. I think it can actually be changed by concensus.
I see no reason why an arbitrary rate is better than a rate chosen to minimize inflation and deflation.
Bitcoin basically is a fiat currency, except no government forces people to use it.
> It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine. I don't think Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air like flat currency routinely is. You can still argue that this is not a problem with flat currency itself, but the problem is, unlike Bitcoin, the laws regarding printing and production of flat currency are not governed by hard-to-break math.
Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air. It's just an arbitrary amount created every day. The creation rate was just picked by whoever created it. I think it can actually be changed by concensus. I see no reason why an arbitrary rate is better than a rate chosen to minimize inflation and deflation. Bitcoin basically is a fiat currency, except no government forces people to use it.
The irony being if something like Fusion power happened bitcoin hyperinflation would be guaranteed.
But bitcoin needs to be transformed back into a currency at some point to use it . There is no point in a wire transfer if the person at the other end isn't going to use it. Yes, some retailers accept bitcoin, most don't.
Even those that do price in their local currency.
Looks like Bitcoin still hasn't achieved unit-of-account status yet, even among those who use it as a medium of exchange.
Interesting article. But none of the problems described are actually with fiat currency. I see criticisms of the Fed, Banks, Credit Card Companies, Credit Unions. All the problems were due to issues with exchanges and intermediaries and with handling USD. It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine.
> It seems the actual fiat currency part worked fine. I don't think Bitcoin is made at will out of thin air like flat currency routinely is. You can still argue that this is not a problem with flat currency itself, but the problem is, unlike Bitcoin, the laws regarding printing and production of flat currency are not governed by hard-to-break math.
I can't tell if you trying arguing that a deflationary currency like Bitcoin is somehow better, or if you're just using this an excuse to gripe about a government organization.