[geofft]

M-Pesa is a centralized service run by Vodafone, quite the opposite of blockchain. It only resembles blockchain in that it involves electronics and it's recent, but by that standard, we'd call credit cards or PayPal "the original Blockchain".

And as far as I know, it's denominated in Kenyan shillings, not in its own currency (i.e., hype about M-Pesa does not result in something with Bitcoin's to-the-moon valuation relative to the prevailing currency in the land).

I suspect that most Bitcoin detractors, whether those who call it a Ponzi scheme or simply those who oppose proof of work, will be absolutely thrilled with the growth of more centralized electronic money transfer systems that are denominated in existing fiat currency. I know that I've been personally happy to use Square Cash, Apple Pay, EMV cards, etc. in the US. No mining, no or low fees, high security, quick, and suitable for small transfers.

And the fact that this is how M-Pesa works is an extremely strong existence proof that Bitcoin is not needed by the "African farmer".

[dwild]

I think you misunderstood him.

What he said is that others countries that doesn't have a solid electronic transaction system are actively trying new stuff. In that case, M-Pesa won that race but the fact that it was centralized isn't why it won, it won because it was needed.

Now does Bitcoin is needed for another country? No idea, but I would have said the same for M-Pesa.

[geofft]

But he specifically used the word "blockchain." I'm making two claims: first, that blockchain-based systems (for most people's definitions of "blockchain" other than a meaningless buzzword) are worse for people in situations like that of the "African farmer" than centralized systems, and second, that the vast majority of Bitcoin detractors dislike it specifically because of things related (directly or indirectly) to it being a blockchain-based system.

For instance, "Bitcoin is a bubble" only makes sense if it's its own unit of currency. "M-Pesa is a bubble," "Square Cash is a bubble," etc. aren't meaningful statements to make; they just support transmission of the underlying currency. ("Kenyan shillings are a bubble" is a meaningful statement, but I've never heard anyone claim that you should use cryptocurrencies to insulate yourself from hyperdeflation of a fiat currency.)

"Bitcoin is environmentally dangerous" only matters if proof-of-work is relevant; in a centralized system, you don't have the problems that lead to you wanting to even consider proof-of-work.

"ICOs are a scam" doesn't make sense in a centralized system. "The transaction rate is too low" isn't a complaint anyone has about a centralized system (the usual complaint about the US markets is that the transaction rate is too high, and HFT should be throttled). And so on and so forth.

[passwordreset]

"bubble": stocks have been said to be in "bubbles". If a person claims "M-Pesa is [in] a bubble" he would be talking about the market cap of the company, in the same way that "Bitcoin is [in] a bubble" speaks to the market cap of Bitcoin on some exchanges. Quite meaningful, actually.

"environment": Proof of work systems ensure that the ledger is secure and worthy of trust. Proof of Authority systems require trust, where the ledger is secure "because we say so." Isn't this the major reason why people are fleeing from legal tender? People can't trust the issuers, the processors, or the banks because they're colluding with politicians who provide bailouts using taxpayer dollars?

"ICO scam": absolutely makes sense in a centralized system. Are you actually claiming that people don't create scam companies with centralized currencies? Because why? Even legitimate companies can be slandered for the same reasons that people call ICOs "scams". The Franklin Mint, for example, produces coins which are sold on late-night infomercials that have little-to-no intrinsic value, but people buy for speculative reasons. Are they a scam? The reasoning is identical.

"slow/expensive transactions": One of Bitcoins main value propositions is aiding in international transfers. The centralized systems were too slow and expensive, so a better alternative was developed. Saying that speed and expense aren't complaints that people have made about existing centralized systems is simply wrong.

And so on and so forth.