[xorcist]

Is the argument here that Lightning, or Bitcoin, is useless because everyone on earth can not use it at the same time? Isn't that moving the goalposts, even a little?

Even if only a couple of thousand people could use it, as long as it is useful to them it has a niche. It might not be enough to justify insane valuations, of course, but that's another discussion entirely.

[mamon]

Traditional banking serves pretty much everyone on earth, without running into performance issues, so if Bitcoin is going to replace those banks then yes, it must do the same. And it was Bitcoin fanboys who declared that Bitcoin is here to replace fiat money, so you set that goalpost yourself.

[alwillis]

No. Traditional banking doesn’t even serve everyone in the United States, with 55 million people unbanked or underbanked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked

[arcticbull]

This is the biggest misconception in the space (and that's saying a lot). They're un-banked and under-banked because they don't have money, not because the services don't exist. You want to solve this problem, solve wealth inequality and income inequality, don't pretend magic beans that cost $1-3 to transact will solve the problem for you. That's more than it costs you to use an Amex Bluebird or even a Green Dot card at an ATM, let alone a T-Mobile prepaid visa. And it's dropped half its value in the last two years (generously). Those are the people you want to disadvantage with a massively fluctuating currency?

Not to mention the low-income folks are most likely to have smartphones and therefore access to online banking with Ally or Schwab, which require $0 minimum balances and refund all ATM fees. You need a phone to use BTC, which means those same people can access Ally or Schwab and be objectively better off.

This is again a social problem in need of a social solution.

Postal banking is a great way to solve the access problem where it exists, too, like is done in the UK, and was in the US until the 1970s.

Sorry, this talking point is debunked, unless there's something I'm missing here.

[perl4ever]

Not having a bank account doesn't mean that the financial system isn't being used. If I get a paycheck and take it to a check cashing place, I'm still relying on the financial infrastructure and the banks and crypto isn't a viable alternative.

[girvo]

I think you'd be surprised by how large a proportion of the human population doesn't use traditional banking